18720 SOUNDVIEW PL.PDF11111111111111
13195
18720 SOUNDVIEW
PL
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: —
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREA,:. o(a —1 DETERMINATION: F] Conditional Waiver '�&dy Required [] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
I
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
:2-
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
/1)
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: .2-Sr%57
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LATEMP\DS'Ps\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
19 PLANNINGDATA Q
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STREETLILE
- _J1
Name:
I-
Date: Cl)
N — 0 - I L)
Site Address: /8 7,;4-0
Tax Parcel. 0o'-13 40616)046
Project Description: 7DO �0 3 CL �ra.
Plan Check #:
1) L-0 L)
Reduced Site Plan Provided: 65)/ NO)
Zoning Ps- I ^>--
Map Page:
Corner Lot: (YES
Flag Lot: (YES / 00
Critical Areas Determination#: CRA-�-oo--)w7j
Z'Study Required
E] waiver
SEPA D �'ermination:
WExempt
El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
RequiredSetbacks
Street:
S;'du: 1'6
Side:
�e —ar
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
El Detached Structures:
15Kkockeries:
El Fences/Trellises:
El Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation:
El Stairs/Deck:
Heiglit
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height:
Offier
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Area:
Maximum Lot Coverage: 350/6 Proposed:
Lot Coverage Calculations:
ADU Created: (YES
Subdivision:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
Comment5
Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 07-14-09.doc
STREET�IL
_ 7E
PLANNING DATA S 11 �7_]
Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 07-14-09.doc
PLANNING DATA STREET F[LE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Name: Date: or,
Site Address: �-o VVtJ (f,-Vv_� 4 C Plan Check
Project Description: S-Fl`Z
Reduced Site Plan Provided: NO) Z01.1ing: 12s—
Map Page: Corner Lot: (YES Flag Lot: (YES 160D
Critical Areas Determination ff: e4!20c)77 0 (9 0 -7— 0
Pl--gudy Required W 0 0 6C11 fq (A� CIVO
El Waiver
SEPA Determination:
��Exempt /X/ Yzs- CV
El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
El Fee El Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
Reqtulire�dcl backs
Side
Street: Side: to Rear- 2- -5-
Act-tial Setbacks
Street I : 40 Si * de: /0 Side.- /0 ear: Z
15PV'etaclied Structures: - swp/�
P-Rockeries: 43 W/,?% 5-4ALck
11 Fences/Trellises:
El Bay Windows/P ding Modulation:
c
,�e
Stairs/0eck: (Y% J V4 cic4L < .3 3, &Alkva jl'fh 3. 3 3
1 �Ietght
Datum Point: Datum Elevation: /Do
ug e . I.— GIL," W
Maximum Height Allowed: ZS- 00 q 1-5- riot. S-2, Actual Height- 0/_ 721
Other
Parking Required: C_Z_
Parking Provided.- Z
Lot Area: C?
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed:
Lot Coverage Calculations: 3q3oqs
ADU Created: (YES
Subdivision:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES 1(90
COMMeRtS C,_
35�- 2'7
6- -7r.o7_ 116 9 13- moz '316 - 0 9 �76-52
C 0
-7
D ft-7
61
Plan Review By: 10�47_ 64�*7-2 // V 4 Z)
Kmaoq Oata Fam 04 -1106 -doc
6LC"-�S &P�
c
- --.A
0 0
CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location:
18720 Soundview Place
Tax Acct Number:
004346 001 00700
Determination:
Study Required
Determination #:
CA-06-4
Applicant:
Leif Helleren Const. Inc.
Owner:
Leif Helleren Const. Inc.
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-06-4)
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain
critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous areas, and the site is adjacent to the
Puget Sound, which is considered a Frequently Flooded Area and a Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area pursuant to Chapter 23.40 through 23.90 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 234.- �'RICEIVPZ
through 23.40.140. Z.
NOV 16 2009
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA DEVELOpp11LpNT SEPVICES CTR.
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. C17Y OF ED&1ONDS
• 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.B.
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.
0 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.
SOS'
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.
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
On the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 1305, this site is in an area determined to be
outside the 500-year floodplain, but it is across the Burlington Northern Railroad right-
of-way from a special flood hazard area inundated by 1 00-year floods, with a base flood
elevation determined as elevation 10 (see map for elevation datum).
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
The site is across the railroad right-of-way from Puget Sound, which is a mapped Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, considered a water of the state, and is home to
fish that have been federally designated as endangered or threatened. No specific
buffer is required along Puget Sound by our Critical Areas regulations. With any
development proposal, if there is a concern regarding the impact of the proposal on the
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, the City reserves the right to require
recommendations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, require
erosion control measures, require planting of native plant species to mitigate for loss of
vegetation and take other measures needed to protect the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area.
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.
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.
Mpa Girtiwoll February 14. 200(
Name Unature 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.
-.A�.A
T'7'�'w
-061
Of ED/,
0 +
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220
0 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
0
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: The applicant has proposed to construct a new single family residence and
detached garage on a lot addressed as 18720 Soundview Place, located in a Single -Family Residential
(RS-12) zone. The grading associated with the proposed new residence and garage will be approximately
1,500 cubic yards. (File Nos. BLD-2007-0699 and BLD-2007-1153)
Proponent: Joe Molina, TGB Architects
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 18720 Soundview Place
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have
been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under
chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW
43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no
significant adverse impacts will be created.
An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made
after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2),- the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by December 11, 2007.
Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Planner
Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425-771-0220
Date: 4o vuk 7. ?,00-i Signature: / 10, Fu (_ 1,9 44 CkX&Ie
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manag% at 121 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the speAific reasons for the
�ppeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form
no later than December 11, 2007.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals.
XX Posted on November 27, 2007, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community
Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the
Checklist.
Page I of 2
SEPA ONS 07-0649 KNUTSONDOC
11126/07 SFPA
Mailed SEPA Determination to properties within
300 feet of the site.
Mailed SEPA Determination and the Environmental
Checklist to the following:
XX Environmental Review Section
XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager
Snohomish Co. PUD
Department of Ecology
PO Box 1107
P.O. Box 47703
Everett, WA 98206-1107
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
XX Applicant: Joe Molina
XX COMCAST
TGB Arcqhlects
Outside Plant Engineer, North Region
2191176 Avenue W, Suite 210
410 Valley Ave NW # 12
Edmonds, WA 98026
Puyallup, WA 98371-3317
XX DNR SEPA Center
P.O. Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
0
pc: File Nos. BLD-2007-0699 and BLD-2007-1153
SEPA Notebook
18720 Soundview Place
:*i
Wj�iEf? S
'T
MIMM
MIS
LINA
'A
0
Page 2 of 2
SEPA DNS 07-0699 KNUrSON.DOC
W26/0TSEPA
0
Critical Areas C hP_r_k1i_qt
Oite Information (soils/ topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1.. Site Address/ Location: -Lo FL
2.
3.
4.
Property Tax Account N=tben 004 5 4u, no 1 606, no
Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): J�:p 15�p o�
Is this site currently developed? _ yes; __y_ no.
CA File No:Q Q) -7- �Pqc(
If yes; how is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevati on- change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally le S's thdn 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet, over a horizontal,
distance of 66-feet).
M or't 014t
. v4v�al
Hilly: slopes present on site of more 4.
over. a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
P 4
vl"Vf opw
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on sitoP
i,artical ris et
-of less than 33-feet). __*VWWfflX*AM
distance
Other (please describe):
Site contains areas of year-round standing water: WIA Approx. Depth:
7., Sibe contains areas of seasonal standin water: 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? — A_��
10. Site is primarily: fore9ted meadow
I
urban landscapeq��, _sliru �tc)
11. Obvious wetland is Oresenton site:
;shrubs mixed
NOV 16 2009
DEVELOPMENT s
rn% I Trul I ERVicEs CT,9
6 MAMInG
For City Staff Use 0 . nly c> Pck anl
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2)LS_-) 22 \J
2. Site is Zoned?
3. SCS mapped soil type(s)?
)-Atc/p YN-1
Ey
4. Critical Areas inveni�y orC.A/_ map in irates Critical Area on site? SAe , -
Ace-?>_ __&_1\C4_1C Eco-a-Za,
Site wit hin designated. earth subsidence landslide hazard area? NO.
DETERMINATION
--STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
Reviewed by. Date:'
1 A -
ell,
0
.47�. 1 %9-
0 #P10 0 7 11 -76�-
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 Application 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
till
L
Date Received: 0 1'
City Receipt
Critical Areas File#: �/00/— LCYq
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: slAt-on
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. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination o - f the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
pernut 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 undersignedapplicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indernnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
4 omey's fees, arising from any action or mifraction based in whole or part upon false, Misleading, inaccurate ef"
omplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLIcANT/AGENT
DATE
frope rty Ow ' ner's Authorization
By rhy signature, I certify 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 pqsting; attendan o this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE —0
Owner/Apphcant:
jz_tj Ll -r fa C>
Name
A
Street Ad&ess
State Zip
Oetlyepj�one:
Email address (optional):
Applicant Representative:
JOS— i— I 1,J js,, NOV 16 2009
Name DEVELOPMENT SERV!CES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Street Address
Vr_)M01Jt-_>S IJA
City State', Zip
!2 1!22
Telephone: 42v�; 1-'?
7 ,'W.
Email Address (optional): GXC.
#P20
9 �
City. of Edmon'ds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this -f6rm is' to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
-his/her submittal of the application to the City.
0
-� 1-1710-
Date Received: &�*�t ()-I'
Cityftceipt#`� '13?ICQ
Critical Areas File#: i�1001 W27
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $I �t.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. The City will review the checklist,.make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete A development
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to permit application.
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily. of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
d specific piece of property described on this* form. In
*aW
ti&ft . I
CNW-ffar 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.
APPUCAMN Pit Z"' DSC
The undersigned 'i'lplicant, and his/hei/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City.of Edmonds harniless 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 ftimished by the applicant, his/hei/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf.of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLicANT/AGENT DATE
Property, Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify 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 anrdstmig atten7tto this application.
SIGNATURE OF OW DATE
Owner/AppUcant:
r) &, P, I
Name
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Applicant Representative:
Name
_�-O S-7- es- A� tz- �J /,/ -:2, 1 �J i I I LA L. -n TV -
Street Address Street Address
city State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional):
751DtA0tJt::)& ILIA
City State Zip
Telephone: A v-7 - :3:1,6 - jr-5 i!2,!!> -
Email Address (optional): reel�sl
#P20 AF, 1 "'07
C He No:
Critical Areas Checklist
Site. Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetation)
1.. Site Address/ Location: FL
2. Property Tax Account Number:
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
4. Is this site currently developed? — yes; --)(- no.
If yes; how is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
VRolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
10,
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more ejjAMMZ9� v j 4(4-ee�t I
a" I , 9�' �bf.
th IMQ I
over. a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on sitV12-grtical rist et!64Q��`ek
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: WIA Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standin water: Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway !L�
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?
.Shrubs -n-dxed
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow
urban landscape�����
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
For City Staff Use Only , m-.,,, e,;�. -,,�,nl
Plan Check Number, if applicable?
Site is Zoned?
SCS mapped soil type(s)?
Critical Areas inven1dry or CA. map inJicates Critical Area on site?
�,,Ilex- Ecna�kw,
Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? NO.
DETERMINATION
—STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
Reviewed bv- ',.10 Date: I A-4
Of E[J4
.1
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
ts ; 1. 1%QQ1 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220
RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: The applicant has proposed to construct a new single family residence and
detached garage on a lot addressed as 18720 Soundview Place, located in a Single -Family Residential
(RS-12) zone. The grading associated with the proposed new residence and garage will be approximately
1,500 cubic yards. (File Nos. BLD-2007-0699 and BLD-2007-1153)
Proponent: Joe Molina, TGB Architects
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 18720 Soundview Place
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have
been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under
chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW
43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no
significant adverse impacts will be created.
An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made
after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by December 11, 2007.
Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Planner
Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425-771-0220
Date: 4o vuk 27 ?-,op-i Signature: "- , 0, A �P— �F, , , ,, , , ,
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the
appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form
no later than December 11, 2007.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals.
XX Posted on November 27, 2007, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community
Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the
Checklist.
Page I of 2
SEPA DNS 07-009 KNUTSON.DOC
I i/26/07.SEPA
Mailed SEPA Determination to properties within 300 feet of the site.
Mailed SEPA Determination and the Environmental Checklist to the following:
XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager
XX Environmental Review Section
Snohomish Co. PUD
Department of Ecology
PO Box 1107
P.O. Box 47703
Everett, WA 98206-1107
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
XX Applicant: Joe Molina
XX COMCAST
TGB Arcq lects
Outside Plant Engineer, North Region
21911 76 Avenue W, Suite 210
410 Valley Ave NW #12
Edmonds, WA 98026
Puyallup, WA 98371-3317
XX DNR SEPA Center
P.O. Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
pc: File Nos. BLD-2007-0699 and BLD-2007-1153
SEPA Notebook
A.
18720 Sounciview Place
WA—MIR 5"T
X_
N.- mi-Al
Page 2 of 2
SEPA DNS 07-0699 KNUTSON.DOC
11/26/07.SEPA
*PLANNING DATA 11 STREET FF:I�Lfli
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Name: Date -
Site Address: J_ PlanCheck#: 700-7
2a �Om 0
Project Description: S Fe 4- cbz�c OV
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (As Zoning:
Map Page:
Corner Lot (YES No
Flag Lot �YES
Critical Areas Determination ff: 7_� 0,7 0 0 6� to icc re
EKStudy 11"'W.SlIck kh
Required Lro -�13(1 wd 66 1 R- k fCDM ve s�
Waiver
SEPA Determination: 0 OW4-4-
El Exempt
O-Needed ((or over 500 cubic yards of grading)
�_Checklist _L�1�00 List with notarized form
Requit- setbaCA-S
T
Street: Rear-4--)
ck�e 4c-,l _b Cks 9 e_ C /' '?
