18600 SOUNDVIEW PL.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
13182
18600 SOUNDVIEW
PL
00-11-1=33
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION: Conditional Waiver Study RequiredXWaiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
-!54, "'zo 3� e .
PERMITS (OTHER)?9a:� 5-0
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATPD: --� / '7 -
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: //
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S)
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
FOR
LID #:
BLOCK:
LATEMP\DSTs\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
#P20
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: C4QA -Cb- IN
Site Information (soils/ topogretphy/ hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: IS(Soc� \J11,--:A rLM-F q&OZO
2. Property Tax Account Number: p04-"GC>,0.7-0j-701, 00,43k6o(n 7�01 000
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): D!J: 0�
4. Is this site currently developed?\ yes; _ no.
If yes; how is site developed? -T44T--v-r- A !!�,IW4Lt 14JA)
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: W n Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: t4 n Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested f meadow ;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetIand is present on site: o
For City Staff Use Only
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable?
2. Site is Zoned?
3. SCS mapped sod type(s)? 3 4(-AVe4L,4 5-4-,j 2"5 1. P,
I . 4 L" - I , . '. U 4, , I Z3--7b1Z i,
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area, on site? Ye� - ffbs: M Kv",� "Y--, ('J" Q 5,)-"L
1" d��A Ap�f�i ( r"Oo- ,-( s ttrl C!�U.
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area?' No [1-1., /""�&f- -A "jitvt4 ��byA,
DETERMINATION
STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
Reviewed by. Date: le/ It, 7-6V 6
�C. JB7
#P20
City. of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Appli cation for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
DateReceived: OK10-3L04a
City Receipt#: 0 0 0 (0 5 6
Critical Areas File #: 6FL-A -,9,W L=p I I
Critical Areas Checklist Fee:. $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist,. sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. 'Me City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form.. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersign ed applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits Perewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applic2anti
zn o e b I
rlf of the owner as fisted below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTIAGENT DATE
V
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I cer* that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and sting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER .77 DATE
V "A
Owner/Apphcant.- Applicant Representative:
44o0&L,\tA> --rcj\ Arz4-flTg1(-vizE
Name Name -
Kco �Ifvj FL--M-E�
Str-eet Address
L -boc t� b�� I W-N ffoo-Zo
city State Zip
Telephone: 426 - -774 - 4A4o
Email address (optional):
C-411
Street Address
,� wh 1611S
city State Zip
Telephone: -7-5 G - 5 ZZ- -38-30
Email Address (optional):
0 . 0-
CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 18600 Sound View Place Tax Acct. Number: 00 4346 002 017 01,
00 4346 002 010 00
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA20060114
Applicant: Morgan Hougland,TCA Arch. Owner: Raymond Bogaert
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain
critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous areas, pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the
subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and
identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a
specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas
report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion
of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a
specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the
entire study with your specific development application.
• Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas
which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements
for different types of critical areas (see below).
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional
as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical
areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You
may contact the Planning Division for more information.
• General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC
23.40.110 through 23.40.140.
,EROSION HAZARD AREA DEFINED
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. Erosion
Hazard Areas include:
Those areas with Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or
greater; and
Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded
with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and
Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also
include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development within an Erosion Hazard Area must meet additional criteria.
For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, the only critical area study
needed is an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC as part of the construction
documents. This option is at the director's discretion, per Edmonds Community
Development Code section 20.80.050.G.
In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard
Areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified
professional.
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional
as defined in the ordinance.
• Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC
23.40.090.D
• Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
• A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or
steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed
of consolidated bedrock).
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.13.
In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced
above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are
provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed
Geotechnical Engineer.
• The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
• The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15'
building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the
standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the
requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060.
• In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply
with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC
23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development
qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information.
2
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements
(ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt,
contact a Planner for more information.
Gruwell
Name
re
November 14, 2005
Date
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be
found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
CA FILE NO
OM&I Areas Checklist*
SiteJnf(irM':iaG6ti. (soils/tbp'o<,raphy/h'ydrology/vegetation)
I nQ ',,.�)1jtjhyiEW 19LAr-E
4" 2 :�vf��p 43 q49002- 010 00
roperty Tak Account Number. 0A -at 1 to r.
3. Aoproximate Site Size (acres or square fe�t): 1-*M C,42 r
4.1�111 Is Ois site.currently developed?. _V yes; no.
11V V,
s
f yes; how ii site developed?'j2j�G��L.-f.!
S. - Des cribe'the general site topography. Check all that apply.
ver, entire site.
;.Flatli, .,.,,less than 5-feet,elevation.change o
Rbll slopes on'site gen,"Iyless than 15 9C (averti,�al rise'bf 10-feei o"ver'a
h rm
1:�; o ntatdista�ideof 664eet). *r
'H 11 s opes present on iii�bfmore than 15% ifid less than'30%'(i,'��ific�l rise-'�,*,�w
o-
4er a
of 10 hial distance of 33
�-1 0j �J n
. . .. Steep: grades.of greater- than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over "a',
h 0
rizontal distance of less than 3� epQ.,
""Other (please, describ :71, .�,`!K)
i1 r.,4�a T, x
f y r, u ta Approx. De pth
6. Site cro'ntains:areas o ea'46' nd s riding witer. g()
-4 �-, I c ti, , , - . . - . I I - . -
7.- Site" i6inis iiiii of seasonal standing water: Kt) Approx. Depth:
What-, season(s) of the year? -
8. S6 is in'the" floodwayrqn- _'flo'6dplain t4ri of a water course.'
!no, x",
9. Site �0� �s'a creiek or, an area "'ere water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-
round? 14o Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;shrubs mixed -i7
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: No
For City Staff Use Only
1*.: nect.)
:Site isZo
soil type(s)? Aamn2Ai)oarz, --:-6wsAbi
-1:**.1,,�.-,-.'Wedand, inventory or C-A. map indicates wetland present on site?
-A -inventory or C.A.- map:indi6aies, Ciiti on site?
4 tical . reas cat Area
.5 within Vesignated earth subsidence landslide hazard areaT
... .......
6*.***: on'the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map;9
REQUIRED CONDMONALWAIVER*
WAIVER
Reviewed by:
;1�77XZ/ 4 57
Planner /bate
MAX
4
M011,
:M A 'h
0
.9 f 9
i.xcz-qqA
4
4 4.
djAimcb,,.
st 6-d f�Awki!`R,,and.,submit ivtio�..the City. n& City. 11
Thi Critical. Areas Checkli 'contain zhiv
wi
this form isto.,be. filled' t
'11 rem
�.,-Xevie* the checklist, make, g1p rsory, site
inak�e. a de�6rrmnation of ifii�7 -
preparing a Development Permit l.'O'�:,_ r
Application -for the Cit mon pnori��f�,J,*� complete a
,y,.of-Ed di teps-n9cessary to
_quent. s
tohis&�k.`s'dbm'itW d, ifient b6fifift applicition.i.-
-'k - 0
City.
permit to the
M gn, popy-o
% �f this Rihfi-: thi,;�'
-the Checklist i to
The purpose of s T'. aWic:anf-sfiouid:aIso submit a vicinity map:,
City staff to determine whether wo,orplq�
-plan'. for individual lotsibf the parce
potential Critical Areas are or may, be,,--.,;
enough detail that City staff can find
present on the subject proppiy'.. lle.,�", 4 and -identify the subject
information- needed -to compl6te.the'77".. addition the applicant shall include
Checklist -should be'eaii] y� iva"ilible- from' �4� g."
erpertinient information (e� ""Site
observations of the site or data available at.'. �.`Plan, topography map,, etO ar--studi6s -in
City Hall (Critical Areas inventories- conjunction with this Checklist to assist
,.Maps
or soiJ surveys). staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site.
er"i !�eseni�iive
An applicant, or his/h
ep
mustfill.out the checklist, sign -and date it,
I have.completed,the.att.ached Critical'AreaChecklist and attest that the answers providedare...
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant:
Applicant Representative:
J
NN)4 1'5 M ANts VAV S rn tF- L
Nam Nam
IR(Son Snurd)ViEw PLAc.F
Street Address
EDMI)NI)f; WA. q8QZ()
City, State,,ZIP Ph6he i
..Pty, StEtte, ZIP Phone
4si 71;-Date Signature D a'i e'
%
W. '_�i
JP
CA E NO.__--�Jb
i 1. A r*eas Che'ckl st
Sii� 1nforqiifl,6iiJs60i1k/t6po ra hy/hydrology/veget�oon),
P
4.
PLAr-F-
c K.!
Site AddressUpation:.-.�, I no nnuohytF- 1
MA
u M
�2 Property Tax-A&6 "u�nher, j 101 D
MW
or s uare feet)
3. Approximate Site Size q
�ies a)
(aL
4.- - Is this' site currently developed?,. � V/
_yes;,, ---no.
If yes; how is
site developed. Qgiiao j!t�
71 �t A�x KXV, e;..
itd top6jraphy. Check all that apply.
S. Describe the general s
ess n
TO site;' t;ket
4qy4#o A=ge over enti
-(i' rls� f 64
POs-owitte ly less than 155� irertical': o 4 over a.
ui
h6diontal Vistafice-of 66-feet).
V 1G,xAW-T4-.
.9 THill ----,sl- present on she (if more than th 10% (a yerti
I Y:� 01M 5 and ess an
bf'10 ed,.,W�r a librii6fital distance of 334d
- e , , Of, , g - reatertban,3Q% pxesent vn site VI
-feet over a
(a vertical rise of 10
zr11--,..1 1611"t-1A todiontal. jj c�fiess than 3346�),-,,
et.
6. Site ciontains ir6i�bfy'e'a'r'-'round'sta'nding water- MID Approil Dipth" 1"
i Pa.! t�j f,
7 ng water: .-Approx. "th:
Site coikains if 6f seaso, iia0i 141)-
-11 . -
,.What si*sqn(s),qf the-yWZ
8. Site is in" the"fldoaaj ifloodplain gr) 'of a skitet course.-
9. Site' ns a 'bia-in''a're"a �";iviter flows across the grounds surface? Flowsareyeir-
round? t4 o nows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested -meadow s4r�ibs,,. mixed
urban landscaped Qawn,shrubs etc)
P
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Nt)
ji.
890-19 .. 4M
-5
City of Edmonds
v�
Critical-. :Areas-:! Gheckl ist�x-v.)
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on d bmit-itio
an SU -the City. The'*City will
diisfonnis-tobefiUedotkt,by�;anype;w
, , p
rmewth -checklist makea.
. r precursory. site
preparing a Development Permit
and make a determination of thi
Application for the City of Edmonds prior
;
"
sub
I.. sequqit. steps necessary,to -complete a
tj � . . — 41. .., '_� 14_7
�:� .. � '' "
tohis/h&s4brmttalofad�Ye40PT
riiji � �A. . ., 1�4 �I . , 1. .. I Is
"...'�.(Imrlopment,per!nitapplicition.
permit to the City.
MJth'a'sighedic6py'of this f6ir' m�, the
The purpose of the Checkh ist is to enable - J
Wlica'nt'should* alsd'submit a vicinity map
City staff to determine whether any
or plot -plan for individual lots of the parcel
potential Critical - Areas are or may be
with enough detail that City staff can find
present on the subject property. The
and identify the subject parcel(s).,'.; In
informitioh needed to complete the
addition the applicant shall include
Checklist should be easil available from
y
th 'd
0 er pertinent' n ormation (e.g. site
observations of the site or data available at
plan, topography map, etc.)' or Studies in
City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps,
con unction with this ChecIdist to assist
or soil survey��I'
staff in completing their prv4hninary
assessment of the site.
An applicant, or his/her representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it,
I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are.,...-
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant: Applicant Repr-esentative:
DEMN 1'�5 Amb VAV S. i6ntF_L
Name If
IRLOQ SOUNI)VIEW PLAC-F
Street Address
SftedAddress
EbtioNbs \AIA. 98olZO
City, State,,ZIP Phone -..-..Qty, state, ZIP
C'7�2*ti
Phone...
Date
00 *to
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Dennis and Kay Kisiel Determination #: I CA-95-154
Project Name: Permit Number: F
Site Location: 18600 Soudview Place Property Tax Acct #: 4346-002-010-0009
1 � I I
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site on July 21, 1995, it was found -that the site
appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a Steep Slope Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.1513
of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). To determine if a Steep Slope
Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor
delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope over 40% with more
than 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is
required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from
the 50 foot buffer.
For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50 foot buffer or 15
foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the
Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the
outcome of the study:
For development proposals which will occur within the 50 foot buffer, but no closer
than 10 feet from the top or toe or the slope, the 50 foot buffer requirement may be
reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed 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. All Critical Area Studies
must be completed under a three party contract ' where the City hires the professional
required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B. 150).
2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is
not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.1513, a Reasonable Use Exception
and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B. 180A and 20.15B.040C).
All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code.
If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel
would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may'submit their proposal to
the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed
development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional
waiver may be issued on a project by project basis.
Name Signature / /Date
.The City of Edmonds
APPLICATION
for
EASEMENT'No . ....
SIDE SEWE][t pERMIT
NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 REPAIRS 0 /%
"Y
OWNER
........................
ADDRESS ...........
.................................................
.....
)J[_
........
40
0
I fl-
/11 -7
4.
CONTRACTOR .... ........ .................... PERMIT No.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No..
.%A.L .... LC --- No. ........ .............. ..........
NAME OF ADDITION ... Z .....
...................... ............................... ............................... ........
-uj
tu
cc
J
.�dp CITY OF EDMONDS Caj, pRospect 6-1107 when work
CIR7,111C '-,ENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT is ready for ingpeenon. (NO IasPec- 9569
1 SIDE SEWER PERMIT tions Saturday, Sunday or holidays.) N?
18600 Sound View Place ......................................................................................
ADDRESS ---------------------------------------- ------------------------- United i
mr. Paul Spaeth ------------------------------------------ CONTRACTOR ..... ................. !�� --- 4 ...
OWNER ------------ -:� ------------------- - ------------ ------------------- days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer
.t'd Tr __r for ---
X .. tbp ..... .7
Permission, is gra _. qyb rdina es
with CKY ' Sewers in accordance with application on file and governing o nc ctor must
HE FOLLOWING:
A7 ION IS CALLED TO T , permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side sewer Contrar
;rty may obtain 9 cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected -
NO �:_ J90. I —The owners of the prope et area. Do not
be employed to construct side sewer in stre e 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when YOU get permit.
Nr--. No. 2—Obtain full inforniation regarding OrdinanC operty line; minimum grade of 2,7.-
No. 3—ToP oil side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside Pr
No bends in grade sharper than % will be permitted. ginal condition. Contractors shall be responsible for
d su�face of street restored to Orl
be water settled an ear of completion.
NOTE No. 4—Trenches In street must rk which may develop within one Y on the main sewer or its aPPur-
failure due to improper wo to do any work
NCI-- No. 5_1t is jullswful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, Or
tenances except to insert the pipe into the wYe.
14-o
50
-7 0 0
PLANNING DATA
SITEADDRESS: DATE:
ZONING: 9-s- 12, PLAN CHK#: 96 - ff3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ad-d, 9& /vW,,
,s1A CA -le,- — I fV_ 1� .I
L
213 'f- " Ae*f 4 3 ri kty,,
SETBACKS:
17
Required Setbacks: 9; �3 4. 6_1d,�y
V- 9,5 Front: Z-5' Left Side:- —Right Side: 10' Rear:
Actual Setbacks:
Front: 95' LeftSide: VZ" RightSide: 13' Rea"_r-.2-90-15_`%;;�14v'
CORNERLOT (Yes/No)
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED t� (Y/N)
+ Or
LOT COVERAGE: 41-
Maximum Allowed: Actual: 15- S2,0
�_ III I I R -911 z 14 off WOTSW
Maximum Allowed: 7-5 Actual Height:
Datum Point-
—Datum Elevation: twA
V
--r i. f. -e-
SUBDIVISION:'
95- .75'
71 1 "
09,
14-' Z
3761,
9�,'75
.4c),47-
17
CRITICAL AREAS #: W 9 9 - 15-4 -
V
A" Bt�'s ir-4 161 A -N cwp s 6pe is vcii- o,4 �0 rn ixl� 0.
41'4 4ppl"e AA" tpopl,%j o,-eA .A,r A lJa.
SEPA DETERMINATION:
LOT AREA: 1500' _(.t-,s 10, 1-7
OTHER: Mt4-SO, - 7-
�,a 4- be
0)5 ±2�4 De"( kme W-1 ao"A I,
DgWi (o-,s 4u,�, 30' ',v3
Plan Review By:
M. C. MAPLE
14
MANOR
UNRECORDED
/0
9
7
S. Cor. Gov. Lot I
N Cor. G 6
5
5
4
�p West 760.�-7'
"ji
0
/0
91,
9
43
0
�wj
A
ell. 15
/9 68
4
-?0 69
tt /j A
2
\1Y
r)
AI BURD
0
4
8/ ADD
.15 66
/0
10);- 89)
%/0 2 78
19 q-
lilt
-q!-, - V
I ('mv EDMbI&S Z LA IEW TRACTS (4346)
N() f E '/u/.Y'
,fits i" n;"t asurvey, it ic';l r.mrcO n?�Ip
�p�.e(j f,.)r i),' piopterty only
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Raymond Bogaert -
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: .-Transmittaii Letter— Geotechnicall Engineering Study
Proposed Bogaert Residence
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Bogaert:
13256 Northeast 20th Street� Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
August 11, 2006
JN 06230
We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the property at 18600 Sound
View Place in Edmonds. The scope of our services consisted of exploring -site surface and
subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general
earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorized by your
acceptance of our proposal, P-7071, dated June 20, 2006.'.
The attached report contains a. discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and
construction phases of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gerry D. Bautista, Jr.
Geotechnical Engineer
cc: TCA Architecture — Planning, Inc. — Morgan Hougland
'via facsimfle: (206) 522-2456
GOB/DRW: jyb
STREET FILE
RECEIvE:D
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. JAN 2 2 2010
nd
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Bogaert Residence
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study'for
the property at 18600 Sound View Place in Edmonds.
We were -provided with a topographic survey of the subject property. Lovell-Sauerland and
Associates prepared this survey, which is dated April 24, 2006. We were also provided with a
preliminary site plan and section view of the proposed buildings following our field work. TCA
Architecture — Planning prepared these drawings,,which are dated July 31, 2006. Based on these
plans and conversations with Morgan Hougland of TCA Architecture — Planning,..we understand
that the existing residence will be demolished, and a new residence will be constructed on -the
western, currently vacant portion of the, property. The residence is proposed to be approximately
35 feet from the western property line. The two-story residence will have a proposed lower floor
elevation of 63 feet and will extend to within 6 feet of the northern property line, and 10 feet of the
southern property line with a finish floor of approximately 63 feet. A maximum temporary
excavation of up to 6 feet is anticipated to reach the planned excavation bottom on the eastern side
of the residence. A new detached garage will also be constructed in the central portion of the
property directly west of the existing residence. This garage will have an approximate proposed
slab elevation of 73 feet. A maximum temporary excavation of up to 6 feet is proposed to reach the
planned foundation base at the eastern end of the ganage.
If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided
with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of
this rep6rt.are warranted.
SITE CONDiTIONS
SURFACE
The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site in Edmonds. The rectangular -
shaped property occupies approximately 50 feet of frontage along the western side of Sound View
Place and is approximately 315 feet in depth. For this study, we have assumed that Sound View
Place borders the property to the east and runs in a north -south direction, although the property is
actually oriented in the northwest -southeast direction. Access to the property is by way of a
driveway that enters the property at its southeast comer. A one-story, single-family residence with
a west -facing daylight basement is located at the east central portion of the property. This house
has an approximate lower floor elevation of 78 feet.
Overall, the property slopes down from east to west from the eastern property line (elevation 100
fe,�t�.` the property generally slopes to the western property line at an average rate of less than 15
percent over an approximate vertical relief of 45 feet. The western property line is situated
approximately 5 feet away from the top of an existing 33- to 38-foot-high steep slope. This slope is
defined as a landslide hazard area and an erosion hazard area per Section 23.80.020 of the
Edmonds Municipal Code due to its steepness. At the foot of this slope are twin railroad tracks
berlo'nging to the Burlington Northern Railway. Beyond these tracks is Puget Sound.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Pogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 2
The subject property is bordered to the north and south with one-story, single-family residences.
The adjacent northern residence is set back approximately 5 feet from the northern property line of
the subject property. This residence has an approximate main floor elevation of 68 feet. The
adjacent southern residence is set back approximately 15 feet from the southern property line of
the subject property at its closest point. This residence has an approximate main floor elevation of
62 feet. A detached shed/storage building is located directly north of this existing residence and is
set back approximately 5 feet from the southern property line of the subject property.
SUBSURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two test borings at the approximate locations
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed
construction, . anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exp1bration, and the
scope of work outlined in our proposal. Our firm has also done some explorations on a nearby site
in the past.
The borings were drilled on July 14, 2006, using a portable -Acker drill. This dri 11 system utilizes a
small, gasoline -powered engine to advance a hollow -stem auger to the sampling depth. Samples
were taken at 2.5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler,
which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 14G-pound hammer failing 30
inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of
the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling
process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered.
The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 and 4.
SoH Conditions
The test borings generally encountered native, silty sand directly underlying the surface.
This soil was loose from 4 to 7 feet below existing grade, and then became medium -dense.
A dense gravelly layer was encountered approximately 10 feet below existing grade in both
borings. The boring drilled near the top of the steep slope (Test Boring 1) encountered
refusal conditions because of this dense layer and thus could not be explored further. We
previously excavated some test pits on a nearby property that were also near the top of the
existing slope. These test pits encountered approximately 9 feet of medium -dense, silty
sand over dense, gravelly, silty sand. The dense soils have been glacially compressed and
are locally referred to as glacial till. It is likely that Test Boring 1 encountered glacial till soils
at its bottom.
Dense, native soils were encountered at a depth of 15 feet below existing grade in the
upper boring (Test Boring 2) and were exposed to the maximum explored depth of the
boring (19 feet below existing grade).
Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed in the borings. The borings were left open for only
a short time period. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall
and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in pockets within the silty
sand.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 3
The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the
exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface
conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface
information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the
borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture
descriptions indicated on the boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions
observed during drilling.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
THIS SECTION,CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR T14E PURPOSES OF A
GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE
CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD
READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT
The borings; conducted for this study encountered medium -dense, native soils within 4 to 7 feet of
existing grade. These soils then became denser with depth. It is our opinion that the proposed
residence can be supported on a conventional foundation bearing on these competent native soils.
Some overexcavation may be needed in some areas to reach bearing soil. With the possibility of
seepage and the moisture sensitivity of the silty sand, footing subgrades may need to be protected
from disturbance by placing a mat of imported, granular fill. This prevents the subgrade soils from
being softened under foot traffic during placement of foundation forms and reinforcing.
Provided that the footings for the proposed residences are founded on competent native soil, no fill
is placed on the western slope, and the recommendations in this report are followed, it is our
professional opinion that the construction of the proposed residence will not adversely affect the
stability of the existing steep slope.
Section 23.80.02013 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (the Code) defines a landslide hazard area to
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". The steep slope that is about 5 feet to the west
of the subject property is considered to be a landslide hazard area per the Code. This slope is also
considered an erosion hazard due to its steepness and the silty nature of the soil.