10 e: Rear
Street: 0 Side: t 0 (1 i -6-1
V-Detached Structures: (7 Lt) /0 U, 10( -h (�O
11 Rockeries: �-O, 6,4 5,1 JP
W'Fencesareitises: 3 c)A rt.�V[ Ow �0 0 1P r a ai
11 Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: 'r(
4-31 df
f-
El Stairs/Deck: ��d_ �--
Bt Heiqht
Datum Point: C-6 0- Daturn Elevation:
��ff dT 7 3
C-�O ---
Maximum Height Allowed: -7,z, -576 x^�il Actual Height- 2. (IR Y_
0 S- 1) Other
Parking Required:
Parking Provided: 2-4-
Lot Area: ) 5-/ �_00
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: 21.7(016
Lot Coverage Calculations:
ADU Created: (YES /
Subdivision: /Vo
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
T- 17 FvO C—CA comments
,4 q q A 9-q.
5 s-1- oo 170. q 7,�-(
S-& 5-0 7 5
_r -7 Z
q 5T 75'
Plan Review By:
Pfan�q Wta f;a"n 04 -11,06.doc
Soil Map -Snohomish County Area, Washington
(18720 Soundview Drive)
Is
N Meters
0 20 40 80 120
--- Feet
A 0 50 100 200 30'o
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 10/17/2007
M Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
11
MAPLEGEND
Area of Interest (A01)
F--j
Area of Interest (AOl)
Soils
r--j
Soil Map Units
Special
Point Features
(9
Blowout
0
Borrow Pit
X.-
Clay Spot
0
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
A.
Lava Flow
46
Marsh
I*
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
V,
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
j$
Sodic Spot
a
Spoil Area
a
Stony Spot
Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington
(18720 Soundview Drive)
MAP INFORMATION
IZ
Very Stony Spot
Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale.
Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the
Wet Spot
original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper
Other
map measurements.
Special Line Features
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Gully
Web Soil Survey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1 ON
Short Steep Slope
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Other
the version date(s) listed below.
Political Features
Soil Survey Area: Snohomish County Area, Washington
Municipalities
Survey Area Data: Version 4, Dec 12, 2006
Cities
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/10/1990
Urban Areas
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Water Features
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
oceans
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Streams and Canals
Transportation
� W..
km
Rails
Roads
Interstate Highways
US Routes
State Highways
LocalRoads
Other Roads
0
0
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 10/17/2007
2iiiiffl Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
A
C;a
Soil M6p—Snohomish County Area, Washington
18720 Soundview Drive
Map Unit Legend
Snohomish County Area, Washington (WA661)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres In A01
Percent of A01
3
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,
6.1,1
55.6%
15 to 25 percent slopes
4
Alderwood-Evereft gravelly
0.5
4.2%
sandy loams, 25 to 70
percent slopes
18
Everett gravelly sandy loam 8
3.5
31.6%
to 15 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
11.0 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 10/17/2007
21111111 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
#P20
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No:
Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetat,ion)
1. Site Address/ Location: 1`9 -7 Z L-W,
2. Property Tax Account. Number: C00\_-�"A\0 00 00b CID
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
oped?
4. Is this site currently devel yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
ffilly: 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:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain
; Approx. Depth: , I
; Approx. Depth: .
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 meadow ;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
For City Staff Use Only
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable?
2. Site is Zoned? 1,2-
3. SCS mapped soil type(s)?, 18 1 17, 5 ccpey
V _j
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? fq_S fiEet, IL i-"
4,41 14k f+6-&A PnA ei-.,
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? r-Jo
DETERMINATION
STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
Reviewed bv.- Date. 2_IM-lo.-
#P20
City. AEdmonds
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) -
Date Rece'IM: [/Q 06-
City. Receipt#:.
Critical Areas File #:
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. The City will review the checklist.make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant. shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan., topography. map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, 'in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, inderrinify, 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, histher/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I cer* that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best'of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE oF APPLicANT/AGENT
I OrN 10
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 fortlic
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE O.F OWNER DATE
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Appficant:
L-t�� con V\ C-
Name, pro (�;6*
Street Address
city State Zip
Telephone: 20& -5 '9 Z(M
Email address (optional):
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City State zip
Telephone:
Email Address (optional):
(.06 CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location:
18720 Soundview Place
Tax Acct. Number:
004346 001 006 00
Determination:
Study -Required
Determination #:
CA-06-4
Applicant:
Leif Helleren Const. Inc.
Owner:
Leif Helleren Const. Inc.
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-06-4)
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain
critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous areas, and the site is adjacent to the
Puget Sound, which is considered a Frequently Flooded Area and a Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area pursuant to Chapter 23.40 through 23.90 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 requirementsfor 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.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
A Landslide Haiard 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.B.
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 rted to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with-aii"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.
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
On the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 1305, this site is in an area determined to be
outside the 500-year floodplain, but it is across the Burlington Northern Railroad right-
of-way from a special flood hazard area inundated by 1 00-year floods, with a base flood
elevation determined as elevation 10 (see map for elevation datum).
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
The site is across the railroad right-of-way from Puget Sound, which is a mapped Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation. Ar4 considered a water of the state, and is home to
fish that have been federally designated as endangered or threatened. No specific
buffer is required along Puget Sound by our Critical Areas regulations. With any .
development proposal, if there is a concern regarding the impact of the proposal on the
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, the City reserves the right to require
recommendations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, require
erosion control measures, require planting of native plant species to mitigate for loss of
vegetation and take other measures needed to protect the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area.
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.
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.
P 1=1 -
Name Unature 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.
01
APPLICATION
for
The City of Edmonds SIME SEW= P=MT
NEW CONSTRUCTION C] REPAIRS 0 EASEMENT No . ..........................................
..... POUUT N
OWNER 4�,41 �- --------- /. ............... CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ............................................
NAME OF ADDITION .... .............................................
Lu
i
afteam
LL
I--
uj
LLI
cc
co
0
APPI -,� j _j
MAR 11 IS68
Approved:
DATE . ............. 4"
By� ..... �-e----
7 L-7---77'
1964
9 F R
r
e
I" A\m) Rill
"'y C�';ah. �S idAl,
v F
lZr-3.2-
10 BLY,
n i�AME 0 R
7
ttz
I v,
P ESENT THE DISPOSITION OF YOUR TAX:MONIES.'
THE FIGURES BELOW RE R
t �)L ri; yiPONIJ LinRARY SCHOOL IAX FIF�r Dl,�i
7 0
.55 1.7�
FIRST HALF TAXES MUST BE PAID'BEFORE APRIL 30th, OR ENTIRE TAX BECOMES DELINQUENT.
LAST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1. INTEREST, 8% PER ANNUM.
oil
u
Ct'� 'L) T I.. r)
7�
ll!MIIIA�1(1� PA YAMI E 1'0:
6 7
"v'ERNE SIEVERS
I�INC,1110MISH COUNTY TREASURER
�VBETT, WASHINGTON 98201
T
SNOHOMISH COUNT
STATE OF WASH
�'l PL
STATE, COUt
AND Rd/.
14 p"'t" irvy couE
40-
n0lo
ca
0
u
SIVll 511-i i" 0 i� 1-1ELY lov" _117
NAME'OR
COMPANY -
ROLL PAGE Lrvy LAND BUILDINGS TOTAL' VAIUL CONSOLIDAT�.
25 _0 ___l&A_Q__
THE FIGURES BELOW REPRESENT THE J6i06s'ft'b'R6F.'Y TAX" MONI S.
d, 1 0 71
T�x. Pt:� I . DIST
SIAI`�. TAX lCOUNlY TAX CIrY/ROAD/LIBRARY FIRE DISTRICT
25.19 64.23
w
FIRST HALF TAXES MUST 6E �ID BliFORE APRIL 30th, OR ENTIRE TAX BECOMES DELINQU I
0 LAST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT 0 NOVEMBER 1. INTEREST, 8% PER ANNUM.
ES
RETURN BOTH CON� INTEREST COMPUTED TO
I CITY OF EDMONDS
Cl,'VfC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT "I 'Rospect 6-1107 when work
18 ready for Inspection. (No I— N? 2866
'Ions Saturday, Sunday or holidays.)
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
ADD'RESS .............. 1-8.7.2.0 ... S.Qund...
OWNER ................... Estrella Hill Wooley's Pipe & Sewer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR ................................................................................
Perniission is granted .............. March 11., 68..'
.......................... 19 ...... for ---------------_------ days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer
with City Sewers in accordance with application on file and governing ordinances.
ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING:
1 11
N q.o. I —The owners of the Property may obtain a permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must
be employed to construct side sewer in street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before It has been Inspected.
NOTE No. 2—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get perralt.
NOTE No. 3—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%.
No bends In grade sharper than 1h will be permitted.
No. 4—Trenches in street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for
failure due to improper work which rimy develop within one year of completion.
NOTE No. 5—It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or Its appur-
tenances except to Insert the pipe into the wye.
STREET FILE
DEP 31D
,,,,,ARTMENT, F 6blL ' kNGS..
PER INTERNATIONAL: BUILDING CODE -,SECTION 111
AV,
AT: 18720 Sound View Place, Edmonds' Building Permit M BLD20090795
Occupancy established by this certificate: Dwelling. Units:
, 1,TL
V13
Type 6 onstriuction:
No. Stories: Basem6pt: Yes'
'system required: No
`-Automal -
Automatic sprinkler system provided: N tic sprin er i
Owner of building: Dennis & Lorna Lowenthal
The Single Family Residence at 18720Sound,'�,VliWPlabe.iEdriiotid"�s� MA"K been inspected and approved complying with the
requirements of the 2006 edition of the International Reiii-d'ential C-b'dd��'a—s-.a'-d"o"o-'t'e6diii' the City for the group and division of occupancy and the us4
y!
for which the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this 1st day of February, 2012
Chief Building Official
By;
V -
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
Memorandum
To: Jennifer Lambert, City of Edmonds
From: John W. Rundall, P.E., WR Consulting, Inc.
Date: January 13, 2011
Re: Revisions to Driveway Section
Lowenthal Residence — 18720 Soundview Place
OVED BY
RENGINEERING
We have been asked to review the feasibility of replacing the proposed Turf -stone with
Eco-Stone Permeable Interlocking concrete pavers at the above referenced location. The
Turf -stone product had been specified because it met the runoff performance criteria of a
50% reduction in impervious surfacing. The following summarizes our evaluation of the
Eco-stone product and proposes a pavement section to meet the criteria of providing an
effective 50% reduction in impervious surface.
For the purpose of this evaluation, it is assumed that an impervious surface will result in
100% runoff of the precipitation of a given event. We will be evaluating the Eco-stone
pavement section using the same 24 hour-100 year rainfall event used in sizing the
raingardens which has a.total of three (Y) inches of precipitation at this location.
The manufacture's product literature (see attached) notes that relative to the underlying
soils, the Eco-stone has a very high rateof infiltration, so the full pavement section must
be considered in the evaluation. Our analysis will evaluate each layer of the pavement
section starting at the top and working down to the subgrade soils.
Eco-Stone Surfacing
Based on the manufacturer's product literature the Eco-Stone Permeable Pavement
systems have a very high infiltration rate. The top of page 12 of the document cites rates
ranging from 500 in/hr to over 2,000 in/hr. The document notes in the second paragraph,
page 12, that based on research, a conservative lifetime design infiltration rate of 3
inches/hour can be used as a basis for the design surface infiltration rate over a 20-year
pavement life. Since the design rainfall event of 3 inches per 24 hours is well below the
conservative estimate of 3 inches/hour, the analysis will shift to the base and subgrade
portions of the pavement section.
Base Rock
Since the criteria for the design of the system was to provide a 50% reduction in
impervious material, the proposed porous pavement design will be based on infiltrating
50% of the 24 hour-100 year event. Since the design event has a total of 3" of
precipitation, the pavement section will be designed to infiltrate 1.5 inches over a 24 hour
period. To accommodate periods of higher intensity rainfall during the event and allow
for local variation in subgrade infiltration rates, we are proposing to provide storage
capacity in the voids of the base rock. Storing 1.5 inches ( 50% of the total 3 inches) of
runoff can be achieved with 6 inches of rock, assuming approximately 25% voids.
A base material of washed 5/8" to V crushed rock will provide a void ratio of
approximately 40%. The attached Stormtech, Tech Sheet #1 cites a number of references
confirming the void ratio of an open graded angular aggregate material. Even with some
reduction in voids due to migration of fines and other small particles into the voids, the
proposed 6 inches of base rock will provide storage for more than 1.5 inches of
precipitation.
Subgrade -
Assuming a nominal infiltration rate of 0.25 inches per hour in the subgrade soils, over a
24 hour period, the subgrade could infiltrate 6 inches of rainfall. The geotechnical
engineer's assessment of infiltration rates of on -site soils� indicates that the actual long-
terrn design infiltration rates of existing soils are much higher. Even at 0.25 inches per
hour, the total daily infiltration capacity of the subgrade is twice the total (6 inches) of
the design event precipitation (3 inches).
Pavement Section
We conclude that the proposed Eco-Stone Permeable Pavement surfacing will provide
the required 50% reduction of impervious surfacing due to its high infiltration capacity.
With the proposed 6" of base rock with a 40% void ratio, sufficient storage is provided
for 50% of the 24 hour, 100 year design -storm event to accommodate minimal subgrade
infiltration rates on the order of 0.25 inches per hour. At this site, the subgrade soils
infiltration rates are higher so the proposed storage volume provides an additional factor
of safety if the infiltration rates deteriorate over time.