A minimum building setback of 15 feet is required from the edges of all critical area buffers, per
Section 23.40.280 of the Code. A minimum buffer of 50 feet is generally recommended per
Section 23.80.070A of the Code. However, this section of the Code also states that the buffer
width can be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet "... when a qualified professional demonstrates ...
that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and
uses and the subject critical area". Based on our site explorations and our nearby explorations, it is
apparent that the core of the steep slope west of the subject property is comprised of very
competent, native glacial till soil. We did not observe indications of slope instability during our site
visits. Because of these reasons, and because the slope is only about 35 feet in height, it is our
opinion that the buffer can be reduced to 10 feet, resulting in a total minimum building setback of
25 feet from the top of the western slope. The site plan provided to us shows the proposed
residence to be set back at least 35 feet from the top of the existing slope. Thus, the proposed
house location is very acceptable in our opinion.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
�ogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 4
Cuts of up to about 6 feet are proposed at the eastern end of the proposed residence and garage
An overall temporary cut of 1:1 (Hodzontal:Vertical) should not be exceeded in the site soils. Thus
a maximum of 6 feet of horizontal space is needed. For the proposed location of the proposed
residence, it would be necessary to obtain an easement from the adjacent northern property
owners to make the necessary excavation. If this easement cannot be obtained, some form of
temporary shoring will be required. However, this can be avoided if the location of the proposed
residence is shifted 1 foot to the south. Based on conversations with Morgan Hougland of TCA
Architecture — Planning, we understand that the proposed house location will likely be shifted in this
manner. If it is later found that temporary shoring is required, we can provide design criteria and
recommendations upon request.
The on -site soils can be reused as structural fill or wall backfill, provided that they are placed in dry
weather and are at, or near, the optimum moisture content. If the on -site soils can be adequately
compacted as wall backfill, a minimum 12-inch width of sand and gravel should first be placed
against'the walls.
The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the
weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing vAll expose a large area of bare soil,
the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We
anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas.
Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of soil or
mud carded off the property by trucks and equipment. Trucks should not be allowed.to drive off of
the rock -covered areas. Existing catch basins in the planned work areas should be protected with
pre -manufactured silt socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during
wet weather. As with any project, additional erosion control measures may be required depending
on conditions encountered during construction.
The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to
prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence'of active
seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from
the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the
concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and
bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable
conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist
air vAthin occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may
be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential
vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or
mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure.
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the
recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed.in the design. Such a plan
review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include
revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical
constraints that become more evident during the review process.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report
should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
recommendations.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
August 11, 2006
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
JN 06230
Page 5
The site class definition is illustrated on Table No. 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code
(IBC). In accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 IBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the
ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil Profile). The site soils
are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature.
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing
on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil. We recommend that confinuous and individual spread
footings have minimum Widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be
bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacebt finish ground surface for pebtection against
frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing
widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades; must be cleaned of loose or
disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may
require removing the disturbed soil by hand.
An allowable bearing pressure -of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pso is appropriate for footings
supported on competent native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be
used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent native soil
will be less than one inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and
the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively
level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following
ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Coefficient of Friction 0.40
Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf
Where: (1) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot; and (!I) passive earth
pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above Will
not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's
resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
level backfill:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
August 11, 2006
Active Earth Pressure
35 pcf
Passive Earth Pressure
300 pcf
Coefficient of Friction
0.40
Soil Unit Weight
130 pcf
Where: (I) pd Is pounds per cubic foot and (il) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
* For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its
height a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid.
pressure.
JN 06230
Page 6
The'values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It
is not appropriate to back -calculate soil strength- parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit
weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level
structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and
passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety
factor of at least 1. 5 for overtuming and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls.
Restrained wall soil parameters should- be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from
corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur
where a wall is restrained by a comer.
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume -that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foundations Will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backffl I is desired behind the walls, we Will need
to/be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within
a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral
pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be
well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should
be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the
higher soil forces that occur during compaction.
Retaining WaH Backfill and Waterproofin
Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining
structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native silty
soils can be adequately compacted as wall backfill, a minimum 12-inch width of free -
draining sand and gravel should first be placed against the wall. For increased protection,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
Bogaert
August 11, 2006
drainage composites should be placed along
backfilled entirely with free -draining soil.
Considerations - should also be reviewed for
drainage behind foundation and retaining walls.
JN 06230
Page 7
cut slope faces, and the walls should be
The later section entitled Drainage
recommendations related to subsurface
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a
retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to
prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the
performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow
patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing
should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically
includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or
membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety' of different waterproofing
materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with
the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin- coat of asphalt
emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to
reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the
concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through
concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is
appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining
walls. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations
or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations
of mold and mildew are desired.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop existing non -organic soils, or on
structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab
construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and
replaced with select, imported structural fill.
Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through
the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a
capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed
rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand
content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture
protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also
notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is
defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 8
as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic 'Sheeting is used
under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The
sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for
vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barTier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour
when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can
meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to
aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose.
However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted- in current ACI
literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the
time of its placement and the installation of the -slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement,
which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up
through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose,of the vapor banier/retarder.
Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab
is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then
recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the lots of the blotter material,
joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other
measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
generally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI 1iterature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all
means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission.
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in
unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the upper 10 feet of soil at the subject site would generally
be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be
excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between
the top and the bottom of a cut.
The above-recom mended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our
explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is
possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the
inclina"iio'n at which temporary slopes- can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain
unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining
walls," bi�.` utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet
weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The
cut sl6p,es should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 9
instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation,
foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of.this potential danger. These
recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in
the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Water should not
be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently
exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and
improve the stability of the sufficial layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
We recommend that foundation drains be installed at -the base of all foundation and earth -retaining
walls.. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and
then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NIP, or similar material). At
its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom ' of a slab
floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water
drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to
this report as Plate 5. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended
for all subsurface drains.
Drainage inside the building's footprint should also be provided if the excavation encounters
significant seepage. We can provide recommendations for'interior drains, should they become
necessary, during excavation and foundation construction.
As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in
any crawl space.area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an
outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may
bypass the footing drains.
No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it
should be drained from the site- by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French
drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of
the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away
from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where founclabons,
slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to a building should
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided
where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL
All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
other 'deleterious mateirial. It is important that existing foundations be removed before site
,; i
development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be
used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 10
Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building,
behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs
to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts With a moisture content at, or
near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that
results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness
should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
-FIONOFFIIJ�
LOCA iViINIMUM REI-XVIVE
I'I.ACFJVIVNT COMPACTION
Beneath footings, slabs 95%
or walkways
Filled slopes and behind 90%
retaining walls
Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In
percentages, of the cornpa�ctsd dry density to the maximum dry
density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D 1667-91 (Modified Proctor).
The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils.
Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or
clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve
should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as
they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions
encountered in the borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. - If the
subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions
and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are
commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
samples in borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such
unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly
constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to
accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all
projects.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Raymond Bogaert, and his representatives,
for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based
on observed site materials and selective laboratory testing. Our conclusions and recommendations
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
-Bogaert JN 06230
August 11, 2006 Page 11
are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope
of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The
scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors methods, techniques, sequences, or
procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services
also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold,
bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and
observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are
consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork.and foundation
construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this
report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job
and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor.
During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when
requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work
we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to
verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are presen'tat the site or not.
The following plates are attached to complete this report:
Plate I Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
Plates 3 - 4 Boring Logs
Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain Detail
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
August 11, 2006
JN 06230
Page 12
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
GDB/DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gerry.D. Bautista, Jr.
Geotechnical Engineer
ri��P771RES
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
�11/0 k,
BROHNS
IBIA Y1
to
7.
A
FrImICK
'Z
sit
OYMM -pK'
r
FSITE
pr
IBM
-i sm—
IBM
ST sm
ST SW'-
ST SW
UM.L
ST sw
13
IM I ST
RRM
—7
16,
2-,ft I '
, t� N
19
S-r
SW
DY
UGEr
:WWATOZ
PE ST
ST
----
--
PAN
I OR
TER U
—
a-
v9M
M
I - I
ST SW� a
REAM
ST
slum
io
ST i3
�
MXXMN
M
P, 1
ELL
oak
IN
ST
UYMI
WMA 23
.01 55
ST
V)
Sm= 2!.
ST
PAMM
Now
-7. *0
—,ELF
—15aaw MRIM
PT BUM
nnH S;-
2
nA
ST
qST
1EUA MA
ZB
TH "C
1130
D
L
stem
4-
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
(Soume: The Thomas Guide, Snohomish County Washington, 1998)
VICINITY MAP
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job No. I oate. plate.
06230 1 August 20061 1
Burlington Northern railroad tracks ---20
----30
-'-40
. . . ....... . .
—50
B-1
60
�—� P po
roposed I
Residence
M
A 70
nPMPDose
Garage
U3
> B-2
80
Existfng
Residence
"90
CD
100
Sound View Place
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
GEOTECH 18600 Sound View Place
CONSULTANTS, INC. Edmonds, Washington
No: Date: Plate:
06230 1 August20061 NoScale 1 2
10-
16-
20
26
30
35
40-
N
"Ps' jdo
'N�' NO Olt Ile
'�O " � so, A��
7 1
UZ
4 2 SM
19 3
49 4
BORING I
Description
Grass over
Brown, silty SAND, fine-grained, damp, loose
- becomes gravelly, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense
- becomes dense
- gravel in tip; blows likely overstated
• Test boring was terminated at 11.5 feet on July 14, 2006, due to
refusal.
• No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job Date: Logged by:
06230 1 July 2006 GDB Plate: 3
M
10
16
20
26
30
W
40
.1A 4P ido
<(ef �1'64
BORING 2
Description
Grass and Topsoil over
Brown, silty SAND, trace gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose
3
1
15
2
becomes gray, medium -dense
14
3
1
no gravel
sm
23
41 :111Z
::: ; ;
- gravel layer
21
5
becomes less silty, medium -grained, moist to very moist, medium -dense
35
6
becomes dense
38
7
becomes gray
Test boring was terminated at 19 feet on July 14, 2006.
No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job Logged by., Plate: 4
06230 DatJeu:ly 2006 1 GDB I _I
Slope backfill away from
foundation. Provide surface
drains where necessary.
. Backfill
(See text for
requirements)
Nonwoven Geotextile
Filter Fabric
Washed Rock
(7/8" min. size)
D. .0�0.0.0.'
80.00 FN
X.0 a.0
r, ff 101",
Tightline Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
Possible Slab
4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at least 6 inches below
slab or crawl space. Slope to
drain to appropriate outfall.
Place holes downward.)
0a 00
00-1 0 00
0 0
Vapor Retarder/Barrier and
Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
(Refer to Report text)
NOTES:
(1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that
bypasses the perimeter footing drains.
(2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
FOOTING DRAIN DETAEL
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job No: Plate: 5
06230 1 DaAtueg:ust 20061 1
PERMITTRAX (HARRISON/PT-LIVE) - PermitTrax by Bitco Software
Page I of I
SEARCH PrRMITS]
Search Permits Address 18600 sound
Status Console Type j'—
Pe,rmt Type
Date Range, Created to
SEARCH PERMITS
Copyright 2006 by Bitco Soft—ii, LLC
P"mit 4
st".,i
C--I� ic—'ted iTyp� Numb,,,
Di,
Unit
City
TO a, 1-
Total Paid
Total Due
APL20070004
DENIED
APL-2007 8/1512007 Plan HE 1111011SOUND
VIEWPL
EDMONDS
$205.00
($205.00)
$0.00!
CRA20060114
- — - — — ---------- — -
STUDY RED
. . .... ......
ICRA-20061 8/3/2006 Critical Area 18600
----- — -
SOUND VIEW PL
EDMONDS
$13500
($13500)
$0.001
BUD20100048
APPLIED
:64 - Single Family
iBLD-200 1122=101 F 1. .0
S.UN��VIEWPL
EDMONDS
$561050
($2.46200)
$3.148 50i
PLN20060102
DENIED
PLN-2006 813/2006IVadance - Hearing I 18600,1SOUND
VIEW PL
EDMONDS
$1 �320 00
($1.32000)
$000,
CRA19950154
STUDY PEN.
!CRA-1 7119/19951 18600
SOUNDVIEWPI.
EDMONDS
$000
$000
S000
CRA19950155
WAIVER
1CRA-1 711911995. 18600
SOUNDVIEWPL
EDMONDS
$000
$000
$0 001
ENG19960221
COMPLETE
JENG-1 8/a/1996iEUC ROW 1 18600
SOUNOVIEWPL
EDMONDS
$3000
($3000)
$0001
PLN196700070-36.
APPROVED--TPLN-1
111/1900ILL 18600
SOUNDVIEWPL I
EDMONDS
EDMONDS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
PLN199500123-80.