We note that the Stormtech Tech Sheet # I suggests wrapping the drain rock with a
geotextile fabric to reduce.migration of soils into the voids. We do not believe the fabric
is needed at this site due to the excess void volume provided by the 6" of base rock and
because the underlying soils are well drained and have less of the fine grained soil
particles that tend to plug the voids.
If you have any questions please contact me at 206-285-1593.
WR Consulling, Inc.
January 13, 2011
I ce Stormwater Management'
Porosity of Structural Backfill Tech Sheet # 1
Rev. 10/4/06*
General:
StormTech advises that a porosity of 40% is appropriate to use for the'storage capacity
of structural aggregate used in the bedding and embedment zones around StormTech
chambers. This memo provides technical support for the.use of a porosity of 40%. The major
points of the memo are:
0 40% porosity is appropriate for the clean, open graded, angular aggregate material
StormTech recommends for foundation and embedment.
0 Most of the porosity data available is based on a compacted condition. StormTech
requires compaction of the foundation (bedding) and allows dumped aggregate
embedment around the chambers.
0 Test data indicates that the average porosity of all gradations of the compacted
foundation is approximately 40%. The porosity of the dumped backfill in the embedment
zone is typically greater than 40% and the calculated weighted average porosity
therefore exceeds 40% for typical StormTech systems.
0 Porosity is protected from soils mig�ation by a non -woven geotextile that surrounds the
entire system. For some exfiltration systems, a drainage net is substituted for the
geotextile on the bottom of the bed.
Terms:
Porosity (n) is defined as the volume voids over the total volume expressed as a
percent: n = (Vv / Vt ) x 100%. Other terms commonly used to describe porosity include; "voids"
and "void space". A related term that should not be confused with porosity is void ratio (e)
which is the volume of voids over the volume of solids expressed as a decimal: e = Vv / V,
Compilation of Known Test Data:
Sample
Data Source
Porosity
AASHTO # 4
StormTech lab
39.9%
AASHTO # 57
StormTech lab
45.4%
AASHTO # 4
StormTech lab
37.4%
AASHTO # 57
StormTech lab
38.7%
AASHTO # 57
NTH lab
50-51%
AASHTO # 57
NTH lab
50-52%
AASHTO # 3
NTH lab
53-54%
- 1 1/2 "
Anderson Eng. Cons.
41.9%
- 1 Y2"
Anderson Eng. Cons.
35.3%
- 1 1/2"
Anderson Eng. Cons.
37.8%
- 1 Y2"
Anderson Eng. Cons.
41.3%
- 1 Y2"
Anderson Eng. Cons.
38.2%
-3/4"
Anderson Eng. Cons.
38.5%
-3/4"
Anderson Eng. Cons.
38.9%
Bulk Density
Test / Description
94.3 IbS/ft3
dumped, corrected'
87.2 IbS/ft3
dumped, corrected'
103.0 lbS/ft3
jigged & tamped, corrected'
97.7 lbS/ft3
jigged & tamped, corrected'
tapped & agitated, dried 2
tapped & agitated, dried 2
tapped & agitated, dried 2
96.8 lbS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
101.7 lbS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
98.6 IbS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
93.6 lbS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
98.7 IbS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
100.3 lbS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
97.9 bS/ft3
dry rodded, C293
. revisions include corrections to Test / Description terminology and addition of CTL Thompson data
20 Beaver Road I Suite 1041 Wethersfield, CT 1061091 Toll Free 888-892-26941 Fax 866-328-84011 www.stormtech.com
Compilation of Known Test Data:
Sample
Data Source
Porosity
Bulk Density
Test / Description
AASHTO # 4
Universal Eng. Serv.
44.3%
78.6 Ibs/ft3
rodded C294
AASHTO # 57
Universal Eng. Serv.
43.2%
79.8 IbS/ft3
rodded C294
AASHTO # 4
Universal Eng. Serv.
46.1%
70.8 IbS/ft3
rodded C295
AASHTO # 57
Universal Eng. Serv.
42.8%
74.8 IbS/ft3
rodded C295
-1 1/2" Crushed Rock
CTL Thompson TX
46%
90.5 IbS/ft3
rodded C296
-1" Crushed Rock
CTL Thompson TX
45%
91.6 IbS/ft3
rodded C296
-1 1/2" Crushed Conc
CTL Thompson TX
48%
77.1 IbS/ft3
rodded C29r'
1 Testing was conducted by StormTech in October, 2003 using aggregate from
Connecticut. Water was used to fill voids and a correction factor that reduced porosities
by 3 to 16% was calculated and applied to correct for wall effects of the test container.
2 Testing was conducted by NTH Consultants, Exton, PA in December, 2002 for ADS.
This was dry testing in accordance with the "Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Sixth
Edition" by Michael R. Lindburg, PE.
3 Testing was conducted by Anderson Engineering Consultants, Inc., Little Rock, AR in
February, 2000 for 7 different aggregate samples from four suppliers in Arkansas.
4 The material tested was lime rock from central Florida. Testing was conducted by
University Engineering Sciences in Orlando, FL in November, 2005.
5 The material tested was recycled, crushed concrete from central Florida. Testing was
conducted by Universal Engineering Sciences in Orlando, FL in November, 2005.
6 Testing was conducted by CTL I Thompson Texas, LLC in August, 2006.
ASTM C29 is the "Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and Voids in
Aggregate".
Porosity References:
• "Urban Runoff Quality Management" WEF MOP 23 / ASCE MOP 87. Table 5.12
lists uniform sized gravel at 40%.
• "Controlling Urban Runoff:" by Thomas R. Schueler, July 1987 describes storage
volume of the void space in the trench at 40% of the excavated trench volume.
• "On -site Stormwater Management: Applications for Landscape and Engineering"
Second Edition by Bruce Ferguson and Thomas Debo states that open graded
crushed stone has 40% void space.
% - 2 INCH CLEAN,
CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
AASHTO W88 CLASS 2
NON-VYOVEN GEOTEXTILE----x
6"
MIN.
12" MIN. TYP. COMPACTED BEDDING
DUMPED EMBEDMENT
EXCEEDS 40% POROSITY
OnWT !
, _ipw�
Ind, . -
DEPTH OF STONE
TO BE DETERMINED
BY DESIGN ENGINEER
6" MIN.*
20 Beaver Road I Suite 1041 Wethersfield, CTI 061091 Toll Free 888-892-26941 Fax 866-328-8401 1 www.stormtech.com
I
0
0
Compared to soils, the materials used in Eco-
StoneO permeable pavement systems have very high
infiltration rates — from 500 in./hr (over 10-3 m/sec)
to over 2000 in./hr (over 10-3 to 10-2m/sec). This is
far more pervious than any existing site soils.
Approximate Particle Size
Permeability (k) in./hr (m/s)
ASTM No. 8 (2 to 10 mm)
4000 to 1400 (3 x 10-1 to 1 x 10-2)
ASTM No. 9 (2 to 5 mm)
1400 to 140 1 X 10-2 to 1 X 10-3)
_�l
40 to 14 (1 -3 -4
Though initial infiltration rates are very high, it I A0 I IVI NO. 1 U k I Lo 0 MM) X lu Lo I X lu )
is important to consider lifetime design infiltration of TableI Permeability ranges ofjointfill aggregatesforpermeable pavers
the entire pavement cross-section, including the soil (afler Borgwardt 2006)
subgrade when designing PICPs. Based on research to
date, a conservative design rate of 3 in./hr (2.1 X 10-5m/sec) can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration
rate over a 20-year pavement life. As lifetime design infiltration rates may be difficult to predict, designers may want to
use a conservative approach when calculating the design infiltration rate. Limited research has shown that permeability
decreases with the age of the pavement, rainfall intensities, and the conditions under which it is used and maintained.
Infiltration tests conducted by Dr. Soenke Borgwardt in 2006 demonstrated that newly installed pavements, with an
approximate 12% open surface area and a 2-5 mm drainage void fill aggregate, infiltrated approximately 62 in./hr (1300
I/s ha). After 10 years, the infiltration rate was approximately 16 in./hr (1300 I/s ha). His data showed that even with
minimal maintenance, the pavements were capable of infiltrating virtually any design storm. Engineers should account
for these factors when designing infiltration rates for permeable interlocking concrete pavements and should encourage
the establishment of a maintenance program to ensure optimal long-term performance.
. A number of design methods may be used for sizing of the open -graded base. The ICPI Permeable Interlocking
Concrete Pavement manual uses a design method adapted from the state of Maryland's Standard Specificationsfor
Infiltration Practices and Maryland Stormwater Manual. You may obtain a copy of ICPI's manual from your local UNIO
manufacturer. The method assumes familiarity with NRCS TR 55 method for calculating stormwater runoff.
For designers who use Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve numbers in determining runoff
calculations, the curve number for PICP can be estimated at 40, assuming a life -time design infiltration rate of 3 in./hr
(75 mm/hr) with an initial abstraction of 0.2 (applies to NRCS group A soils). Other design professionals may use
coefficient of runoff for calculating peak runoff discharges. For peak runoff calculations, the coefficient of runoff, C for
the design life of permeable interlocking concrete pavements can be estimated with the following formula:
C, = I — Design infiltration rate, in./hr
I
where I = design rainfall intensity in inches per hour. The formula should not be used in water quality calculations
however, as it does not account for volume.
Other quantitative models such as HEC-1 and EPA SWMM may be modified to include permeable interlocking
pavements. The PC-SWMM PP' software program included with our LOCKPAVE PROO structural design software is
based on the ERNs model and also may be used for calculations.
Construction Materials- and General Installation Guidelines
It is preferable and highly recommended that site subgrade soils not be
compacted if structural strength is Suitable, as compaction reduces infiltra-
tion rates. Design procedure typically assumes a soil CBR (minimum 96-
hour soaked per ASTM D 1883 or AASHTO T 193) strength of at least 5%
or an R-value of 24 to support vehicular traffic. Low CBR soils (<5%) may
require compaction and/or stabilization for vehicular traffic applications.
Perforated pipe also would typically be required to drain excess water in the
base in applications over low CBR soils. Applications subject to strictly
pedestrian traffic should not require compaction of the subgrade. Ifsoils must
be compacted, the reduced infiltration rates must befactored into the design.
'Care should be taken during excavation and tracked vehicles should be used
to minimize inadvertent compaction.
A civil or geotechnical engineer experienced in local site conditions and
stormwater management should be consulted to ensure all project parameters The College School of Webster Groves, St. Louis� MO
12
1116 Ist St.
Cosmopolis, WA 98537
January 12, 2010
John Rundall
WR Consulting
3611 45th Ave E
Seattle, WA 98199
RE: Lowenthal Residence
Dear John,
Phone: (360) 533-2007 Fax: (360) 533-1618
Email: earthwork@earthworkservices.com
Web: www.earthworkservices.com
Earthwork Services Job # 19438
R EE r`,z) 4 J B,
'AN 20110
OlUll DING OIEPAMNIENT
C-F- f-:D%4QN2S
Enclosed please find grid elevation, cut/fill graphics and volumes for this project, which was calculated using
the average end area method and the following assumptions:
1 . A stripping depth of 21' was applied to the existing terrain.
2. A depth of 12" from design elevations to subgrade in the rain gardens.
3. A depth of 8" from design elevations to subgrade in the basement slab.
4: A depth of 5" from design elevations to subgrade in the grasscrete.
5. A depth of 011 from design elevations to subgrade in the landscaping.
6. A depth of 811 from finish floor elevations to subgrade in the garage.
TOTAL RAW VOLUMES IN PLACE
(Volumes are in Cubic Yards)
Activity Area W) Cut Volume Fill Volume Stripping Volume
Total Site 12,181 267 99 77
Please call after you have reviewed this information if you have any questions.
* Raw volumes are calculated after existing terrain has been stripped, thus creating less cut and more fill of
suitable material. Raw volumes have not been adjusted to reflect shrink or swell for compaction and expansion
and are volumetric areas only.
STREET FILE
Job: LOWENTHAL RESIDENCE
Units: Ft-CY
Tue Jan 12, 2010 09:53:14 Page I
Volume Report
Subgrade vs. Strimed
Area
Volume
Comp/Ratio
Compact
Export Change
Total
cut
Fill
OnGrade Cut
Fill
Cut
Fill
Cut
Fill
-1wort Per.1 Ft
BASEMENTSLAB
848
848
0
0 60
0
1.00
1.00
60
0
60
3
GARAGE
833
198
546
89 6
13
1.00
1.00
6
13
-7
3
GRASSCRETE
2,089
1,592
258
239 37
3
1.00
1.00
37
3
34
8
LANDSCAPING
6,923
2,435
3,212
1,276 48
83
1.00
1.00
48
83
-35
26
RAINGARDEN 1
346
346
0
0 29
0
1.00
1.00
29
0
29
1
RAINGARDEN 2
249
249
0
0 20
0
1.00
1.00
20
0
20
1
RAINGARDEN 3
217
217
0
0 23
0
1.00
1.00
23
0
23
1
RAINGARDEN 4
165
165
0
0 13
0
1.00
1.00
13
0
13
1
RAINGARDEN 5
158
158
0
0 10
0
1.00
1.00
10
0
10
1
RAINGARDEN 6
112
107
2
3 4
0
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
0
RAINGARDEN 7
109
109
0
0 8
0
1.00
1.00
8
0
8
0
RAINGARDEN 8
132
132
0
0 9
0
1.00
1.00
9
0
9
0
RAINGARDEN Sub:
1,488
1,483
2
3 116
0
116
0
116
5
Regions Total
12,181
6,556
4,018
1,607 267
99
267
99
168
45.