APPROVED
------- — -------------
PLN-1 7/25/19951V I '86001SOUNDVIEWPL
$000
$000
$000
BLD19830030
FINAL
D-1 1125/1983'76 - Woodslove/In I 1.6010SOUNDVIEWPL
EDMONDS
$000
$0001
$0 00i
BLD19910445
FINAL
BLD-I 61511991.27 - Fence/Sveent 186001SOUNDVIEWPL
EDMONDS
S000
$000
$000,
BLD19940528
FINAL
BLD-I 8/911994 40. M
SOUNDVIEWPIL
EDMONDS
s000
$0001
so oo�
BLD19960402
INAL
BLD-1 6/2711996�2 - Addition 186001SOUNDVIEWPL
i
I
EDMONDS
$89300
($89300)
$0 OW
-
BLI
F, '*'
FINAL
-1 51412004 47 - PiumoingrWat
...........
WPL
EDMONDS
.......
$'50.00
.......
t$50.00)
$0.00,
http://edmondspmtweb/permittrax/PermitTraxMain/wfPermitSearch.aspx?CONID=PT-LIVE 2/1/2010
CEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Raymond Bogaert
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Transmittal Letter— Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed. Bog aert Residence
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
*Dear Mr. Bogaert:
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
BeHevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the property at 18600 Sound
View Place in Edmonds. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and
subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general
earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was initially authorized
by your acceptance of our proposal, P-7071, dated June 20, 2006. We had prepared- a study for
this project in 2006; however, due to plan and code changes since 2006, we have updated. this
study accordingly.
The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and
construction phases of this project.
Principal
cc: Bryant and Company — Marci Bryant
via emaii to: vmarcibryant@msn-com
GDB/DRW: jyb
, INC.
RESUB
APR 2 9 2010
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Bogaert Residence
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for
the property at 18600 Sound View Place in Edmonds.
We were initially provided information regarding the project in 2006. However, the plans for the
project have changed since that time. The plans that are now under design were prepared by
Bryant and Company dated April 21, 2010. Based on the plans and conversations with Marci
Bryan, we understand that the existing residence will be demolished, and a new residence with an
attached garage will be constructed on the western, currently vacant portion of the property. The
residence is proposed to be approximately 35 feet from the western property line. The two-story
residence will have a finish floor levels near or just above the existing ground. Only minor
excavations are proposed for the residence foundations based on the finish floor elevations. The
residence will be set back 10 feet from the northern and southern property lines.
if the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided
with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of
this report are warranted.
SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE
The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site in Edmonds. The rectangular -
shaped property occupies approximately 50 feet of frontage along the western side of Sound View
Place and is approximately 315,feet in depth. For this study, we have assumed that Sound View
Place borders the property to the east and runs in a north -south direction, although the property is
actually oriented in the northwest -southeast direction. Access to the property is by way of a
driveway that enters the property at its southeast comer. A one-story, single-family residence with
a west -facing daylight basement is located at the east central portion of the property. This house
has an approximate lower floor elevation of 78 feet.
Overall, the property slopes down from east to west from the eastern property line (elevation 100
feet). The property generally slopes to the western property line at an average rate of less than 15
percent over an approximate vertical relief of 45 feet. The western property line is situated
approximately 5 feet away from the top of an existing 30- to 34-foot-high steep slope. This slope is
defined as a landslide hazard area and an erosion hazard area per Section 23.80.020 of the
Edmonds Municipal Code due to its steepness. At the foot of this slope are twin railroad tracks
belonging to the Burlington Northern Railway. Beyond these tracks is Puget Sound.
The subject property is bordered to the north and south with one-story, single-family residences.
The adjacent northern residence is set back approximately 5 feet from the northern property line of
the subject property. This residence has an approximate main floor elevation of 68 feet. The
adjacent southern residence is set back approximately 15 feet from the southern property line of
the subject property at its closest point. This residence has an approximate main floor elevation of
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 2
62 feet. A detached shed/storage building is located directly north of this existing residence and is
set back approximately 5 feet from the southern property line of the subject property.
SUBSURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two test borings at. the approximate locations
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed
construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the
scope of work outlined in our proposal. Our firm has also done some explorations on a nearby site
in the past.
The borings were drilled on July 14, 2006, using a portable Acker drill. This drill system utilizes a
small, gasoline -powered engine to advance a hollow -stem auger to the sampling depth. Samples
were taken at 2.5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler,
which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer failing 30
inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of
the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling
process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered.
The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 and 4.
SoH Conditions
The test borings generally encountered native, silty sand directly underlying the surface.
This soil was loose from 4 to 7 feet below existing grade, and then became medium -dense.
A dense gravelly layer was encountered approximately 10 feet below existing grade in both
borings. The boring drilled near the top of the steep slope (Test Boring 1) encountered
refusal conditions because of this dense layer and thus could not be explored further. We
previously excavated some test pits on a nearby property that were also near the top of the
existing slope. These test pits encountered approximately 9 feet of medium -dense, silty
sand over dense, gravelly, silty sand. The dense soils have been glacially compressed and
are locally referred to as glacial till. It is likely that Test Boring 1 encountered glacial till soils
at its bottom.
Dense, native soils were encountered at a depth of 15 feet below existing grade in the
upper boring (Test Boring 2) and were exposed to the maximum explored depth of the
boring (19 feet below existing grade).
Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed in the borings. The borings were left open for only
a short time period. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall
and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in pockets within the silty
sand.
The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the
exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gnadual, and subsurface
conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface
information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the
borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 3
descriptions indicated on the borling logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions
observed dudng drilling.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A
GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE
CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD
READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
The test borings conducted for this study encountered medium -dense, native soils within 4 to 7 feet
of existing grade. These soils then became denser with depth. It is our opinion that the proposed
residence can be supported on a conventional foundation bearing on these competent native soils
or on structural fill place above these soils. Some overexcavation may be needed in areas to reach
bearing soil. With the possibility of seepage and the moisture sensitivity of the silty sand, footing
subgrades; may need to be protected from disturbance by placing a mat of imported, granular fill.
This prevents the subgrade soils from being softened under foot traffic during placement of
foundation forms and reinforcing.
Provided that the footings for the proposed residences are founded on competent native soil, no fill,
is placed on the western slope, and the recommendations in this report are followed, it is our
professional opinion that the construction of the proposed residence will not adversely affect the
stability of the existing steep slope.
Sect ion 23.80.02013 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (the Code) defines a landslide hazard area to
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". The steep slope that is about 5 feet to the west
of the subject property is considered to be a landslide hazard area per the Code. This slope is also
considered an erosion hazard due to its steepness and the silty nature of the soil.
A minimum building setback of 15 feet is required from the edges of all critical area buffers, per
Section 23.40.280 of the Code. A minimum buffer of 50 feet is generally recommended per
Section 23.80.070A of the Code. However, this section of the Code also states that the buffer
width can be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet "... when a qualified professional demonstrates ...
that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and
uses and the subject critical area". Based on our site explorations and our nearby explorations, it is
apparent that the core of the steep slope west of the subject property is comprised of very
competent, native glacial till soil. We did not observe indications of slope instability during our site
visits. Because of these reasons, and because the slope is only about 35 feet in height, it is our
opinion that the buffer can be reduced to 10 feet, resulting in a total minimum building setback of
25 feet from the top of the western slope. The site plan provided to us shows the proposed
residence to be set back at least 35 feet from the top of the existing slope. Thus, the proposed
house location is very acceptable in our opinion. More detailed information regarding reducing the
buffer is given below.
Per Section 23.80.070.A.2 of the Code, alterations of buffers may only occur if a hazards analysis
is submitted and certifies three points. We have listed the three points below, and our comments
to each point are shown directly after.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 4
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions. We understand that stormwater from
impervious surfaces will be taken off the site to a public stormwater system. Thus, this
requirement is satisfied in our opinion.
b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties. The only
adjacent slope that is in the railroad easement is to the west. No loads from the project will
be exerted on the slope, and the rate of surface water discharge will not be increased,
therefore the development will not decrease the slope stability. The properties to the north
and south are relatively flat in relation to the property, no decrease in their stability will occur
due to this project.
c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. We believe that the only
other nearby critical area is the Puget Sound, which is to the west of the railroad easement.
Since the railroad easement will not have its slope stability decreased, we believe that the
Puget Sound will not be adversely impacted.
Per Section 23.80.070.A.2 of the Code, development within an erosion or landslide hazard area
and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic standard (see below) unless it can be
demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards
provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The
requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic
maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development standards are listed below,
followed by our comments.
a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide
occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If
stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development
shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor
of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the
subject property or adjacent properties. The steep slope to the west of the site varies in
height from about 30 to 34 feet, and is sloped between approximately 50 to 100 percent.
We have performed simple infinite slope analyses on the worst -case scenario, using a 20-
foot-tall slope that is inclined 100 percent. We have also assumed the worst soil condition
(taking into account only the medium -dense sand that was found in the upper 10 to 15 feet
— we assigned an internal angle of friction of 35 degrees) and the worst -case situation
where the residence is about 40 feet from the steep slope. An analysis was done for both
static and dynamic conditions (the static calculation is the tangent of the angle of internal
friction divided by the tangent of the slope, while the dynamic analysis was done using a
method developed by Jibson (1993)). In addition, a peak ground acceleration (PGA) is
needed for the dynamic analysis; the PGA for this site, was determined to be 0.33g in
accordance with the 2006 International Building Code. Using the worst -case site geometry
whereby the residence is 37 feet from the slope, the soil internal angle of friction and the
PGA, it was determined that the static and dynamic safety factors for are greater than 1.5
and 1.2 respectively, which is required as noted above.
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas
and other critical areas. The proposed site structures are located away from the slope,
which is the geologically hazardous area.
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the
slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 5
The proposed residence and garage are tiered down the property to the west, and the
western portion of the residence daylights to the existing ground level.
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the
site and its natural landforms and vegetation. The structures and improvements are on the
least steep portions of the site. The current vegetation is mostly only grass, so little if any
critical landforms and vegetation are being damaged.
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers
on neighboring properties. The properties to the north and south have similar steep slopes
to their western side. These properties are considered cross -slope to the subject property,
not above or below it. Thus the western slopes on those properties are not affected by the
development on the subject property. Therefore, the proposed development will not result
in a greater risk or the need for an increased buffer on neighboring properties.
f The use of retaining walls that ailow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is
preferred over graded artificial slopes. The development plan achieves this in our opinion.
In summary, we firmly believe that the altered slope buffer as noted above in this study is
very suitable for this site.
The on -site soils can be reused as structural fill or wall backfill, provided that they are placed in dry
weather and are at, or near, the optimum moisture content. If the on -site soils can be adequately
compacted as wall backM 1, a minimum 12-inch width of sand and gravel should first be placed
against the walls.
The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the
weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil,
the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We
anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas.
Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of soil or
mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Trucks should not be allowed to drive off of
the rock -covered areas. Existing catch basins in the planned work areas should be protected with
pre -manufactured silt socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during
wet weather. As with any project, additional erosion control measures may be required depending
on conditions encountered during construction.
The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to
prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active
seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from
the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the
concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and
bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable
conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist
air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may
be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential
vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or
mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure.
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the
recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan
review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 6
revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical
constraints that become more evident during the review process.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report
should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
recommendations.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The site class definition is illustrated on Table No. 1615.1.1 of the 2003 Intemational Building Code
(IBC). In accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 IBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the
ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil Profile). The site soils
are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature.
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing
on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil or on structural fill placed above this competent native
soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations
regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate
compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement.
Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the
geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We
recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24
inches, respective"Iy. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes
should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required.
Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending
upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.
Depending on the final site grades, overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose
competent native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the
overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the
overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the
bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean
concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing.
An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings
supported on competent native soil or on structural fill placed above competent native soil A one-
third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or
seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction
settlement of footings founded on competent native soil will be less than one inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and
the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively
level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following
ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
PARANIETER ULTRIATE
T- VA L LJ I' .,
Coefficient of Friction 0.40
Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf
Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passive earth
pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
JN 06230
Page 7
If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will
not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's
resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed- by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
level backfill:
Active Earth Pressure
35 pcf
Passive Earth Pressure
300 pcf
Coefficient of Friction
0.40
Soil Unit Weight
130 pcf
Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (H) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
* For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its
height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It
is not appropriate to back -calculate soil strength parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit
weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level
structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and
passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety
factor of at least 1.5 for overtuming and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls.
Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from
comers or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur
where a wall is restrained by a comer.
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 8
to be given the wall ' dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within
a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral
pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be
well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should
be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the
higher soil forces that occur during compaction.
Retainina Wall Backrill and Waterproofin
Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining
structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native silty
soils can be adequately compacted as wall backfill, a -minimum 12-inch width of free -
draining sand and gravel should first be placed against the wall. For increased protection,
drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be
backfilled entirely with free -draining soil. The later section entitled Drainage
Consideradons should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface
drainage behind foundation and retaining walls.
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a
retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved.. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to
prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the
performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow
patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing
should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically
includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or
membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing
materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with
the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt
emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and Will only help to
reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the
concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through
concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is
appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining
walls. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bograert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 9
or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations
of mold and mildew are desired.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop existing non -organic soils, or on
structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab
construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and
replaced with select, imported structural fill.
Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through
the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a
capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed
rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand
content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture
protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also
notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is
defined as a material With a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (pso per hour,
as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used
under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The
sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for
vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour
when tested'in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can
meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barTler and as a "blotter" to
aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was riot recommended by ACI for this purpose.
However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI
literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the
time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement,
which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up
through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barriedretarder.
Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab
is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then
recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material,
joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other
measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
generally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
9
Yve recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
; I
on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all
means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
JN 06230
Page 10
Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in
unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the upper 10 feet of soil at the subject site would generally
be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be
excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between
the top and the bottom of a cut.
The above-recom mended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our
explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is
possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the
inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain
unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining
walls, or Litilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet
weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The
cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. . Excavation,
foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These
recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in
the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Water should not
be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently
exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and
improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
We recommend that foundation drains be installed at the base of all foundation and earth -retaining
walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus,,washed rock and
then wrapped in non -woven, geotextie filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At
its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab
floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water
drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to
this report as Plate 5. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended
for all subsurface drains.
Drainage inside the building's footprint should also be provided if the excavation encounters
significant seepage. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become
necessary, during excavation and foundation construction.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 11
As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Stabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in
any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an
outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may
bypass the footing drains.
No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it
should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French
drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of
the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so, that surface water is directed off the site and away
from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations,
slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to a building should
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided
where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL
All building� and pavement areas should b ' e stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
other deleterious material. It is important that existing foundations be removed before site
development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be
used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds.
Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building,
behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs
to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts With a moisture content at, or
near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that
results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness
should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
Beneath footings, slabs 95%
or walkways
Filled slopes and behind
retaining walls
Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In
percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry
density, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test
Designation 0 1557-91 (Modified Proctor).
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 12
The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils.
Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or
clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve
should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as
they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions
encountered in the borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the
subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions
and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are
commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
samples in borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such
unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly
constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to
accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all
projects.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Raymond Bogaert and his representatives
for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based
on observed site materials and selective laboratory testing. Our conclusions and recommendations
are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope
of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The
scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors methods, techniques, sequences, or
procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services
also do not include assessing or.minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold,
bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development.
ADDITIONAL SERWCES
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and
observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are
consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation
construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this
report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job
and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor.
During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when
requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work
we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to
verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
The following plates are attached to complete this report:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
Plates 3 - 4 Boring Logs
JN 06230
Page 13
Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain Detail
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CON,5ULTANTS, INC.
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
BROMNS
BAY
/A.
7
.7
PM pi
ov.
SITE
.. Iva S,
FL SW
z
PK
40 'slum
IBM
ST SW
ti
91
a
M
ism
SW
St
I= ST
v
FMT
-MA TI:
1967
H ST SW
HE . Ov� IN
v
DR
OR
IF
ksp ST
----
-- -
LN
F20M
ST 31� r t;
SIORWA me
15L\:
i243
_ell
X7
M
M-ST
ST-
OLD
5T
-. KAMPLE
ST'
su;
liiiN;
5
C—MM
OIL
16
PH
MWMA
PT ff"
21 ST
t
219M
26
R
Sr
ST
sy
30-
1 0
221H
ra
ST
coo
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
(Source., The Thomas Guide, Snohomish County, Washfh&n, 1998)
VICINM "
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job NO: Date: Plate:
06230 1 August 20061 1
Burlington Northern railroad tracks ---20
30
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
40
50
B-I
60
Sound View Place
SUE EXPLORATION PLAN
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job NO: I Date. -1 Plate.. 21
1 6230 1 August20061 NoScale
BORING 1
No 'P
0 Description
lGrass over
Brown, silty SAND, fine-grained, damp, loose
7 1
5
4
2
I I
SM
19
3
becomes gravelly, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense
becomes dense
49
4
gravel in tip; blows likely overstated
Test boring was terminated at 11.5 feet on July 14, 2006, due to
refusal.
No groundwater seep�ge was encountered during drilling.
20
25
30
36
� 40
GEOTECH
CONSU1,TANrS, INC.
BORING LOG
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job Date: Logged by. Plate.,
06230 1 July 2006 1 GDB 1 3
BORING 2
Desc?iption
Grass and Topsoil over
Brown, silty SAND, trace gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose
3 11
5
—
15
11: :
2 1: : ::
- becomes medium -dense
gray,
14
3 IT111 11, 1
1 - no gravel
S S Mj
10
23
41 UT
� - gravel layer
21
5
becomes less silty, medium -grained, moist to very moist, medium -dense
35
6
becomes dense
38
7
becomes
gray
Test boring was terminated at 19 feet on July 14, 2006.
20
No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
1 25
Will
36
40
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC
BORING LOG
18600 Sound View Place
L_ Edmonds, Washington
Job LoggGd by. PlatG:
06230 DaJteu:ly 2006 1 GDB I ___ 4]
Slope backfill away from
foundation. Provide surface
drains where necessary.
. Backfill
(See text for
requirements)
Nonwoven Geotextile
Filter Fabric
Washed Rock
(7/8" min. size)
'56 6 a a a 6
.0 �-o
a a
: 0--
-.0
4" min.
Tightline Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
Possible Slab
4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at least 6 inches below
slab or crawl space. Slope to
drain to appropriate ouffall.
Place holes downward.)
0.,.: C
43 Off a
Vapor Retarder/BarTier and
Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
(Refer to Report te)d)
NOTES:
(1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that
bypasses the perimeter footing drains.
(2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job No: Date: Ptate., 5
06230 1 August 20061 1
OEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Raymond Bogaert
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Transmittal Letter— Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Bogaert Residence
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Bogaert:
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the property at 18600 Sound
View Place in Edmonds. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and
subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general
earthwork and design criteda for foundations and retaining walls. This work was initially authorized
by your acceptance of our proposal, P-7071, dated June 20, 2006. We had prepared- a study for
this project in 2006; however, due to plan and code changes since 2006, we have updated. this
study accordingly.
The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and
construction phases of this project.
Principal
cc: Bryant and Company — Marci Bryant
via email to: vmarcibryant@msn.com
GDB/D.RW: jyb
) INC.
RESUB
APR 2 9 2010
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Bogaert Residence
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for
the property at 18600 Sound View Place in Edmonds.
We were initially provided information regarding the project in 2006. However, the plans for the
project have changed since that time. The plans that are now under design were prepared by
Bryant and Company dated April 21, 2010. Based on the plans and conversations with Marci
Bryan, we understand that the existing residence Will be demolished, and a new residence with an
attached garage will be constructed on the western, currently vacant portion of the property. The
residence is proposed to be approximately 35 feet from the western property line. The two-story
residence will have a finish floor levels near or just above the existing ground. Only minor
excavations are proposed for the residence foundations based on the finish floor elevations. The
residence will be set back 10 feet from the northern and southern property lines.
If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided
with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of
this report are warranted.
SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE
The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site in Edmonds. The rectangular -
shaped property occupies approximately 50 feet of frontage along the western side of Sound View
Place and is approximately 315 feet in depth. For this study, we have assumed that Sound View
Place borders the property to the east and runs in a north -south direction, although the property is
actually oriented in the northwest -southeast direction. Access to the property is by way of a
driveway that enters the property at its southeast comer. A one-story, single-family residence with
a west -facing daylight basement is located at the east central portion of the property. This house
has an approximate lower floor elevation of 78 feet.
Overall, the property slopes down from east to west from the eastern property line (elevation 100
feet). The property generally slopes to the western property line at an average rate of less than 15
percent. over an approximate vertical relief of 45 feet. The western property line is situated
approximately 5 feet away from the top of an existing 30- to 34-foot-high steep slope. This slope is
defined as a landslide hazard area and an erosion hazard area per Section 23.80.020 of the
Edmonds Municipal Code due to its steepness. At the foot of this slope are twin railroad tracks
belonging to the Burlington Northern Railway. Beyond these tracks is Puget Sound.
The subject property is bordered to the north and south with one-story, single-family residences.
The adjacent northern residence is set back approximately 5 feet from the northern property line of
the subject property. This residence has an approximate main floor elevation of 68 feet. The
adjacent southern residence is set back approximately 15 feet from the southern property line of
the subject property at its closest point. This residence has an approximate main floor elevation of
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 2
62 feet. A detached shed/storage building is located directly north of this existing residence and is
set back approximately 5 feet from the southern property line of the subject property.
SUBSURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two test bodngs at. the approximate locations
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed
construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the
scope, of work outlined in our proposal. Our firm has also done some explorations on a nearby site
in the past.
The borings were drilled on July 14, 2006, using a portable Acker ddll. This drill system utilizes a
small, gasoline -powered engine to advance a hollow -stem auger to the sampling depth. Samples
were taken at 2.5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler,
which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer failing 30
inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of
the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling
process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered.
The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 and 4.
SoH Conditions
The test borings generally encountered native, silty sand directly underlying the surface.
This soil was loose from 4 to 7 feet below eAsting grade, and then became medium -dense.
A dense gravelly layer was encountered approximately 10 feet below existing grade in both
borings. The boring drilled near the top of the steep slope (Test Boring 1) encountered
refusal conditions because of this dense layer and thus could not be explored further. We
previously excavated some test pits on a nearby property that were also near the top of the
existing slope. These test pits encountered approximately 9 feet of medium -dense, silty
sand over dense, gravelly, silty sand. The dense soils have been glacially compressed and
are locally referred to as glacial till. It is likely that Test Boring 1 encountered glacial till soils
at its bottom.
Dense, native soils were encountered at a depth of 15 feet below existing grade in the
upper bodng (Test Boring 2) and were exposed to the maximum explored depth of the
boring (19 feet below existing grade).
Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed in the borings. The borings were left open for only
a short time period. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall
and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in pockets within the silty
sand.
The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the
exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface
conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface
information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the
borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 3
descriptions indicated on the boring logs are interpretive descdptions based on the conditions
observed during drilling.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A
GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE
CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD
READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT
The test borings conducted for this study encountered medium -dense, native soils within 4 to 7 feet
of existing grade. These soils then became denser with depth. It is our opinion that the proposed
residence can be supported on a conventional foundation bearing on these competent native soils
or on structural fill place above these soils. Some overexcavation may be needed in areas to reach
bearing soil. With the possibility of seepage and the moisture sensitivity of the silty sand, footing
subgrades may need to be protected from disturbance by placing a mat of imported, granular fill.
This prevents the subgrade soils from being softened under foot traffic during placement of
foundation forms and reinforcing.
Provided that the footings for the proposed residences are founded on competent native soil, no fill,
is placed on the western slope, and the recommendations in this report are followed, it is our
professional opinion that the construction of the proposed residence will not adversely affect the
stability of the existing steep slope.
Section 23.80.020B of the Edmonds Municipal Code (the Code) defines a landslide hazard area to
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". The steep slope that is about 5 feet to the West
of the subject property is considered to be a landslide hazard area per the Code. This slope is also
considered an erosion hazard due to its steepness and the silty nature of the soil.