Plane
Slope
Stripping Olys
Area
Area
Depth
Volume
STRIPPING
12,178
12,238
0.170
77
Sectional Qtvs
Plane
Area
Slope
Area
Depth
Volume
BASEMENTSLAB
848
850
0.670
21
GARAGE
833
835
0.670
21
GRASSCRETE
2,089
2,118
0.417
33
LANDSCAPING
6,923
7,162
0.000
0
RAINGARDEN 1
346
358
1.000
13
RAINGARDEN 2
249
258
1.000
10
RAINGARDEN 3
217
225
1.000
8
RAINGARDEN 4
.165
171
1.000
6
RAINGARDEN 5
158
165
1.000
6
RAINGARDEN 6
112
115
1.000
4
RAINGARDEN 7
109
114
1.000
4
RAINGARDEN 8
132
137
1.000
5
RAINGARDEN Sub: 1,488 1,543 56
Sectional Total 12,181 12,508 131
BASEMENT SLAB
LANDSCAPING
RAINGARDEN 6
RAINGARDEN 5.
RAINGARDEN 4
RAINGARDEN 3
GARAGE
RAINGARDEN 2
RAINGARDEN 1
RAINGARDEN 7 GRASSCRETE
RAINGARDEN 8
am
3
ON4CID
um
25
39 MAS
Z
cc
�s
39.43
. 4
am
Sam
4031
—4
a
c"9
m4D
c "--3
1
402.
Af"
Sam
Mal
41
",Go
COC4
ce
ci
I'M
"Af
SIAS
so
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
±.100
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
12A
c SAO
47M "22
4;A7 50
041�
3'� MAO
AS WAS
a C"?
51.15
49 6432 .1 nil
FOOD FRAO FO I
5 Sam a. 32
4839 Hill aim all 4
033 5227 5
R�l Cato
W2 63.17
53.3 5
R'43 MAI 4
WAS $322 51"
cool
aa:-"� " SLBI
M
F"I C0,55 cwl
n"* 3"'n / Im"sftg
FFHW�'
e-Offspeciall.ts
360� 33-2007
360-533-1418
—A—i—
A.—
APPROVED By
STO NG11
NGINEERING
.14-
r
Drainage Report
Lowenthal Residence — 18720 Sound View Place
November 16, 2009
Revised January 8, 2010
Revised February, 24, 2010
Revised March 19, 2010
WR Consulting, Inc.
Design Standards:
City of Edmonds Development Information (#E72)
Prooect Summary
WAS
The project consists of the construction of a single family residence on an existing
cleared parcel. The prior residence has already been removed and the site is covered
with grass and a few remnant walks and landscape features. LID or low impact design
techniques are used on. this project to manage stormwater. The driveway to the house
will be constructed using grasscrete (Turfstone) to minimize runoff and will drain to
raingardens. In order to address concerns about maintaining the raingarden function
and provide water quality treatment, a 2 foot wide filter strip is proposed along the
edges of the driveway.
Due to the geotechnical engineers recommendation for a setback from the bank at the
west end of the property, stormwater runoff from the proposed house and associated
impervious surfacing at the west end of the property will drain to a detention tank and
will be pumped up to the storm drain in the right of way. The proposed raingardens for
the driveway have reduced the volume of detention and pumping of runoff up to the
street and into the City storm drain system. Runoff from the east portion of the site will
infiltrate and maintain the flow patterns that are currently on the site. The proposed
pump system for the house improvements will significantly reduce the amount of
stormwater on the site. The parcel is adjacent Puget Sound and runoff currently drains
into the ditch system along the Burlington Northern Railroad.
The proposed improvements will discharge stormwater from a subbasin that drains
directly to Puget Sound to the Fruitdale Creek subbasin via the storm sewer on Sound
View Place. Diversion of flows to other drainage basins is only permitted if the diversion
is runoff from an area less than 5,000 square feet. The diversion in this case is less
than 4,500 square feet however the other condition is that the diversion must address
any downstream impacts if there is a potential for erosion or other damage. The
stormwater analysis of the improvements showed that the downstream impacts to the
peak flow were less than 0.1cfs which meets the City's current standards outlined in
#E72. RESUB
MAR A 2010
Page 1
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
S"'TREET RE
In accordance with City of Edmonds Development Information (#E72) the foundation
drain outflows are not connected to the storm drain or sanitary sewer system. They
daylight on -site below the proposed residence and raingardens. Although the
geotechnical report has cautioned against discharging stormwater above the bank, the
outlets with surface discharge are proposed for the following reasons:
• The outlets (small area drains) are set back over 35 feet from the top of the bank.
• Little if any flow is expected from the foundation drains due to the shallow depth
(31/2 feet at the east edge of the basement and the well draining soils.
• The geotechnical investigation did not identify groundwater at those depths;
although it did not conditions throughout the year may vary. The soil profile
suggests that significant amounts of groundwater are not likely at those depths.
• The new impervious surface uphill (draining to the pumped system) from the
proposed foundation drains will reduce the amount of groundwater that could be
collected at the depth of the proposed foundation drains.
• The proposed area drain outlets will reduce the velocity of any flows and
plantings around the drains will prevent erosion from occurring.
• It is not feasible to pipe the foundation drain outlets down to the base of the bank
because it is not on the subject property and BNSF has indicated they would not
accept any drainage.
It is not acceptable to pipe the foundation drains to the existing sanitary sewer
along the west edge of the site.
The geotechnical engineer has provided a letter indicating that the proposed foundation
drain outlets is adequate from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. A copy of this
letter is included in Appendix A.
Raingarden Desim
The current Edmonds drainage standards do not address the use of raingardens for
stormwater management. Since they have been determined to be an effective and
desired approach for management in other jurisdictions (ref. King County Surface Water
Design Manual, 2009), they are used on this project. The raingardens are accepted as
infiltration for streambank erosion control provided they will infiltrate the 1 00-year storm
event within 48 hours using 1 in/hr design infiltration rate.
The raingardens for this project are sized in accordance with King County Surface
Water Design Manual, 2009 (KCSWDM, 2009), Section C.2.5.1 which requires 3
inches of storage for each square foot of impervious surface and 0.5 inches of storage
for each square foot of pervious surface.. The site is well suited for this approach due
to the depth of well draining soils. Although the design guidelines are based, on an
infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour, the geotechnical report indicates that the
Page 2
infiltration rates are on the order of 1 in/hour. A copy of the revised geotechni6al report
and a letter clarifying the basis for the infiltration rate is attached in Appendix A.
,Using KCSWDM, 2009 standards, a modular paving material (Turfstone) is considered
50% impervious. The following table (and sketch) summarizes the total impervious
surfaces for the project and the associated raingardens required to accommodate the
runoff.
cGrasscrete (Turfstone) Driveway
1968.
0.500,
994.
Garage Roof
1198:
LOW
1198!
'Covered Walkway to House
116:
1.000.
116�
p
�House Roof
2781�
1.000�
2781�
.Total Impervious:
. . .... ....
6177.
5131.
Required:
Bioretention.
Area (SF) based! Area (SF) based
Zrainage to Rainparden
p
Volume JCf):
ori'12" depth!
on 6-',�iepth.
�Grasscrete (Turfstone) Driveway
1968.
0.500,
994;
246:
246
492. 1
,Garage Roof
0.
1.00o,
0
0.
0
0.
C overed Walkway to House
0
1.000�
0.
on
0,
0.
Mouse Roof
9
1-000;
9
04
oi
2;
,_T.o.talImperviousDraimng to Ramgardfri!�
4.
JIL
j�§.
?�lfi
92;
L
ousDrami gtoRaingardens
'Pe�i -n
4968;
1.000,
4968
199
199;
397;
'Drainage to Detention/Pump
Zrage
Roof
1198:
jCover� alkmLay�lHqpse
��I±��/Dec outside Roof
House Roof
70.
2781;
a
m I I Impervious -
4155;
mo
!Raingarden Sizing Calculations
Val of Storage
Required
(feet/SF)
Total Volume
Total Area of Impervious
984.SF
0.25.
246. d
iTbtal Area of Pennous
4968.SF
0.04.
199td
Jotal Storage Volume Required:
445id
-'-'6'1---Iation(asdesigned-�:"-
lRaingarden ume acu
7
---------
-- —
Total:
Top Area:
Volume as,
lRaingarden Number
Base Area Overflow Area.
(sf); (sf).
(9" deep).
(sq
Depth (ft)
Designed.
WY
,Area 1
18;
132.
0.75
43
:Area 2
120
346
283
075
151
JArea 3
0 T5
101.
'Area 4
691
217.
174
0.75
9
!Area 5
:
11
109:
W
0.75
26!
.. _ __ � � _ � _ - I � - I - � . .. - -
iArea 6
. _.., - -
__
451
_ *_
116.
- _i� —
1
__ —
'-Area *7
18i
158
117
075
51:
lArea 8
112*
76*
0.75
29*
3451
1142;
Totak:
558:cf
Page 3
lir
Raingarden Desi-qn Details
The raingardens are located to collect runoff from the driveway. The raingardens are
designed to step down slope and provide for overflow from the upper raingardens for
extreme storm events. Two foot wide filter strips are proposed along all edges of the
driveway adjacent to the raingardens to provide water quality treatment of the runoff
prior to entering the raingardens.
The raingardens are designed in accordance with the minimum standards outlined in
the KCSWIDM 2009, Section C.2.5.1 with the exception of the minimum 6" of freeboard.
Only 3" of freeboard is provided due to the very small size of the raingardens and the
understanding that the subsurface infiltration rate is much higher than the design basis.
The following summarizes each of the nine minimum design requirements for the
project.
1
Minimum Volume
Based on design criteria of 3" for impervious and 1/2"
for pervious, 445 cf is required; 558 cf is provided in
the design.
2.
Water Storage Area
Maximum depth is 9" instead of allowed 12"; side
slopes are 3:1. 3" freeboard instead of 6" as noted
above. Overflow is detailed with area drain collection
at lowest raingardens.
3.
Containment Berm
Minimum 24" wide berm as noted; most raingardens
are set into the slope so "berm" is not above
surrounding grade. Maximum depth and freeboard as
noted above. Rock pad lining overflow on all
raingardens except the raingardens overflowing to
storm drain system.
4.
Amended Soil
Soil amendment or import as required is shown on the
plans.
5.
Water Tolerant
Water tolerant plants as required are shown on the
Plants
plans.
6.
Minimum 5 foot
Five foot setback to buildings and property lines
setback
provided.
7.
Slopes and Buffers
Raingardens not located in areas with slopes steeper
than 20%. Raingardens set back 125 feet (100
recommended per geotechnical report) from top of
bank.
8.
Septic System
Not applicable, house connects to sanitary sewer.
9.
Flooding and
Raingardens exceed setback recommended by the
Erosion Impacts
geotechnical engineer; slopes do not exceed 15%.
Page 4
_1�
Raingarden Overflow Design
Each raingarden is designed to overflow to the next lower garden. This will provide a
controlled path of runoff to the lower end of the site. In order to size the overflows, the
flow was split into two parts: the north side and the south side. Each side was assumed
to carryl /2 of the total site runoff from a 1 00-yr event using the Rational Method. This is
a conservative estimate as it neglects the infiltration and storage provided by each
raingarden.
The lowest raingardens (one north and one south side) overflow to area drains that
connect to the pumped storm drain system. No overflow runoff is expected for the 2
year and 10 year event, however, a small overflow is expected for a 100 year event and
the pump system will accommodate this additional flow.
The following calculation shows that the proposed raingardens have sufficient capacity
to infiltrate the 100-year 24 hour precipitation volume. The calculations are based on a
long-term infiltration rate of 1 in/hour as noted in the geotechnical report. The
calculations also make a very conservative assumption, specifically that all of the
precipitation falling on the property east of the pumped system tributary area will drain
into the raingardens. There is no allowance for infiltration of precipitation on pervious
surfaces which overestimates the volume of water that would drain to the raingarden.
The infiltration capacity is based on the base area of the raingarden at the maximum
depth of storage (9").
'Yerify Infiltration Capacity for 100yr Prec.ipitation:
Maximum Rai ngarden I nfiltrati on Area (sf) 114211sf
Infiltration Rate On/hr)
1109/hr
f
'Total Infiltration Volume (24 hours) 22841c
1LTqta1.Area.(Impe.rviou.s a,n.d__Pervious)_.. 69361sf
i i6ol. -
1100-yrPrecip. (from KCSWDM2009, Fig. 3.2.1.1) linches/24hours
!Assuming no infiltration in pervious areas surrounding the raingardens (all precipitation is
I
collected in raingardens for infiltration over 24 hours):
Total Precipitation Volume: 1792
Total Precipitation less than total infiltration over 24 hours so no overflow is expected.
.... .......
In addition to the above referenced calculations, the site runoff was modeled using a
SCS TR-20 model with software designed by HydroCAD. The model used a Type 1A
Page 5
U
storm and simulated the driveway and other pervious areas draining to the raingardens.
The raingardens were modeled to overflow to the detention tank.
Although the site soils are HSG Type A, in order to be more conservative, they were
modeled as Type B (to generate more runoff). Even though the site soils support a
design infiltration rate of 1"/hour, models assuming a slower infiltration rate of 0.5'/hr
were also run to verify extra factor safety in the system.
An AMC of 3 rather than 2 was used in the modeling. Again, the added conservatism
results in higher runoff volumes than would be typically modeled. Another reason to
use AMC=3 was that the URS model results appear to be based on AMC=3 (see
Downstream Impacts below). Since the AMC setting is a global parameter, we used
AMC=3 for the site model so when the site runoff and Fruitdale Creek models are
merged, the results are consistent with the URS report models.
In both SCS model scenarios (0.5in/hr and 1 in/hr) the raingardens were simplified as a
rectangular pond with 3:1 side slopes. The base area of the model rectangle matches
the base area of the designed gardens, however, due to the irregular shape and
multiple raingardens, the total volume of storage provided in the actual design is greater
than the volume represented in the model. Even though the modeled ponds, as
represented were smaller than actually designed, they still performed in accordance
with the design requirements. The SCS model volume does not fill the smaller
raingarden to the expected design raingarden level.