A minimum building setback of 15 feet is required from the edges of all critical area buffers, per
Section 23.40.280 of the Code. A minimum buffer of 50 feet is generally recommended per
Section 23.80.070A of the Code. However, this section of the Code also states that the buffer
vAdth can be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet "... when a qualified professional demonstrates ...
that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and
uses and the subject critical area". Based on our site explorations and our nearby explorations, it is
apparent that the core of the steep slope west of the subject property is comprised of very
competent, native glacial till soil. We did not observe indications of slope instability during our site
visits. Because of these reasons, and because the slope is only about 35 feet in height, it is our
o pinion that the buffer can be reduced to 10 feet, resulfing in a total minimum building setback of
25 feet from the top of the western slope. The site plan provided to us shows the proposed
residence to be set back at least 35 feet from the top of the existing slope. Thus, the proposed
house location is very acceptable in our opinion. More detailed information regarding reducing the
buffer is given below.
Per Section 23.80.070.A.2 of the Code, alterations of buffers may only occur if a hazards analysis
is submitted and certifies three points. We have listed the three points below, and our comments
to each point are shown directly after.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 4
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions. We understand that stormwater from
impervious surfaces will be taken off the site to a public stormwater system. Thus, this
requirement is satisfied in our opinion.
b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties. The only
adjacent slope that is in the railroad easement is to the west. No loads from the project will
be exerted on the slope, and the rate of surface water discharge will not be increased,
therefore the development will not decrease the slope stability. The properties to the north
and south are relatively flat in relation to the property; no decrease in their stability will occur
due to this project.
c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. We believe that the only
other nearby critical area is the Puget Sound, which is to the west of the railroad easement.
Since the railroad easement will not have its slope stability decreased, we believe that the
Puget Sound will not be adversely impacted.
Per Section 23.80.070.A.2 of the Code, development within an erosion or landslide hazard area
and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic standard (see below) unless it can be
demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards
provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The
requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic
maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development standards are listed below,
followed by our comments.
a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide
occurrences below the limits of 1. 5 for static conditions and 1. 2 for dynamic conditions. If
stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development
shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor
of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the
subject property or adjacent properties. The steep slope to the west of the site varies in
height from about 30 to 34 feet, and is sloped between approximately 50 to 100 percent.
We have performed simple infinite slope analyses on the worst -case scenario, using a 20-
foot-tall slope that is inclined 100 percent. We have also assumed the worst soil condition
(taking into account only the medium -dense sand that was found in the upper 10 to 15 feet
— we assigned an internal angle of friction of 35 degrees) and the worst -case situation
where the residence is about 40 feet from the steep slope. An analysis was done for both
static and dynamic conditions (the static calculation is the tangent of the angle of internal
friction divided by the tangent of the slope, while the dynamic analysis was done using a
' method developed by Jibson (1993)). In addition, a peak ground acceleration (PGA) is
needed for the dynamic analysis; the PGA for this site, was determined to be 0.33g in
accordance with the 2006 International Building Code. Using the worst -case site geometry
�whereby the residence is 37 feet from the slope, the soil internal angle of friction and the
PGA, it was determined that the static and dynamic safety factors for are greater than 1.5
and 1.2 respectively, which is required as noted above.
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas
and other critical areas. The proposed site structures are located away from the slope,
which is the geologically hazardous area.
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the
slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 5
The proposed residence and garage are tiered down the property to the west, and the
western portion of the residence daylights to the existing ground level.
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the
site and its natural landforms and vegetation. The structures and improvements are on the
least steep portions of the site. The current vegetation is mostly only grass, so little if any
critical landforms and vegetation are being damaged.
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers
on neighboring properties. The properties to the north and south have similar steep slopes
to their western side. These properties are considered cross -slope to the subject property,
not above or below it. Thus the western slopes on those properties are not affected by the
development on the subject property. Therefore, the proposed development will not result
in a greater risk or the need for an increased buffer on neighboring properties.
f The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is
preferred over graded artificial slopes. The development plan achieves this in our opinion.
in summary, we firmly believe that the altered slope buffer as noted above in this study is
very suitable for this site.
The on -site soils can be reused as structural fill or wall backfill, provided that they are placed in dry
weather and are at, or near, the optimum moisture content. If the on -site soils can be adequately
compacted as wall backfill, a minimum 12-inch width of sand and gravel should first be placed
against the walls.
The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the
weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil,
the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We
anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas.
Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of soil or
mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Trucks should not be allowed to drive off of
the rock -covered areas. Existing catch basins in the planned work areas should be protected with
pre -manufactured silt socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during
wet weather. As with any project, additional erosion control measures may be required depending
on conditions encountered during construction.
The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to
prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active
seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from
the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the
concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and
bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable
conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist
air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may
be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential
vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or
mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure.
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the
recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan
review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 6
revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical
constraints that become more evident during the review process.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report
should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
recommendations.
SEISmIC CONSIDERATIONS
The site class definition is illustrated on Table No. 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code
(IBC). In accordance with Table 1615. 1.1 of the 2003 IBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the
ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil Profile). The site soils
are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature.
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings beadng
on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil or on structural fill placed above this competent native
soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations
regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate
compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement.
Pdor to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the
geotechnical engineer to document that adequate beadng soils have been exposed. We
recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24
inches, respective'ly. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes
should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required.
Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil pdor to pouring concrete. Depending
upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.
Depending on the final site grades, overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose
competent native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the
overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the
overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the
bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean
concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing.
An allowable beadng pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf)i is appropriate for footings
supported on competent native soil or on structural fill placed above competent native soil A one-
third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considedng short-term wind or
seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction
settlement of footings founded on competent native soil will be less than one inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by fdction between the foundation and
the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
foundation' * I For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively
level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following
ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
PARAMEI'ER UIL11-1VIATE
VAIX];:
Coefficient of Friction 0.40
Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf
Where: (I) pef is pounds per cubic foot, and (H) passive earth
pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
JN 06230
Page 7
if the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will
not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's
resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed- by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
level backfill:
IActive Earth Pressure *
35 pcf
Passive Earth Pressure
300 pcf
Coefficient of Friction
0.40
Soil Unit Weight
130 pcf
Where: (I) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (H) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
* For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its
height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It
is not appropriate to back -calculate soil strength parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit
weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level
structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and
passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety
factor of at least 1.5 for overtuming and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls.
Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from
comers or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur
where a wall is restrained by a comer.
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 8
to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within
a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral
pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be
well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should
be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the
higher soil forces that occur during compaction.
Retaininc
i Wall Backrill and Waterprooring
Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining
structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native silty
soils can be adequately compacted as wall backfill, a -minimum 12-inch width of free -
draining sand and gravel should first be placed against the wall. For increased protection,
drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be
backfilled entirely with free -draining soil. The later section entitled Drainage
Considerattons should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface
drainage behind foundation and retaining walls.
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a
retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to
prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the
performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow
patterns can Change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing
should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically
includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or
membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing
materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with
the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt
emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to
reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the
concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through
concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is
appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining
walls. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
JN 06230
Page 9
or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations
of mold and mildew are desired.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop existing non -organic soils, or on
structural -fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab
construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and
replaced with select, imported structural fill.
Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through
the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a
capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed
rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand
content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture
protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also
notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is
defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour,
as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used
under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The
sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for
vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour
when tested'in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can
meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to
aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was hot recommended by ACI for this purpose.
However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI
literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the
time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement,
which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up
through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barder/retarder.
Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab
is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/biotter material be used. However, ACI then
recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material,
joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other
measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
generally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all
means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
JN 06230
Page 10
Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in
unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the upper 10 feet of soil at the subject site would generally
be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be
excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between
the top and the bottom of a cut.
The above-recorn mended temporary slope inclination is based an the conditions exposed in our
explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is
possible that vadations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the
inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain
unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining
walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet
weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The
cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. . Excavation,
foundation, and ublity contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These
recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in
the past by ublity installabon, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Water should not
be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently
exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and
improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
We recommend that foundation drains be installed at the base of all foundation and earth -retaining
walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus,,washed rock and
then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At
its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab
floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water
drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to
this report as Plate 5. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended
for all subsurface drains.
Drainage inside the building's footprint should also be provided if the excavation encounters
significant seepage. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become
necessary, during excavation and foundation construction.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 11
As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in
any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an
outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may
bypass the footing drains.
No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it
should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French
drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of
the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away
from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations,
slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to a building should
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided
where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL
All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
other deleterious material. It is important that existing foundations be removed before site
development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be
used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds.
Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building,
behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs
to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts With a moisture content at, or
near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that
results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness
should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
WCA'FION OF F11J, N11N1'-.k4IJA,1RE1,ATIVJ7
CONIPAGI]ON
Beneath footings, slabs 95%
or walkways
Filled slopes and behind 90%
retaining walls
Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed In
percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry
density, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor).
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert JN 06230
April 23, 2010 Page 12
The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils.
Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or
clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve
should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as
they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions
encountered in the borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the
subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions
and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are
commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
samples in borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such
unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly
constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to
accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all
projects.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Raymond Bogaert and his representatives
for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based
on observed site materials and selective laboratory testing. Our conclusions and recommendations
are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope
of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The
scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors methods, techniques, sequences, or
procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services
also do not include assessing or.minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold,
bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development.
ADDITIONAL SERMES
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and
observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are
consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation
construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this
report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job
and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor.
During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when
reques . ted by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work
we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to
verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
The following plates are attached to complete this report:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bogaert
April 23, 2010
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
Plates 3 - 4 Boring Logs
Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain Detail
JN 06230
Page 13
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONIJULTANTS, INC.
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
BROINS
BAY
A
.7
_CIL
711H 01
ovum
FSITE
_TL
a
e.
'N
On t
x
-rip
:FL
FL a
-IW8M--dz
A
-tT
5W
ST
".13
IM IST,
V
F=
1967
A' ST SW
PUG
DR
PKEE
HEM LN
/AV
.. ... K
v
' '
OR
WE ST
----
-- - HT
PAW
-ism
a
SIMA'
2001H
ST 511
Ham
124
CAM
'- !
ST
.
- k,
1 S,
L94
I If
at
if
OL
JAM
'ST
PC
9
L
ST
PLO
NI Y
DAYTON
WINA
At"
lxgw:.
NAM,
144M.
WELL
LOOOOI
k-Mi'l
ir-amw,
. ...
re
rMaAft KWAA
PT fim
.---
A
Saw
SWT--
2iffni
26
R
9
T
307M
L
or
COOLA
TH
ST
a
ie
-0
.
nI&M
D
4� MO
PL
GEOTECH
CONSULTMIUS, INC.
(Soufca., The Thomas Guide, Snohomish County, Washington, 1998)
VICINrrY MAP
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
No: Date: platel.
06230 1 August 20061 1
Burlington Northern railroad tracks —20
-----------
-30
40
50
B-1
60
A
Proposed I
Residence
CL
.470
Proposed
Garage
> B-2
80
F.,
Existing
Residence
A90
30.
100
LA
Sound View Place
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
GEOTECH 18600 Sound View Place
CONSULTANTS, INC. I Edmonds, Washington
Job No. I Date: plate.
2
06230 1 August20061 NoScale I I I
X. BORING I
C Description
U:
Grass over
Brown, silty SAND, fine-grained, damp, loose
7
1
5
4
2
MI
19
3 1:::::::
becomes gravelly, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense
10—
UT
becomes dense
49
4
gravel in tip; blows likely overstated
Test boring was terminated at 11.5 feet on July 14, 2006, due to
refusal.
No groundwater seep�ge was encountered during drilling.
1 20
1 25
1 30
1 35
1 40
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job Date: I Logged by: I Plate:
06230 1 July 2006 GDB
BORING 2
ell jCP '0
Cs
Description
IGrass and Topsoil over
Brown, silty SAND, trace gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose
3
becomes gray, medium -dense
E_ 1 1 1.5 12 111 It it I I
14
3 1; 1110111
no gravel
SM
10
23
4 #:11111;
- gravel layer
21
5
- becomes less silty, medium -grained, moist to very moist, medium -dense
35
6
- becomes dense
38
7
becomes
- gray
Test boring was terminated at 19 feet on July 14, 2006.