The results confirmed that with a 0.5 in/hr infiltration rate, there was no overflow from
the raingardens for the 2yr and 10 year events. There was a small overflow(O.01 cfs) to
the detention tank, but the tank outflow did not exceed 0.03 cfs (one pump or allowable
release rate) and the tank did not overflow. Although the site soils accommodate a
1 in/hr infiltration rate, the 0.5in/hr rate was used to verify an added factor of safety or
conservatism in the design. The output from the model i.s included in Appendix B.
The 1.0 in/hr infiltration rate scenario uses the infiltration rate in accordance with the
geotechnical report. It confirms that there is no overflow from the raingardens for the
1 00-year event. The output from the model is included in Appendix B.
The following calculations show the runoff calculations and the weir sizing calculations.
The maximum velocity was checked and it was determined that the weir overflow could
be stabilized with grass or other plantings. The current design is to provide a rock lined
overflow using either quarry spalls or washed rock.
Page 6
'Lowenthal Residence
Drainage Calculations
':WR Consulting, Inc.
November 16, 2009
Runoff Calculations:
jotal Drainage Area (square ft):
.15501.0
.Rational Method: 'Q=c*I*A
C �Area (ft2)
:Pervious Area
0.4.9329.0
iPavement/Roof Area
6172.0
'Total Impervious Area
0.90:6172.0
A
Jotal Area (square feet)
15501.0'SF
A re a (A, acre s):
0.3&AC
:Average C (coeff. of runoffz
0.60,
iP,, (total precipitation)
3.2� inches
Ca I c. Tc: Tc=L/60*V
L=!
200
kll=�
T
S=i
0. 1:
!Calc. V: V= kR SA.5
V=1
2.211
Tc=1
1.51:
lUse Tc: (6.3 min. minumuri,�
6.3, m i n.
R=�
1001years
alt=1
2.61i From Renton/Seattle I.D.F.
!Curves and King County Design
Wanual Table 3.2.1.13
bR
0.63;
:i,, (rainfall intensity factot
0.82� based on IR aq x W bRj
(rainfall intensity
2.621(in/hr) I
0.56i,cfs
Q
!Assume 1/2 of flow on north side of house and 1/2 on south side:
De i n F ow=�
0 28'cfs
,jize liainewden iiiyerflo*i; Sjpiliwayo
i For 3:1 slope on ends:
1;Q,00 3 21 (L * H A3/2 + 2.4 H A5/2)
'Ll�h �Fow ap.c,,,.
qck Ovei
L=j
1-.�tft
H=
0025'ft
o4oc,
0.84'cfs
Peck Velocity at Design Flow:
L=1
1.5 ft
H=1
i
0.01ft
Q100
0 0261cfs j(Peak Raingarden Discharge assuming no attenuatio
A= L H
0.0451 (negl e ct sid e sl ope on s pi I I way)
!V�oa,--%o./A
0*583*fps
'Ter King County Design Manual, Table 4.4.1A, Channel Protection - Vel. Less than Sfps: Grass Lining !Okay
Page 7
Detention System Design
The impervious surface (garage, house, deck/patio at west end, and covered walkway)
runoff not draining to the raingardens will be collected by storm drains and detained in a
detention tank. The tank is sized in accordance with City of Edmonds Publication #E72.
The table below summarizes the proposed new impervious surface not draining to the
raingardens:
Based on Table 1 of #E72, the detention volume (rounded up for 4,500 square feet of
impervious) is 23 feet of 30" diameter pipe.
Table 2 shows the orifice size is 7/8" for the range of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet.
Assuming the maximum depth of 30" in the proposed tank, the maximum release rate is
nearly 15 gallons per minute. This release rate was used to select the pump as outlined
below.
'Lowenthal Residence
'Drainage Calculations
MR Consulting, Inc.
Tebruary 17, 2010
.Detention Design:
jotal Area of Impervious: i
!Drainage to Detention/Pump-.
i Garage Roof 1188M
Plaza/Deck outside Roof 701sf
House Roof 2781M
jotal Impervious: 4155'sf
. . .. .... ..
�rorn City of Edmonds Publication #E72, Table 1
1 Use 23 LF 30" Diameter I (Up to 4,500 SF)
'Outlet Orifice: 7/8 inch
!Calculate Release Rate from Orifice Size:
Wax.Head 2.51 ft
.Orifice Diameter: 0 875inches
!Area(A): 0.00421sq ft.
i )A 0
Q =.62 x A x (2*g* h .5 Ct= .0331cfs
ie. 14.71gpm
Release Ra
Page 8
Pump sizing calculations and -election information are shown in the following table.
The pump selected will deliver approximately 14 gpm which is slightly less than the
allowable release rate. A duplex system is proposed to alternate pumps and provide
mechanical redundancy or additional capacity with both pumps running.
Due to the characteristics of the pumps (positive displacement type) the capacity nearly
doubles (25 gpm) when both pumps are running. However, the 2 nd pump on level is set
above the tank overflow level, so normally both pumps will not operate concurrently.
The hydrologic and hydraulic modeling shows that the water level in the tanks will not
reach that overflow level unless it is an extreme storm event in excess of a 100-yr event
The duplex system will have alarms if one pump fails or if both pumps are on. If both
pumps fail and the system overflows, it will flow down to the railroad ditch below.
.Lowenthal Residence - Storm Drainage Pump Sizing page 1 of 1
.January 6, 2010
iWR Consulting, Inc..'
.Pump Calculations:
iAssurriptiDns: Surface Elev. at Control Structure 40.00 i Ill
Elevation at Bottom of Struclure. 34.00 A
Design flow for storrmvater pun -ping: 14.00 gpm
1.50 Inch diam.
'Calculate piping headloss for:
392.70 LF �(Add 10% for fitting losses)
p
Calculate Total Vertical Head:
High We tf Low Wet
r
Wei Well
Elevation at CB in Street 64.0 64.0
Bottom of Structure: i 34.0
34.0
Net Vertical Lift: 30.0 30.0
Depth of Stornawater in Structure: 4.5 2.0
Head: 25.5 28.0
:Head Required: 25.5 28.0
C=. 140.00 140.00
Minimum i Maximum
Dynamic I Dynamic
Dynamic Losses: Head i Head One Pump, T"o Pumps
FJOne!
11W lHPj
To Total
Flow Rate; Head Head Dynamic, Dyn�nti 1725r 5T!!�,
c�
pT;_
LA)ss' Loss ead;
_tleadj _He &
80. 2.8:: 2.8 283 308 194 8
]to* 5.1 5.1 306 331 . 92.4
15.0 0 0
9.1
-1-0.3-,, 38.3
184.8
18.5 18.51 46.5 92.4
0.
30.01 32.8 32.8 58.3 60.8 0.0
Page 9
S Y S t e M H e a d C U r v e
—W-On:PUMP
—*—T� Pumps
HUH11111110HOME01111H. WON
imp 0—.-.MFW W—alIM111011H
Page 10
Downstream Impacts to Receiving Waters
The pumped discharge from the detention tank drains to the storm sewer in Sound View
Place. In response to concerns about pumping directly into the storm drain, the pump
outlet will discharge to a catch basin on the Lowenthal property and then drain by
gravity into the City storm sewer.
The storm sewer on Sound View Place flows south and discharges in Fruitdale Creek.
In order to address concerns about erosion in the downstream reaches of the creek, the
SCS model for the Lowenthal site was modified to include the creek basin.
Downstream Impacts to Receiving Waters
The pumped discharge from the detention tank drains to the storm sewer in Sound View
Place. In response to concerns about pumping directly into the storm drain, the pump
outlet will discharge to a catch basin on the Lowenthal property and then drain by
gravity into the City storm sewer.
The storm sewer on Sound View Place flows south and discharges in Fruitdale Creek.
In order to address concerns about erosion in the downstream reaches of the creek, the
SCS model for the Lowenthal site was modified to include the creek basin.
The Fruitdale Creek basin model was based on data published in a report prepared by
URS Consultants for the City of Edmonds Community Services Department in 1989.
The report is titled Edmonds Drainage Basin Studies, Shellagarger, Five Corners, North
Stream, Talbot Park Basins. The Fruitdale Creek basin is a subbasin of the Talbot Park
basin and is referred to as "Fruitdale on Sound Creek" in the report.
Following the basin schematic in Figure DA, we used the data summarized in Table
D. 10 (subbasin areas, Tc and Flows) and Table CA Pipes and Channels to build and
and verify the model. The land use conditions for the "Future" were used to establish
the base conditions prior to the addition of the Lowenthal runoff. The SCS model was
run without any runoff from the Lowenthal and it showed that the peak flows generated
by the model were very closed to the peak results in the report (if AMC=3 was used).
The model of the Lowenthal Site was merged with the Fruitdale Creek model and it
showed that the increase in peak flow ranged from 0.01 cfs for a 2 year event to 0.04
cfs for a 1 00-year event. The following table summarizes the peak flows from the report
and a copy of the output from the Fruitdale Creek models is included in Appendix C.
'Change in Peak Flow - Fruitclale Creek Basin Model
Fruitclale Creek Model
Future w/o
Future with
URS Report
Lowenthal
Lowenthal
Increase
Results (cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
2yr-24hr
19.60
17.85
17.86
0.01
10yr-24hr
30.90
31.71
31.74
0.03
100yr-24hr
52.40
5150
52.54
0.04
Since the peak flow (100 year event) does not increase by more than 0. 1 cfs the flow
does not exceed the threshold for providing flow control for stream protection. The 0.1
cfs threshold is established in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 2009 and
in the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington, 2005.
Temporary and Long-term Erosion Control Des!-qn
Temporary erosion control facilities will be implemented in areas where necessary to
control sediment from construction activities. Straw rolls (wattles), filter fabric fences
and a stabilized construction entrance will be provided as needed to control the
sediment -laden runoff and soil from leaving the site. It is anticipated that the
Page 11
; I
N
raingardens will be graded along with the house foundation excavation. Mulching will
be provided to prevent surface erosion and transport of sediments downslope.
The long term erosion control measures for the site include the establishment of
planting (primarily native) throughout the site. These planting will help stabilize the soil
and increase infiltration and consumption of rainwater in the raingardens.
Page 12
Appendix A — Geotechnical Reports
Geotechnical Report
Supplemental Letter Regarding Infiltration Rate
Supplemental Letter Regarding Foundation Drain Outlets
Page 13
OEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Dennis Lowenthal
1007 Bell Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Considerations
Proposed Single -Family Residence
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
December 28, 2009
JN 09224
This report is an update to a previous geotechnical engineering study that was done by Otto
Rosenau and Associates (Study) dated July 10, 2006. At the time of the study, the residence
proposed on the site was to be about 65 feet from the western (project west) property line, which
was over �5 feet from the top of an existing steep slope. Based on recent correspondence with the
project architect, Marci Bryant, the plan for the residence has recently been updated and the
residence will now be located 25 from the property line. Because the residence will now be located
within 65 feet of the steep slope, this update report is needed* per City of Edmonds Code.
The western deck of the residence will be located 25 feet from the western property line, while. the
main residence will be at least another 6 feefto the east of the western property line. Thus, the
deck and main portion of the residence will be located about 37 and 43 feet from a steep slope that
is west of the western property line. A basement will be. located on the western side of the
residence, while the main level will be the lowest level on the eastern portion of the residence. The
basement level will be at approximate e ' levat ' ion 41 feet; it will essentially daylight. to the west, . The
slab at the eastern side of the basement will be about 3.5 feet below the existing ground. Only
shallow excavations are anticipated for the eastern portion of the residence.
The property is currently undeveloped, although we understand that a residence recently existed on
the eastern side of the site. The site is now mostly covered with low -growing vegetation. The site
declines gently (in the range of 10 percent) downward, to the west. However, as noted earlier, a
steep slope declines away from the site about 10 to 14 feet west of the western property line. The
slope is about 15 to 20 feet tall, and the Burlington Northern right-of-way and railroad tracks are
located at the base of this slope.
Based on the information provided in the Study, the upper few feet of soil at the site consisted of
loose sand with silt that became loose to medium -dense down to about 7 feet. Below this depth,
the sand'became medium -dense down to the maximum explored depth of approximately 9.5 feet.
Beca"use of the updated plans, we believed that deeper soil information was needed at the western
side of the proposed residence. Thus, a test boring was drilled on the site on October 7, 2009 with
a small track -mounted rig. The location of this test boring is shown on the attached plan, Plate 1,
while the log of the test boring is attached as Plate 2. Below a few feet of loose soil, the test boring
revealed mostly medium -dense sand with silt soil down to approximately a depth of 15 feet. Below
the sand with silt, the test boring revealed very dense silty sand soil that had varying amounts of
gravel.
Dennis Lowenthal
December 28, 2009
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JN 09224
Page 2
The soils revealed in the test boring on the western side of the proposed residence were similar,
but somewhat more dense than was reported in the Study, based on the test pits. The test boring
extended below the depth of the test pits, and very dense sand was revealed at about 14 feet
below mostly medium -dense sand. We agree with the soil parameters presented in the Study
based on the recent soil boring. Our only significant disagreement with the Study is the
recommendation for placing a 2-foot layer of compacted fill below every footing; we believe that
only compacting the footing subgrade soils below the loose upper few feet of soil is necessary to
achieve the 2,000 psf bearing capacity as noted in the Study. Structural fill could be used, but is
not necessary to raise the soil subgrade level if bearing soils are deeper than desired, based on the
proposed grade of the foundation. The structural fill needs to be placed on soils that are below the
upper few feet of loose soil. The compaction of the onsite soils below the upper few feet of loose
soil and/or structural fill needs to be done with equipment that is larger and more powerful than a
plate compactor.