20
No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling.
� 25
30
35
W, Ell
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC-
BORING LOG
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job I D ILoggedby. Plate:
06230 ajteu:,y 200, GDB 1 4
Slope backfill away from
foundation. Provide surface
drains where necessary.
. Backfill
(See text for
requirements)
Nonwoven Geotextile
Filter Fabric
Washed Rock
(7/8" min. size)
DI-0-0-0-0-0-
��;x-j
D o'
o D., 0
EW I M11
Tightline Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
11 Possible Slab
- 0-.. to �� . .-. 11 . D.. ' . * -,13,' - ,0
IWO ?don
0-0-- 0*0 0 F*'P 0*0 F0,
4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at least 6 inches below
slab or crawl space. Slope to
drain to appropriate outfall.
Place holes downward.)
Vapor Retarder/Barrier and
Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
(Refer to Report text)
NOTES:
(1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that
bypasses the perimeter footing drains.
(2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations.
GEOTECH
CONSUILTAIM, INC.
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
18600 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job 70-. Date: Piate. 5
06230 August 20061 1
t I
CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 18600 Sound View Place Tax Acct. Number: 00 4346 002 017 01,
00 4346 002 010 00
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA20060114
Applicant: Morgan Hougland,TCA Arch. Owner: Raymond Bogaert
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site'may contain
critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous areas, pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the
subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and
identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a
specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas
report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion
of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a
specific development proposal to complete the study, You may also choose submit the
entire study with your specific development application.
Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas
which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requiremenis
for different types of critical areas (see below).
Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional
as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical
areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You
may contact the Planning Division for more information.
General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC
23.40.110 hrough 23.40.140.
EROSION HAZARD AREA DEFINED
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard A.rea. Erosion
Hazard Areas include:
• Those areas with Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or
greater; and
• Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded
with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and
• Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also
include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope.
0
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development within an Erosion Hazard Area must meet additional criteria.
• For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stabili!y, the only critical area study
needed is an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC as part of the construction
documents. This option is at.the director's discretion, per Edmonds Community
Development Code section 20.80.050.G.
• In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard
Areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified
professional.
0 Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional
as defined in the ordinance.
0 Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC
23.40.090.D
0 Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
9 A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or
steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed
of consolidated bedrock).
9 Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
0 In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced
above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are
provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed
Geotechnical Engineer.
• The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
• The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15'
building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the
standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the
requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060.
• In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply
with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC
23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development
qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information.
0A
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements
(ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt,
contact a Planner for more information.
Meg Gruwell November 14, 2005
Name Signature Date
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be
found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
0
-2-�, -�o
4PI-
/ C�� '
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS
M/\YOR
-NUENORIti-ED.0,1[)S.�,�A98020-(425)771-Om-
RI Q--MWW--- 21 51 H AVE
io�� 'Nebsite�,,%,YtA,.ci.edmonds.,.-,-..us
-%< DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1p '. I S C)1) Plaiining - BUilding - Engineering
February 11, 2008
Stephen Rising
TCA Architecture -Planning, Inc.
Stephen@,tca-inc.corn
RE: Driveway Slope Waiver Request for 18600 Soundview Place
Mr. Rising,
This.lettcr is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of
14%, received December 20, 2007 and to confirm for your records the approval indicated in my e-mail
dated January 11, 2008. The City has reviewed your letter requesting the slope waivcr as well as the
preliminary development plans submitted with YOUr request.
The request to exceed the 14% driveway slope is for two distinct areas of the driveway. The first beirig
the eastern portion of the drive which is existing and provides access to an existing carport. This section
of driveway is to remain and is shown -to have a slope of 17.3%-19%. The second area encompasses the
new sccti -on of driveway to be constructed between the existing drive arid the proposed drive Court located
in front of the two car garage. The two car garage is shown to be detached from the main residence, with
the main residence accessible by a foot bridge. It is understood that the location of the new garage has
been held at as high an elevation as possible and to the cast up slope from the house to reduce the length
and minirnize slope. This section of driveway is shown to have a slope of 17%.
The request to allow a maximum driveway slope between 17% and 19% for the areas indicated imthie.
attached site plan is found to be reasonable. The applicant will be required to meet all -other Engineering
requirements at the time of building permit submittal.
Please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnel I at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338 should you have any questions.
PKVID K * GEBERT
CITY ENGINEER
j III
C: street file
Incorporated August .11, 7890
Sister City - Hekinan, Jap�n
architecture . planning
David Gebert, City Engineer
City of Edmonds Engineering Division
-121 5" Ave. North-2nd Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Slope Waiver Request for 18600 Sound View Place
Dear David,
r5
8
041-C 2 (") 2007
P r-
E'R, Mi 1 T C () I i N J "rE R
15 November 2007
Please consider this submittal for approval of proposed driveway, sloped evenly at 17%, for 18600 Sound
View Place. This attached drawings are submitted per City of Edmonds Municipal Code 18.80.060.D. The
proposed driveway is an extension to the existing driveway, which is sloped at 17.3% to 19% . The location of
the new.garage is held at as high an elevation as possible and to the east up slope from house to reduce the
drive length and minimize slope.
The new7driveway terminates at a drive court with lesser slope of 5.1% to facilitate turnaround, which we
understood as desirable from Jeannie McConnell, Edmonds Engineering Manager. The driveway and court
will,have a rockery and concrete retaining wall supporting part of the south edge, also provided'to minimize
slope. These will be engineered as required for approval within the building permit application process.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information for this approval.
Sincerely,
Stephen Reed Rising, AIA
TCA. Arch itectu re- Planning, Inc.
v. 206.522.3830
f. 206.522.2456
stephen@tca-inc.com
Attachments:
1. A. Overall Site Plan, B. Site Section with South Elevation
2. Enlarged Driveway Plan
62 i 1, Roosevelt Way Northeast , Seattle, WA # 98115
�oice: (206) 522-3830 - Fax: ('Wo6) 522-2456 # E-maill: hougland@tco-inc.com - Web: www.tco-inc.com
ZA04 Proiects\4.03Resident;6i�06:158og6&i Res\09 Bug Dept. (-,00e,..ut-tttes\i ii5o?.i Slope vor�w.ce -.ettef.cloc
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CALCULATIONS
DRIVEWrY LENGTH AT INSIDE ARC 77'-V
2007
TOTAL FALL IN bRADE 93'-l* - 8i7-0'= 13'-0 1/2'
FINAL DRIVEWAY SLOPE 13"I'l 7T = 17.0%
ENLARGEP PRIVEHA f PLAN
Ob-15 0 T
�r-5-,.ALE Iku (t)
15.NOV�C)l
APPROX. LINE OF (E) &RADE
AT U OF PROPERTY HIDTH
(;'V5ITE 5ECTION HITH 5OUTH ELEV,6\TION
LIj
0
Z
z
9:E7
0 j-,
z -
-3
C�RIIE E -73%-q*
�T _j� ll'-C� 9�ENCII� OF PROF��D PRIVE) L;RivE-r I
-t3'l- (E) ELEVt�TION
--- 17-
CIO
17
P�c �Rry oWE
— — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — -
2 GM ExtST DRI'�
(A6PKAL T)
6ARACE w
LZ
--------------- --- --- -----
\-ENLAR(:,El) DRIVEHAY PLAN
0-�n�LL �51TE �PLAN �lax I IY�00434�(-0020�1000�0045�46002�01-10�I O'b-15 A�
15.NOV.01 T
w
U
C
z
D
0
PERMITTRAX (HARRI-SON/PT-LIVE) - PermitTrax by Bitco Software
A
PER mi r7i�x
SEARCH PERMITS]
Search Permits Address '18600 . SOUND
Status Console Type Permit Type
Date Range Created to
Page I of I
SEARCH PERMITS
Copyright 2006 by Bitco Software, LLC
L-j 'a an"
Permit
Status
lConsole ;Created Type Numlaer
. ,
Address 10a
Unit
-ty
JECOMONDS-
Total Fee
T.Ml Paid
Total Due
API-20070004
DENIED
APL-2007 '8/1 5 /2007 Plan HE 18600
SOUND VIEW PL
$205.00
($205.00)
$0.00
CRA20060114
STUDY RED.
CRA-200618/3/2006 lCritictil Area
SOUND VIEW PL
EDMONDS
1$135.00
($135.00)
$0.00
BLD20100048
APPLIED
BLD-200 112212010 64 - Ssngle Family 18600
ISOUND VIEW PL
EDMONDS
$5.61050
($2.46200)
1$3.14850
PLN20060102
DENIED
IPLN-2006 8/3/2006. Variance. Hearing 600
SOUND VIEW PL
EDMONDS
1$1,320.00
($1.3 20.00)
$0.00
CRA19950154
STUDY PEN.
iCRA-1 :7119/1995 11,600
SOUNDVIEWPL
ISOUNDVIEWPL
EDMONDS
$000
$000
$000
CRA19950155
WAIVER
CRA. 1 17/19/1995 *18600
EDMONDS
S000
$000
$000
ENG19960221
COMPLETE
ENG-1 .818/1996 EUC ROW 18600
ISOUNDVIEWPL
EDMONDS
$3000
($3000)
ISOOO
PLN-I 111/1900 LL 18600
ISOUNDVIEWPL
PLN196700070-36.
APPROVED
EDMONDS
-M.DS
$000
$000
$000
PLN-I 0
V :18601 ];;U�DVIEWPL
......... . ........ ..... ................. . . . —
$0.00
— —
$0.00
- —
$0.00
PLN199500123-80.
APPROVED
---- -
_.J�D.
---
BLDi9830030
FINAL
JBILD-1 11/25/1983 :76 - Woodslovenn :18601
SOUNPVIEWPL
EDMONDS
S000
$000
$000
BLD19910445
FINAL
BLD-1 :61511991 27 - FencelScreeni :18600
EDMONDS
s000
$000
$000
BLD19940528
FI
:40. Mechan
--:2
�SOUNDVIEWPL
DMOND S
$0.00
$0.00
$000
BLD19960402
FINAL
IBLD-1 6/22711996 - Addition 18600
SOUNDVIEWPI.
—��END
MO
D S
$893.
1 1
BLD20040329
FINAL
4 7 - Plu.-b—.ng-/-W--a—t —186—L--
BLD-1 15/412004 00
W�N V�IEPL
EDMONDS
$500
r�o I
http://edmondspmtweblpermittraxlPermi.tTraxMainlwfPermitSearch.aspx?CONID=PT-LI... 1/25/2010
i D
-'11 —C
. Is9z
City of � Edmonds
Development Services Department
Building -Engineering -Planning
121 5th Avenue North -2d Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221
L I
COVER PAGE
To:. From:
Date Transmlfted1:,//,k///!�'? _�Recipient's Fax No C"—),;:9. d No. of Pages:
1 lit, UU11 ly wVer page.;
If there are any problems during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please
call 425. 771.0220 and ask for:
L:Ternp/jana/fbrms/DSFAX
112 C. 18 9'�
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 * FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwzi.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
STREET FILF
February 11, 2008
Stephen Rising
TCA Architecture -Planning, Inc.
Stephen@tca-inc.com
M-19
OfPA, RE: Driveway Slope Waiver Request for 18600 Soundview Place
Mr. Rising,
This letter is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of
14%, received December 20, 2007 and to confirm for your records the approval indicated in my e-mail
dated January 11, 2008. The City has reviewed your letter requesting the slope waiver as well as the
preliminary development plans submitted with your request.
The request to exceed the 14% driveway slope is for two distinct areas of the driveway. The first being
the eastern portion of the drive which is existing and provides access to an existing carport. This section
of driveway is to remain and is shown to have a slope of 17.3%-19%. The second area encompasses the
new section of driveway to be constructed between the existing drive and the proposed drive court located
in front of the two car garage. The two car garage is shown to be detached from the main residence, with
the main residence accessible by a foot bridge. It is understood that the location of the new garage has
been held at as high an elevation as possible and to the east up slope from the houseto reduce the length
and rminimize slope. This section of driveway is shown to have a slope of 17%.