Diverting stormwater from impervious surfaces near, or on, any steep slopes in the Puget Sound
area can potentially cause landslides. Thus, stormwater should not be diverted to any point near
the top or on the steep western slope. We recommend that the stormwater be diverted to the base
of the steep slope, or at least 100 feet from the top of the steep slope. If infiltration of stormwater is
utilized, we believe that the site soils are capable of infiltration rates of at least I inch per hour.
Discussion of Steep Western Slope and Buffer
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 10 to 14 feet west
of the subject property is considered to be a landslide hazard area per the Code,� because it is
about 15 to 20 feet tall.
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". For this project, the buffer that is being requested is about 20 to
24 feet from the steep slope to the west of the property. Based on the site explorations, especially
the deep test boring done near the western edge of the proposed residence, it is apparent that the
core of the steep slope west of the subject property is comprised of very competent, native sand.
We did not observe indications of slope instability during our site visit, nor were any noted in the
Study. Because of these reasons, and because the slope is only about 15 to 20 feet in height, it is
our opinion that the buffer can be reduced to 20 feet, resulting in a total minimum building setback
of 35 feet from the top of the western slope. 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 is shown directly after.
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions. We understand that rain gardens used as
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Dennis Lowenthal
December 28, 2009
JN 09224
Page 3
infiltration systems are proposed that will be located well away from the steep slope (and
outside the default buffer of 50 feet), and that any water that cannot reach the rain gardens
will be pumped up to the street. The infiltration systems will be designed so that the rate of
surface water discharge will not exceed the predevelopment rate. Thus, we believe that this
point has been accounted for.
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 basicstandard (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 shag 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 15 to 20 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 15 feet — we
assigned an internal angle of friction of 34 degrees) and the worst -case situation where the
residence is about 37 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 are 1.62 and 1.4 respectively. This is
a worst -case analysis, the actual scenario likely has safety factors greater than this. In any
case, these safety factors are greater than 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.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Dennis Lowenthal
December 28, 2009
JN 09224
Page 4
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.
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 in this letter is very
suitable for this site.
We trust that this letter meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please
contact us if we can be of further service.
Attachments: Plates 1 and 2
cc: Marc! Bryant
via email vmarcibryant@msn.com
DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
0
D. Robert Wa rd, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Proposed
Deck
B-1
F Proposed
Residence
Proposed
Garage
Sotindview Drive
GEOTECH
CONSULTATM, INC.
rAl
Project North
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
18720 Soundview Place
Edmonds, Washington
Job No. Date.
09224 Oct. 2009 1 No Scale I Plate.
5
10
15
20
.25
30
35
40
jo &I BORING 1
�00 e,
Description
...
Gr6ss over
Medium brown, silty SAND with fine gravel and some roots
15
1
Brown SAND, less silty, with some gravel, fine- to. medium -grained, moist-, medium -dense
increasing silt, very moist, loose to medium -dense
Sp
V
sm
16-
3
becomes grayish brown, medium- to coarse -grained, wet, medium -dense
15
4
Gray, silty SAND, fine-grained, with gravel, very moist, very dense
57
5
sm
50/5"
6
becomes moist
40
7
4:;
becomes brown, very gravelly
V
50/311
81
becomes less silty
SID
GP
50/6"
9
50/4"
10
• Test boring was terminated at 40.3 feet on October 7, 2009.
• Perched groundwater at 7.5 feet; groundwater at 30 feet.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
18720 Soundview Place
Edmonds, Washington
jJob jDate: I Logged by- 1PIate:
09224 Oct. 2009 TAJ
10
aEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Dennis Lowenthal
1007 Bell Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Infiltration Rates
Proposed Single -Family Residence
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
February 22, 2010
JN 09224
via email
We prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the projected dated, December 28, 2009. In the
report, we noted that an infiltration rate for the near surface Soil below topsoil of 1 -inch per minute
could be used for the project. However, we understand that the City of Edmonds has requested
that additional clarification regarding this rate be provided.
Based on the Department of Ecology's Municipal Stormwater Management in Western Washington,
Volume 111, infiltration rates can be determined based on USDA Soil Textural Classifications System
(Table 3.7), Although -no official sieve analysis was performed on the near -surface soil, both our
personnel (who observed the drilling of a test boring), or personnel of Otto Rosenau (who previously
observed the excavation of several test pits) classified the soils as SP-SM, which is slightly silty
sand per the Unified Soil Triangle (USCS). This soil type has approximately 5 to 12 percent sand,
no clay, and 88 to 95 percent sand/gravel. Per the USDA Soil Textural Classification System, this
soil is classified as a sand. We have attached Figure 8.27, the USDA Textural Triangle, to visually
illustrate this.
Based on Table 3.7, the long term design of infiltration rate of sand is 2 inches per hour. This
rate is 200 percent greater than the recommended rate noted in our report of 1 inch per hour.
Therefore, the design infiltration rate of 1 inch per hour for this project is very suitable.
We trust that this letter meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please
contact us if we can be of further service4
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
Attachment: Table 3.7 USDA Soil Textural Classification System
cc: Marci Bryant
via email vmarcibryant@msn.com
DRW: jyb
U
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
for homogeneous soils. These rates not consider the effects of site
variability and long-term clogging due to siltation and biomass buildup in
the infiltration facility.
Table 3.7 -- Recommended Infiltration Rates
based on USDA Soil Textural Classification.
Estimated Long -
*Short -Term
Term (Design)
Infiltration
Correction
Infiltration Rate
Rate (in./hr)
Factor, CF
(in./hr)
Clean sandy gravels and
20
2
10
gravelly sands (i.e., 90% of
the total soil sample is
retained in the #10 sieve)
Sand
8
4
2***
Loamy Sand
2
4
0.5
Sandy Loam
1
.4
0.25
Loam
0.5
4
0.13
*From WEF/ASCE, 1998.
"Not recommended for treatment
*** Refer to SSC-4 and SSC-6 for treatment acceptability criteria
Based on experience with long-term full-scale infiltration pond
performance, Ecology's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
recommends that the short-term infiltration rates be reduced as shown in
Table 3.7, dividing by a correction factor of 2 to 4i depending on the soil
textural classification. The correction factors provided in Table 3.7
represent an average degree of long-term facility maintenance, TSS
reduction through pretreatment, and site variability in the subsurface
conditions. These conditions might include deposits of ancient landslide
debris, buried stream channels, lateral grain size variability, and -other
factors that affect homogeneity).
These correction factors could be reduced, subject to the approval of the
local jurisdiction, under the following conditions:
• For sites with little soil variability,
• Where there will be a high degree of long-term facility maintenance,
Where specific, reliable pretreatment is employed to reduce TSS
entering the infiltration facility
In no case shall a correction factor less than 2.0 be used.
3-76 Volume 1// — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs Februafy 2005
A
Textural Triangle
U.S.D.A.
100% clay
in
70 clay
30
/6'0. \A-
40-
V\.-
-50
Silt SO
clay
40 Sand
.60
clay \Clay Silty
VOOM
lay
Sandy clay
loom
M
A
V
V
io Loam
so
If i2X
%Ri
10
Silt —90
Ty"O
v v V - v
100% Bono 90 80 70 80 .60 40 30 20 10 100% *1*
..Percent 581W -
OIL- A 7- nfi-` 5J
W 1 u- ?6 7
1 JPU—P*I- W- _rD
R7
Shaded area is applicable for design of infiltration BNPs
Figure 3.27 USDA Textural Triangle
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture
C)2,�2—q
3-74 Volume 1// - Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs Februaiy 2005
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Dennis Lowenthal
1007 Bell Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Review of Plans
Proposed Single -Family Residence
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
March 19, 2010
JN 09224
via email
We have completed a plan review letter for your project dated January 14 2010. However, we
understand that the City of Edmonds has requested that our firm directly Comment on the
footing drain system. Based on recent civil plans of the project we have reviewed, which were
prepared by WR Consulting, Inc., dated March 19, 2010, we understand that the footings drains
will discharge to a small drainage structure approximately 10 feet west and slightly downslope of
the residence. This location is about 30 feet from a steep slope west of your property.
In our professional opinion, the amount of flow in the footing drain system will be very limited.
Because of this, because there are relatively sandy and permeable near -surface soil at the
property, and because the slope is at least 30 feet from the drain, it is our professional opinion
that the drain location is adequate from a geotechnical engineering standpoint.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
cc: Marci Bryant
via email. vmarcibryant@msn.com
WR Consulting — John Rundall
via email.-johnrundali@comcast.net
DRW: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
0,
Appendix B — Lowenthal Site: SCS Model Output:
Scenario #1 — Raingarden Infiltration Rate — 0.5 in/hr
Scenario #2 — Raingarden Infiltration Rate — 1.0 in/hr
Page 14
Lowenthal Detention Raingardens
Tank
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
CN Description
(acres)
(subcatchment-numbers)
0.115
73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B (30S)
0.023
98 (30S)
0.103
98 Imperviuos Runoff (10S)
0.241
TOTAL AREA
0.5"/hr Intiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3
Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area Soil Subcatchment
(acres) Goup Numbers
0.000
HSG A
0.115
HSG B 30S
0.000
HSG C
0.000
HSG D
0.126
Other 10S,30S
0.241
TOTAL AREA
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. , Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4
Summary for Subcatchment 1 OS: Roof Runoff
Runoff 0.07 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Depth= 2.88"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
4,500 98 lmperviuos Runoff
4,500 98 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 99
4,500 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cf S)
6.0 Direct Entry, Roof Runoff
Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Painfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5
Summary for Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Runoff 0.07 cfs @ 7.94 hrs, V�lume= 0.022 af, Depth= 1.90"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Descriotion
1,000
98
5,000
73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B
6,000
77 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 89
5,000
Pervious Area
1,000
Impervious Area
Tc Length
Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet)
(ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0
Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Hydrograph
0.07-.
1,0.07,cts.,l
F gnotfl
0.065-
Type 1A 24-hr; Edmonds 100ye-24hr
0.06-
Rainfall=.3.00"
0.055'
AMC3
0.05
Runoff Area=6,000 Sf
Runoff Volume='0.022'af
0.045.
Runoff Depth
z 0.04-
Tc=6.0 M 'in
o 0.035-
Adjusted CN=89
LL
0.03
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6
Summary for Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Inflow Area 0.241 ac, 52.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth= 1.45" for Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.07 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af
Outf low 0.03 cfs @ 7.55 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Atten= 60%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary 0.03 cfs @ 7.55 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 37.26'@ 8.42 hrs Surf.Area= 52 sf Storage= 85 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 8.1 min calculated for 0.029 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 8.1 min ( 709.8 - 701.7)
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 35.50' 113cf 30.0"Dx23.00'L Horizontal Cylinder
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 35.50' Special & User -Defined
Head (feet) 0.00 0.10 2.50 2.60
Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.056
Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 7.55 hrs HW=35.62' (Free Discharge)
t-1 =Special& User -Defined (Custom Controls 0.03 cfs)
Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Hydrograph
0.08 s"I
0.075- Primary
0.07-'
q
. . . . . . Inflow'Area-10.241 �ac
q
0.065-XI.I....
0.06"�_ Peak Elev. 37.26.
0.055z orage=
St 85 c
0.05:
"6 0.045 Z . ... ...
0.04-'
0
0.035-:
,cfs
0.025-..
0.02-
0.015--
0.011::
18 20 22 24 i6 2'8 iO 3'2' 34 '�6 i8 4'0 4'2 48
0 2 4 6 8 10 1 1 1
Time (hours)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7
Summary for Pond 2P: Raingardens
Inflow Area 0.138 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.90" for Edmonds 100yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.07 cfs @ 7.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af
Outflow 0.01 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Atten= 81 %, Lag= 323.4 min
Discarded 0.01 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af
Primary 0.01 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 40.80'@ 13.33 hrs Surf.Area= 546 sf Storage= 353 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 525.7 min calculated for 0.022 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 526.3 min ( 1,286.8 - 760.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage - Storage Description
#1 40.00' 468 cf 17.20'W x 20.00'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 40.75' 6.0" x 80.0' long Culvert CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Outlet Invert= 40.00' S=0.0094'/' Cc=0.900 n=0.013
#2 Discarded 40.00' 0.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.33 hrs HW=40.80' (Free Discharge)
t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs)
Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.33 hrs HW=40.80' (Free Discharge)
t-l=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.92 fps)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8
Pond 2P: Raingardens
Hydrograph
0.07
s
— Outflow
0.065-
— Discarded
IntipwArea 0 138ac...
— Primary
0.06-'
0.055-
Peak Elev=40.80,
0.05-�
St '353 c I f-
orage=
0.045-
z 0.04-�
o 0.035-
0.03'
0.025
i q
0.02-
0.015-
0� 0 1 cis�"l
0.01
0.01:cfs
. ... ...
0.005
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time (hours)
-4
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00 ", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9
Summary for Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
Runoff 0.05 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.016af, Depth= 1.88"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
4,500 98 Imperviuos Runoff
4,500 98 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 99
4,500 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry, Roof Runoff
Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
4-1
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10
Summary for Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Runoff 0.03 cfs @ 7.97 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth= 1.03"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Descrir)tion
1,000 98
5,000 73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B
6,000 77 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 89
5,000 Pervious Area
1,000 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11
Summary for Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Inflow Area 0.241 ac, 52.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.81 " for Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr event
Inflow 0.05 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af
Outflow 0.03 cfs @ 7.65 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af, Atten= 39%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary 0.03 cfs @ 7.65 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 36.29'@ 8.16 hrs Surf.Area= 53 sf Storage= 30 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 2.4 min calculated for 0.016 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 2.4 min ( 662.0 - 659.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 35.50' 113cf 30.0"D x 23.00'L Horizontal Cylinder
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 35.50' Special & User -Defined
Head (feet) 0.00 0.10 2.50 2.60
Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.056
Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 7.65 hrs HW=35.66' (Free Discharge)
111=Special & User -Defined (Custom Controls 0.03 cfs)
Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
F-9
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12
Summary for Pond 2P: Raingardens
Inflow Area 0. 138 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.03" for Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr event
Inflow 0.03 cfs Ca-) 7.97 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af
Outflow 0.01 cfs @ 20.86 hrs, Volurne= 0.012 af, Atten= 84%, Lag= 773.3 min
Discarded 0.01 cfs @ 20.86 hrs, Volurne= 0.012 af
Primary 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 40.47'@ 20.86 hrs Surf.Area= 456 sf Storage= 186 ct
Plug -Flow detention time= 413.7 min calculated for 0.012 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 414.0 min ( 1,210.5 - 796.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 40.00' 468 cf 17.20'W x 20.00'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 40.75' 6.0" x 80.0' long Culvert CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Outlet Invert= 40.00' S=0.0094'/' Cc=0.900 n=0.013
#2 Discarded 40.00' 0.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area
Discarded Oufflow Max=0.01 cfs @ 20.86 hrs HW=40.47' (Free Discharge)
't--2=Exfi1tration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs)
Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=40.00' (Free Discharge)
t--I=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00 ", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13
Pond 2P: Raingardens
Hydrograph
0.0367�
0.03 cfs,
Inflow
U.U34-
Outflow
Discarded
0.032—
Inflow: Area"-OA 3&ac
Primary
0.03':
0.028'
Peak Ele'v='40.47
0.026:
0.024-'
p
Storage=: 186 cf
0.0227:
0.02-'
B: 0.018-
0
U. 0.0116�
. ... ..
0.014-
0.012-
0.01-'
0.008-W
-
.001 cfs'
0006-1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time (hours)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14
Summary for Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
Runoff 0.03 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.19"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
4,500 98 Imperviuos Runoff
4,500 98 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 99
4,500 Impervious Area
Tc: Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry, Roof Runoff
Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site
Type 1A 24-hr Edmdnds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR
Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15
Summary for Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Runoff
0.01 cfs @ 7.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 0.48"
Runoff by SCS TR-20
method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1. 30", AMC=3
Area (sf)
CN Description
1,000
98
5,000
73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B
6,000
77 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 89
5,000
Pervious Area
1,000
Impervious Area
Tc Length
Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet)
(ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cf S)
6.0
Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Hydrograph
0.015.1.-
-
-0:01�rCfS`
0.014-
0.013-...
Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr
0.012---
Rainfeill=11.30"
0.0117
AMC=3
0.01
Runoff Area=6,000 sf
Runoff Volume=0.006 af
,a 0.009
0.008-:
Runoff _Depth=0.48
Tc=6.6 min
io 0.007-'
Adjusted CN=89
0.006-.
0.005'
0.004
0.003-:
0.002-:
0.001-:
-
0--
0 2 4
6 8 18 20 22 24 �6 �O �7 7 7 48
Time (hours)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16
Summary for Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Inflow Area 0.241 ac, 52.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth= 0.51 " for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.03 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af
Outflow 0.03 cfs @ 7.80 hrs, Volume= 0.01 Oaf, Atten= 5%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary 0.03 cfs @ 7.80 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 35.64'@ 8.00 hrs Surf.Area= 26 sf Storage= 2 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 0.5 min calculated for 0.010 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.5 min ( 671.8 - 671.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 35.50' 113cf 30.0"D x23.00'L Horizontal Cylinder
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 35.50' Special & User -Defined
Head (feet) 0.00 0.10 2.50 2.60
Disch.(cfs) 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.056
PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.03cfs@7.80hrs HW=35.61' (FreeDischarge)
't-l=Special & User -Defined (Custom Controls 0.03 cfs)
Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Hydrograph
FO.03 cis 1
F- Inflo.
0.032-...-
'0;03 Cis",
q
Primary
0.03:
1nf1ow:Area=0.241.ac
0.028-:
0.026-
Peak Elev=35.64'
0.024,::
0.022-i
Storage=2. cf
T 0.027:
0.018'
-0 0.016:
LL
0.014:
q
0.012-
0.01Z
0008
0.006
0.004
0.002
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time (hours)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacie 17
Summary for Pond 2P: Raingardens
Inflow Area
0.138 ac,
16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.48" for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow
0.01 cfs @
7.99 hrs,
Volume=
0.006 at
Outflow
0.00 cfs @
11.06 hrs,
Volume=
0.006 at, Atten= 70%, Lag= 184.2 min
Discarded
0.00 cfs @
11.06 hrs,
Volume=
0.006 at
Primary
0.00 cfs @
0.00 hrs,
Volume=
0.000 at
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 40.08' @ 11.06 hrs Surf.Area= 363 sf Storage= 30 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 75.3 min calculated for 0.006 at (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass clet. time= 75.3 min ( 919.6 - 844.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 40.00' 468 cf 17.20'W x 20.00'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 40.75' 6.0" x 80.0' long Culvert CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Outlet Invert= 40.00' S=0.0094'/' Cc=0.900 n=0.013
#2 Discarded 40.00' 0.500 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 11.06 hrs HW=40.08' (Free Discharge)
t--2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs)
Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=40.00' (Free Discharge)
t--l=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
0.5"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAIDO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18
1 Os"
Roof Runoff
�Runnff to Raingarden
.,'i P
Lowenthal Detention
Tank
(3, 0,
Raingardens
Drainage Diagram for Lowenthal Site
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc., Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Sol6tior
LLC
1 Vhr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area CN Description
(acres) (su bcatchm ent- n u m be rs)
0.115 73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B (30S)
0.023 98 (30S)
0.103 98 Imperviuos Runoff (10S)
0.241 TOTAL AREA
V/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771
0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3
Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area Soil
Subcatchment
(acres) Goup
Numbers
0.000 HSG A
0.115 HSG B
30S
0.000 HSG C
0.000 HSG D
0.126 Other
10S,30S
0.241
TOTAL AREA
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4
Summary for Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
Runoff 0.07 cts @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Depth= 2.88"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
4,500 98 Imperviuos Runoff
4,500 98 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 99
4,500 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cf S)
6.0 Direct Entry, Roof Runoff
Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
Hydrograph
0.08-'
0107'cf§
0.075-:
0.07-
iType 1A 24�hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr
0.065-.
a all�3.00"
R inf
0.06-:
. . . 4AMCO
Runoff Area"4,500 �sf
0.055-
Runoff Volume=0.025 af
0.05*::
Runoff Depth-2.88'
"6 0.045'
... ... ... ... . .. ... ...
q Td=6.0 min
0 0.04
: Adjusted C.N=99
LL
0.035-
0.03-'
0.025
0.02
0 .0, 5
0.01
0.005
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time (hours)
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5
Summary for Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Runoff 0.07 cts @ 7.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Depth= 1.90"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
1,000 98
5,000 73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B
6,000 77 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN 89
5,000 Pervious Area
1,000 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Hydrograph
0.07--
0.07 cts%kk
0.065
Type IIA 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr
0.06-:
Rainfall=3.00"
0.0557 AMC=3
0.05' Runoff Area=6,000 sf
0.045- Runoff Volume 0.022 af
Runoff Depth--'1.90"
1i 0.04-:
Tc=6.0 Min
0 0.035
Adjusted CN=99
0.03
0.025-
0.027
0.015-
0.01-
0.005-
0--
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time (hours)
EM
1 "/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6
Summary for Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Inflow Area 0.241 ac, 52.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.24" for Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.07 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af
Outflow 0.03 cfs @ 7.55 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Atten= 60%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary 0.03 cfs @ 7.55 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 37.26'@ 8.42 hrs Surf.Area= 52 st Storage= 85 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 9.4 min calculated for 0.025 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass clet. time= 9.4 min ( 660.8 - 651.4)
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 35.50' 113cf 30.0"D x 23.00'L Horizontal Cylinder
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 35.50' Special & User -Defined
Head (feet) 0.00 0.10 2.50 2.60
Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.056
PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.03cfs@7.55hrs HW=35.62' (FreeDischarge)
t—l=Special & User -Defined (Custom Controls 0.03 cfs)
Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Time (hours)
4 "
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7
Summary for Pond 2P: Raingardens
Inflow Area 0.138 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.90" for Edmonds 100yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.07 cfs @ 7.94 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af
Outflow 0.01 cfs @ 14.99 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Atten= 82%, Lag= 423.1 min
Discarded 0.01 cfs @ 14.99 hrs, Volurne= 0.022 af
Primary 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 40.62'@ 14.99 hrs Surf.Area= 496 sf Storage= 259 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 277.4 min calculated for 0.022 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 277.5 min ( 1,038.0 - 760.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 40.00' 468 cf 17.20'W x 20.001 x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 40.75' 6.0" x 80.0'long Culvert CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Outlet Invert= 40.00' S=0.0094'/' Cc=0.900 n=0.013
#2 Discarded 40.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 14.99 hrs HW=40.62' (Free Discharge)
t--2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs)
Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=40.00' (Free Discharge)
t—l=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
FM
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8
Pond 2P: Raingardens
Hydrograph
0.07--
.0.0 cfs�* n ow
oufflow
0.065" Discarded
Primary
InflowArea 0-4.38 aq...
0.06-
0.055
Peak Elev=40.62
0.05-
Storage=259 cf
0.045-
"6 0.04-�
0 0.035-�
LL Z
0.03-'
0.025-
0.02-
LInflow
'Utflo
s
::OD cardd.]d
Pr'ma
0.015-
0.017
ODDS
0 2 4 6 h 1'6 1'2 1'� 1'6 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 �64'2'�'� .... �6 �8
Time (hours)
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00 ", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9
Summary for Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
Runoff 0.05 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af, Depth= 1.88"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
4,500 98 Imperviuos Runoff
4,500 98 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 99
4,500 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry, Roof Runoff
Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00 ", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10
Summary for Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Runoff 0.03 cfs @ 7.97 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth= 1.03"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Descrir)tion
1,000 98
5,000 73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B
6,000 77 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 89
5,000 Pervious Area
1,000 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (Cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Hydrograph
0.036
�,0.03�cfs]
0.034-:
0.032—
Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10 rwNhr
y
0.03-
'RainfaI11=2.00"
0.028-:
AMC-3
0.026-.
Runoff, Area=,6,000 sf
0.024-
... ... ... .. ... .
Runoff.Vollume:;O 12 af
0.022
.01
0.02':
Runoff Depth=1.03'.'...
0.018--
Tc=6.0 min
0
LL 0.016-
Adjusted CN�-89
0.014":
0.012-'
. .. ...
0.01-
0.008-
0.006
0.004
. ... ..
0.002
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time (hours)
I
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 0 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11
Summary for Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Inflow Area 0.241 ac, 52.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.81 " for Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr event
Inflow 0.05 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af
Outflow 0.03 cfs @ 7.65 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af, Atten= 39%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary 0.03 cfs @ 7.65 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 36.29'@ 8.16 hrs Surf.Area= 53 sf Storage= 30 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 2.4 min calculated for 0.016 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 2.4 min ( 662.0 - 659.6
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 35.50' 113cf 30.0"Dx23.00'L Horizontal Cylinder
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 35.50' Special & User -Defined
Head (feet) 0.00 0.10 2.50 2.60
Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.056
Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 7.65 hrs HW=35.66' (Free Discharge)
t--,=Special & User -Defined (Custom Controls 0.03 cfs)
Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Hydrograph
0. cfsd
0.05-
0.045-
0.04-
0.035-
0.0 �Cfs"I.
0.03-
0 0.025-
LL
Time (hours)
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12
Summary for Pond 2P: Raingardens
Inflow Area 0. 138 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.03" for Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr event
Inflow 0.03 cfs @ 7.97 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af
Outflow 0.01 cfs @ 10.24 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 135.8 min
Discarded 0.01 cfs @ 10.24 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af
Primary 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 40.20'@ 10.24 hrs Surf.Area= 391 sf Storage= 75 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 76.9 min calculated for 0.012 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 76.9 min ( 873.4 - 796.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 40.00' 468 cf 17.20'W x 20.001 x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 40.75' 6.0" x 80.0' long Culvert CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Outlet Invert= 40.00' S=0.0094'/' Cc=0.900 n=0.013
#2 Discarded 40.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 10.24 hrs HW=40.20' (Free Discharge)
t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs)
Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=40.00' (Free Discharge)
t—l=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
1 "/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13
1 "/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1. 30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14
Summary for Subcatchment 1OS: Roof Runoff
Runoff 0.03 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 0.010af, Depth= 1.19"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Area (sf) CN Description
4,500 98 Imperviuos Runoff
4,500 98 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 99
4,500 Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cf S)
6.0 Direct Entry, Roof Runoff
0.022-
R 0.02-:
0.0187
.2 0.016-:
LL
0.014-
0.012:
0.01-�
0.008'-
0.006-:
0.004-1
14!
10 1 14 1'6 1� �6 ii� i4l i6 i8 �O 32 �4 �6 i8 40 42 44 -46 48
Time (hours)
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site
Type 1A 24-hr Edr�onds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR
Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 C 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15
Summary for Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Runoff
0.01 cfs @ 7.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 0.48"
Runoff by SCS TR-20
method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type IA 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Area (sf)
CN escription
1,000
98
5,000
73 Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B
6,000
77 Weighted Average, Adjusted for AMC to CN = 89
5,000
Pervious Area
1,000
Impervious Area
Tc Length
Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) eet)
(ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0
Direct Entry,
Subcatchment 30S: Runoff to Raingarden
Hydrograph
0.015-:
1 0.01 cfs I
0.014
0.013-
Type. 1A 24-hr-Ednionds.2yr-'24hr..
0.012-
Rainfed1=11.30"
0.011-
-
AMC=3
0.01-
Runoff Arba=;6,000 sf
Runoff Volu.me=0.006 af
Runoff Depth=0.48"
0,008-.