The request to allow a maximum driveway slope between 17% and 19% for the areas indicated in the
attached site plan is found to be reasonable. The applicant will be required to meet all other Engineering
requirements at the time of building permit submittal.
Please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338 should you have any questions.
P;tVID K. GEBERT
CITY ENGINEER
jm
-1/c: street file
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
r1F A DEC 2 0 2007
PERMIT COUNTER
architecture e planning
David Gebert, City Engineer
City of Edmonds Engineering Division
121 !�' Ave. North-2' Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Slope Waiver Request for 18600 Sound View Place
Dear David,
15 November 2007
Please consider this submittal for approval of proposed driveway, sloped evenly at 17%, for 18600 Sound
View Place. This attached drawings are submitted per City of Edmonds Municipal Code 18.80.060.D. The
proposed driveway is an extension to the existing driveway, which is sloped at 17.3% to 19% . The location of
the new garage is held at as high an elevation as possible and to the east up slope from house to reduce the
drive length and minimize slope.
The new driveway terminates at a drive court with lesser slope of 5.1 % to facilitate turnaround, which we
understood as desirable from Jeannie McConnell, Edmonds Engineering Manager. The driveway and court
will have a rockery and concrete retaining wall supporting part of the south edge, also provided'to minimize
slope. These will be engineered as required for approval within the building permit application process.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information for this approval.
Sincerely,
7
Stephen Reed Rising, AIA
TCA Architecture- Planning, Inc.
v. 206.522.3830
f. 206.522.2456
stephen@tca-inc.com
Attachments:
1. A. Overall Site Plan, B. Site Section with South Elevation
2. Enlarged Driveway Plan
�21 1 Roosevelt Way Northeast # Seattle, WA * 98115
Voice: (206) 522-3830 * Fax: (206) 522-2456 # E-mail: hougland@tca-i*nc.com * Web: www.tca-inc.com
Z:\04 Projects\4.03 Residentfal\06-15 Bogaert Res\09 Bldg Dept, Codes, Utilites\l 11507.1 Slope variance Lette;.doc
Cit of Edmok
y
RIGHT-OF-WAY.CONSTRUCTION..
PERMIT Permit Number.
Issue Date:
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 0 0 Tb
B. Type of Work (be specific): -fg e t4c 1A W a o k C-_ kQ A h roq -S'ac.
890 C�
Q 6 1ZG9 &/(A) (11PO
C. Conti -actor: Swo. Co. P. 0 1 !!N Contact: SoR KLK&LEq comO L E'r,
Mailing Address: Z 0 S6,1 �1, Phone: to-16 17- 14
StateLicense#: UJA elroZ Liability Insurance: Bond: $
D. Building Permit# (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
E. E] Commercial F] Subdivision Y
E] Multi -Family Single Family
INSPECTOR:
F1. Pavement or Concrete Cut: 0 Yes R]No
E] City Project E] Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER)
E]. Other
INSPECTOR:
G. Size�of Cut-/ x H. Charge$
f
APPLICANT TO. READAND SIGN
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agre % to hold the City ofEdmondg harmless from injuries, damages, or
19, inst the City of EdmoAd!,� or.�ny
claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, thatmay e,!nacle aga of its departments or
.%,
employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legalproceedings includikg Zfkn-be'costs, and attorney fees by�,r4qas�orf of t�tgthispermit.
grft
THE CONTRACTOR A RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
hNSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK iSTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH
IS'COMPLETED B Ylciry FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT.
Construction drav�ing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 2416u'r'notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street *41',be kept clean at all times.
I and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
Traffic, o
Allstrb cuCdi hes shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day;
%TC4
Iha ve read the abobe statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be
auailable on site at all times for inspection purposes.
Signature: Date:
(Contractor or Agent)
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
I 11�1 �� 1, . FOR'CITY USE ONLY
APPROVED BY:
TIME AUTHORIZE D: VOID AFTER OC-17 30k. DAYS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: No �,Cl? CWT5
AtrLOL-r_o I ti., N.)ADWA% 0 JNJ
RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
DISRUPTION FEE/FUND 111'.
.RESTORATION -FEE:
-PERMIT FEE: 5��2-
TOTAL, FEE:
COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE -
DATE:; ISSUED BY:�,
Ilk'
U_
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
Enj. Div. 1094
1476
"UBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
REV. 7/a7
LOCATION 16(000 . 'S0UWM-v%Ew PL_
:SoL)-rkl
Cotiv-rY AREA
POLE NO. t4 E 1/4 S � Z T 2 7 R 2)
DATE
9-7- IG
W. 0. NO.
32
REASON FOR WORK TgL-Wr_;-( OW . 90 E R_ 0. A C)
ENGINEER
kAKNLlEY D WG. N 0.
I
AM Z> -r 'SEC , 915D' Fok UEWWiS KISIEL
DRAFTER
U. G. NO.
SCALE 1 0
DATE WORK COMPLETED
DATE
PRINTED
APPROVED
FOREMAN ---
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FEES REQ'D wyEs 0 NO
0 EXEMPT 0 NOT EXEMPT
SUBSTATION
PARA. 18 ITEM
C
PRIMARY OVERHEAD
O.H. U.G. COND.
KV
CIRCUIT NO.
34,'-)
PHASE Z
11 RESIDENTIAL
0 COMMERCIAL
A
ADD CKT. FT.
REM
PH
LEO#
CKT. FT.
PH
NET CKT. FT.
/r
O.H. U.G. COND. _KV
SECONDARY OVERH
BASIC
V_
ADD CKT. FT. PH
s
REM CKT. FT. PH
NET CKT. FT.
METER/CONV-p�)bLE
PERMITS (DATE GRANTED)
PRIM ARY rURGROUND
0 TREE TRIM
I
• RESIDE I L
L
1
• COMM CIAL
.0 STATE
BASIC FEE
0 COUNTY
Sos KAK&L�_:Y
LE
6-70 -'SZ 14-
os
210 - 93M
51 *S - 1154
EASEMENTS
SECONDARY UNDERGROUND
BASIC FEE $__ET00_
0 REOUIRED N 0 T OUIRED
c_
$
UNDERGROUND PLAT
D RELEASED
BASIC FEE
FOREIGN CONTACTS
t FT.
0 GTNW JPN#
STREET NG
0 CATV JPN#
FT. 0 $ s
10 JOINT TRENCH GTNW & CATV
0 JOINT BORE GTNW & CATV
WORK IN RIGHT OF WAY
* PRIMARY
POLE STENCILING
* SECONADARY
7S/ 7 S'
45 It FT. 0 =
FROM TO
TAKE OFF POLE
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
VAULT
PRE-CONSTR. REQUIREMENTS
�/GIIL, =,?bl90 PERMIT $__30-oo_
0 TREE TRIM 0 PUD LOCATOR
$_
M BACKHOE 0 FLAGGING
0 ONE CALL DATE
POLES
PLAT
TOTAL DUE S 8 33. 77—
U-MAP
DATE PAID
C-MAP
RECEIPT# _
LOCATION MAP PAGE 4,S-4-I(-,3 I
NEW SVCE. APPLICATION#
Locat
Fg, oA& E>oS'T-it,,J6 PEbj
q CR 4 5-' 1 w K/vj 04E)
FoAb 2-Z' VJF-S-'r- (-T-0 BE t>o?-JE SY PACIF:kC, CA,131.E)
T R F- t,4 C-4 ,j F S -r A, W b 'S F- -T- 'S E C- - P E 1--,
tQ S-rAL L 100' C- ow -r t N u o u I" PVC f=9,OM E)(kS71N6
E t� -ro N E V,) p E-
Rum — izo, 4-/0 -rk�PLEA rRo&k F-Kis-rINC, \OEC� -ro KIEw PF-D
tion: 27N3E13A Scale 1:60
RECEIVED
AS[ 7: P
-44* f
7 t
KI +
'�4
rz.
J1
L
-4-
FLA
�31 10�!-
< Tr
C" N aq KAY
L 4
=6
-4 plk�
�j I T 1 4
j CDi:
4- j i
'41
-t-4 4
L; L'
+
F
20
;4
- '.. � I -i - - - -[I ' -1 1 1
IOU,
7�7.
-4
41-
LH _1 T
TT
I J
--7-� f
17
T""
IT
Tj 14
T
J41
16
17
4L
17
4-1
"IT
14
H
.7. 71m
t
I L
4; !!.-i!1 -
;j
Ti
I L
�"T i
_T
I 71L,;
4 T
XEM
�j
7D. . . . . . . ...
i TI
_T . 7T
12
4,
i 4
j-i7
f-14-4- _t,-,
L 4
414_
_L_14 : i, JIL
f7
7 -r-t, 4
AM!
17. A-i- ---'�-;7774
T 44
JT:
�6
ij
. �tl
74-T44
j
+ f4 4- �..J.4 �2
-TIJ
T
J'J 0-
t-'rl- - 4
rr
- L
4�1
-EX15TI
4-y
5 "9
- -1
T-1
V, :.;
-4
4 J-� 4
4
MAR'010) A
50Ucu 4u VA
7j
+
Aj 0" � -,
a CIL ATTACHMENT 4
File No. V-95-123 1
-APPROVED BY PLANW',IG
41)660 4 u
RECEIVED
062
__T 1_1 I -14-1 J 1,
1-f-* " T*
-i-I Li, J --i
4-
T I j j
47.
-beN N ISE- i< -Y;---!-
- 1 __ ; :, j
-j J .. J., � i I I
A
J
CD
I Al .1 .4
)12, - WA
_c
PA
Y, "61 F O'cEA�q
14
q�'
J
434 '-OC�t
1
L I:
#
&A- �tj.4
J.
J.,
�-50XZ_
17
4T1
T1
74 li_
R
44,
bW., - -------- --- t
41
J,
f�M HWA
'N901M
CiARVIE N
!--1- 4-1 it
34 j- f
H_.i J7
171
71;
L!
-A� . i i i i i i i
H-I j
7-
V.:t1q,
4 4
+]
cc
4 uj
L 4__
f
L
41
t C)
4
IT�'
v
4 -1-1441 ITT
cr_
4 4 L r
-4 J
L
jj'�
P.,
IT,
JJ
. .........
j
L"A
A
b<iSTJ N6c!-,,.
_H
;J E�C
J 7;
]
OIL.
J-0 . .... ...
V 'I 5�-; 113
I
is-,
7
d
J'4 !_Z]
:iJ
f got
F1 Ak 4>6
El"
ATTACHMENT 4
L
App'ROVFD BYTLANNING File No. V-95-123 ?aP'h
INA.
ulty 01 hamolm
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSITUCTION
PERMIT
Permit Number.
Issue Date: 17/
A. Address or I Vicinity of Construction: .18600 Soundview P1 9420144
46'
B. Type of Work (be specific): Install ni--w Service
8 9 0 oC5
C. Contractor: W ashingt2n Natural Gas compan Contact: Frank Swan,
Mailing Address: 815 Mercer Street, Seattle Phone: 224-2178
State License #: WA 98111 Liability Insurance: Bond:$
D. Building Permit # (if applicable):' Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
E. E] Commercial E] Subdivision El City Project [?g Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER),
E] Multi -Family E] Single Family Other
INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: L_kjkJt�,_�
F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: C1 Yes G. Size of Cut: x H. Charp�_$
�No
APPLICANT TO R EAD AND SIGN
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City' ofEdmonds 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
I
employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legalproceedings including defense c 'I d tt fees by reason of
an a orney granj thispermit.
'in
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS 1701i"A� AlJRIOD OF ONE YEAR -FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES!FALL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH
I
IS,COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL B�!�R�eFS�;Ep FOR ISSUANCE(T 'TffEA1�00CANT.
�,O
Constructioh drawing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Workand material is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street shall be kept clean at all times.
Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day;
NO EXCEPTIONS.
I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and thepink copy of thepermitwillbe
available on site �tt_ak-am'e n purposes.
Signature: Date: June 08- 1994
(Contractor or Agent)
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING. WORK
FOR CITY USE ONLY
APPROVED BY: RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND Ill:,
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: RESTORATION FEE:
"2
PERMIT FEE:
TOTAL FEE:
COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE:
DATE: ISSUED BY:
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Fngrg. Div. 1991