Tc=6.0 min
0 0.007-
Adjusted CN=89
0.006-.
0.005-:
0.0047
0.003-:
0.002-
0.0017
0-,
-'1'6'
0 2 4
6 8 1'� 1 1 24 26 28 30 3'4
Time (hours)
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16
Summary for Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Inflow Area 0.241 ac, 52.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth= 0.51 " for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.03 cts @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 0.010 at
Outflow 0.03 cts @ 7.80 hrs, Volume= 0.01 Oaf, Atten= 5%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary 0.03 cts @ 7.80 hrs, Volume= 0.010 at
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 35.64'@ 8.00 hrs Surf.Area= 26 sf Storage= 2 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 0.5 min calculated for 0.010 at (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.5 min ( 671.8 - 671.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 35.50' 113cf 30.0"Dx23.00'L Horizontal Cylinder
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 35.50' Special & User -Defined
Head (feet) 0.00 0.10 2.50 2.60
Disch. (cfs) 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.056
Primary OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs 0 7.80 hrs HW=35.61' (Free Discharge)
t-l=Special & User -Defined (Custom Controls 0.03 cfs)
Pond 1 P: Lowenthal Detention Tank
Hydrograph
0.034-'
OM cts- F- -flow
0.032 6W Primary
L12
0.03-:
Inflow'Area-0.241 �ae
0.028-:
0.026-
Peak Elev 35 6W
0.024,::
0.022-.. ......Storage.11_2 cf
0.02-,
0.018-: -
0 0.016-
M
0.014,::
0.012'
0.008-
0.006. -
q
0.004-
0.002-
0
'':44 �6 '�8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 �O 34
Time (hours)
1"/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1.30'., AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 C 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacle 17
Summary for Pond 2P: Raingardens
Inflow Area 0.138 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.48" for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 0.01 cfs @ 7.99 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af
Outf low 0.01 cfs @ 8.28 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Atten= 42%, Lag= 17.2 min
Discarded 0.01 cfs @ 8.28 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af
Primary 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs;
Peak Elev= 40.03'@ 8.28 hrs Surf.Area= 351 sf Storage= 11 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 10.4 min calculated for 0.006 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass clet. time= 10.4 min ( 854.7 - 844.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 40.00' 468 cf 17.20'W x 20.00'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 40.75' 6.0" x 80.0' long Culvert CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Outlet Invert= 40.00' S=0.0094'/' Cc=0.900 n=0.013
#2 Discarded 40.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 8.28 hrs HW=40.03' (Free Discharge)
't-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs)
Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs 9 0.00 hrs; HW=40.00' (Free Discharge)
t—l=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
1 "/hr Infiltration Rate
Lowenthal Site Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 3/22/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18
Pond 2P: Raingardens
Hydrograph
0.015-
inflow
Inflow
0.014'
Ouff low
iutfjlow
Discarded
s
LD carded
0.013-
Inflow. Area-; 0.138 aC
Primary
0.012-:
Peak Elev= 4.0 03
0.011
0.01-:
Storage=l. 1; Cf
0.009-
q
0.008:
...
. ... ... ...
ro 0.007-z
0.006-
0.005'
0.004-
0.003-
0.002-:
. ... ...
0
?'0'
WO
'1'6
1'� 14 1'6 1 �6 i� i� T877 7,34 36 38 40
Time (hours)
Appendix C — Fruitdale Creek: SCS Model Output:
Scenario #1 — Fruitdale Creek (Future) without Lowenthal Runoff
Scenario #2 — Fruitdale Creek (Future) with Lowenthal Runoff
Page 15
#12 Impervious
1 2S
128#13Pervious
[�2R I
Fruadale Creek RR Fruitdale Creek at
Culvert Sound View Place
1, x3S
#17 & /8 Impervious
Middle Fruitclale (Sound
View to Olympic View)
4S
,#17 & 18 Pervious
5S)
#14,15 161mpervious
1-1
14,
Upper Fruitdale (above
Olympic View)
(j6s)
15 & 16 Pervious
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCADS8.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
CN
Description
(subcatchment-numbers)
8.900
68
(6S)
5.700
68
Subbasin 17 (4S)
10.900
80
Subbasin 12 (2S)
33.700
86
(6S)
6.200
86
Subbasin 13 (2S)
25.700
86
Subbasin 18 (4S)
10.900
98
(is)
5.600
98
Subbasin 14 (5S)
8.800
98
Subbasin 15 (5S)
16.200
98
Subbasin 16 (5S)
3.700
98
Subbasin 17 (3S)
16.400
98
Subbasin 18 (3S)
152.700
TOTAL AREA
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3
Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area Soil Subcatchment
(acres) Goup Numbers
0.000
HSG A
0.000
HSG B
0.000
HSG C
0.000
HSG D
152.700
Other IS,2S,3S,4S,5S,6S
152.700
TOTAL AREA
pu
Fruitdale Creek — No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4
Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Reach 1 R: Fruitclale Creek RR Culvert Avg. Depth=1.86' Max Ve1=1 1.43 fps lnflow=52.51 cfs 30.354 af
D=36.0" n=0.013 L=40.0' S=0.0125'/' Capacity=74.57cfs Outflow=52.50cfs 30.352 af
Reach 2R: Frultdale Creek at Sound View Avg. Depth=1.12' Max Vel=7.41 fps Inflow=52.55 cfs 30.380 af
n=0.060 L=350.0' S=0.1429'/' Capacity= 1,592.75 cfs Outflow=52.51 cfs 30.354 af
Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Avg. Depth=1.27' Max Vel=4.94 fps lnflow=43.11 cfs 24.872 af
n=0.060 L=1,600.0' S=0.0550'/' Capacity=988.28cfs Outflow=42.77cfs 24.724 af
Reach 4R: Upper Frultdale (above Olympic Avg. Depth=0.94' Max Vel=4.91 fps Inflow=22.45 cfs 14.397 af
n=0.060 L=1,500.0' S=0.0833'/' Capacity= 1, 127.77 cfs Outflow=22.18cfs 14.315 af
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24 -hr Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr Rainfall=3. 00 ", A MC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5
Summary for Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert
[52] Hint: Inlet/Outlet conditions not evaluated
[62] Warning: Exceeded Reach 2R OUTLET depth by 0.74'@ 8.50 hrs
Inflow Area 152.700 ac, 40.34% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.39" for Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr event
Inflow 52.51 cts @ 8.47 hrs, Volume= 30.354 at
Outflow 52.50 cfs @ 8.47 hrs, Volume= 30.352 at, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0. 1 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 11.43 tps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 7.85 tps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Peak Storage= 184 ct @ 8.47 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.86'
Bank -Full Depth= 3.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 74.57 cfs
36.0" Diameter Pipe, n= 0.013
Length=40.0' Slope=0.0125'/'
Inlet Invert= 12.00', Outlet Invert= 11.50'
0
U.
Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
F-1 —nfl.—,, _j
I - oufflow
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6
Summary for Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
(62] Warning: Exceeded Reach 3R OUTLET depth by 0.03'@ 0.85 hrs
Inflow Area 152.700 ac, 40.34% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.39" for Edmonds 1 00yr-24hr event -
Inflow 52.55 cfs @ 8.44 hrs, Volume= 30.380 af
Outf low 52.51 cfs @ 8.47 hrs, Volume= 30.354 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.4 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 7.41 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.8 min
Avg. Velocity = 5.02 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.2 min
Peak Storage= 2,481 cf @ 8.45 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1. 12'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 1,592.75 cfs
3.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 33.00'
Length=350.0' Slope=0.1429'/'
Inlet Invert= 62.00', Outlet Invert= 12.00'
0
LL
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
F—_1_nf_1o_._j
I - ouff low I
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 C 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7
Summary for Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Olympic View)
[62] Warning: Exceeded Reach 4R OUTLET depth by 0.36'@ 8.65 hrs
Inflow Area 124.700 ac, 40.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.39" for Edmonds I 00yr-24hr event
Inflow 43.11 cfs @ 8.37 hrs, Volume= 24.872 af
Outflow 42.77 cfs @ 8.53 hrs, Volume= 24.724 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 9.8 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 4.94 fps, Min. Travel Time= 5.4 min
Avg. Velocity = 3.36 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.9 min
Peak Storage= 13,856 cf @ 8.44 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.27'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 988.28 cfs
3.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 33.00'
Length= 1,600.0' Slope= 0.05507'
Inlet Invert= 150.00', Outlet Invert= 62.00'
0
U.
Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Olympic View)
Hydrograph
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
F—_1n_f1.Z_._j
I — Outflow I
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD88.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 8
Summary for Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic View)
Inflow Area 73.200 ac, 41.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.36" for Edmonds 100yr-24hr event
Inflow 22.45 cfs @ 8.27 hrs, Volume= 14.397 af
Outflow 22.18 cfs @ 8.43 hrs, Volume= 14.315 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 9.0 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 4.91 fps, Min. Travel Time= 5.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 3.48 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.2 min
Peak Storage= 6,779 cf @ 8.34 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.94'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 1,127.77 cfs
2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 32.00'
Length= 1,500.0' Slope= 0.08337'
Inlet Invert= 275.00', Outlet Invert= 150.00'
LL
Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic View)
Hydrograph
Elm
2
01 "4 ...........
n I I 'I 'A, A 7' 13' q' "17 71 T 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Time (hours)
� ' "2'3'
F Inflow
I — Outflow
Fruitdale Creek —No Lowenthal Type A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@ 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9
Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert Avg. Depth=1.37' Max Vel=1 0.12 fps Inflow=31.71 cfs 18.544 af
D=36.0" n=0.013 L=40.0' S=0.0125'/' Capacity=74.57cfs Outflow=31.71 cfs 18.543 af
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Avg. Depth=0.87' Max Vel=6.48 fps Inflow=31.73 cfs 18.563 af
n--0.060 L=350.0' S=0.1429'/' Capacity= 1, 592.75cfs Outflow=31.71 cfs 18.544 af
Reach 3R: Middle Fruitclale (Sound View to Avg. Depth=1.00' Max Vel=4.34 fps Inflow=26.43 cfs 15.225 af
n=0.060 L=1,600.0' S=0.0550'/' Capacity=988.28 cfs Outflow=26.17 cfs 15.116 af
Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic Avg. Depth=0.75' Max Vel=4.34 fps Inflow=1 4.04 cfs 8.798 af
n=0.060 L=1,500.0' S=0.0833'/' Capacity= 1, 127.77 cfs Outflow= 13.82 cfs 8.739af
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00 ", A MC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/nOO5771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10
Summary for Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert
[521 Hint: Inlet/Outlet conditions not evaluated
[62] Warning: Exceeded Reach 2R OUTLET depth by 0.49'@ 8.55 hrs
Inflow Area 152.700 ac, 40.34% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.46" for Edmonds 10yr-24hr event
Inflow 31.71 cfs @ 8.51 hrs, Volurne= 18.544 af
Outflow 31.71 cfs @ 8.51 hrs, Volume= 18.543 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 10. 12 f ps, Min. Travel Time= 0. 1 min
Avg. Velocity = 6.84 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Peak Storage= 125 cf @ 8.51 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.37'
Bank -Full Depth= 3.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 74.57 cfs
36.0" Diameter Pipe, n= 0.013
Length=40.0' Slope=0.01257'
Inlet Invert= 12.00', Outlet Invert= 11.50'
0
U.
Reach 1 R: Frultdale Creek RR Culvert
Hydrograph
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
r--,—.f —I.—. -i
I — Outflow I
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11
Summary for Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
[621 Warning: Exceeded Reach 3R OUTLET depth by 0.03'@ 1.20 hrs
Inflow Area 152.700 ac, 40.34% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.46" for Edmonds 10yr-24hr event
Inflow 31.73 cfs @ 8.48 hrs, Volume= 18.563 af
Outflow 31.71 cfs @ 8.51 hrs, Volume= 18.544 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.7 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 6.48 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.9 min
Avg. Velocity = 4.36 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.3 min
Peak Storage= 1,715 cf @ 8.49 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.87'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 1,592.75 cfs
3.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 33.00'
Length=350.0' Slope=0.1429'/'
Inlet Invert= 62.00', Outlet Invert= 12.00'
0
U.
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
Hydrograph
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
F---In f_1 —w - j
I — ouff low
Frultdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 10yr-24hr Rainfall=2.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacie 12
Summary for Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Olympic View)
[621 Warning: Exceeded Reach 4R OUTLET depth by 0.29'@ 8.70 hrs
Inflow Area 124.700 ac, 40.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.47" for Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr event
Inflow 26.43 cfs @ 8.37 hrs, Volume= 15.225 af
Outflow 26.17 cfs @D 8.56 hrs, Volume= 15.116 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 11. 1 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 4.34 fps, Min. Travel Time= 6.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 2.94 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 9.1 min
Peak Storage= 9,654 cf @ 8.46 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.00'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 988.28 cfs
3.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 33.00'
Length= 1,600.0' Slope= 0.05507'
Inlet Invert= 150.00', Outlet Invert= 62.00'
0
iz
Ism ME
Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Olympic View)
Hydrograph
r2(
?6"
?4-
?2-
?0-
16-
... ... ....
IA-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,
Time (hours)
F ____j
Inflow
Outflow
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 C 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13
Summary for Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic View)
Inflow Area 73.200 ac, 41.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.44" for Edmonds 10yr-24hr event
Inflow 14.04 cfs @ 8.27 hrs, Volume= 8.798 af
Outflow 13.82 cfs @ 8.44 hrs, Volume= 8.739 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 10.2 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 4.34 fps, Min. Travel Time= 5.8 min
Avg. Velocity = 3.05 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 8.2 min
Peak Storage= 4,782 cf @ 8.35 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.75'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 1,127.77 cfs
2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 32.00'
Length= 1,500.0' Slope= 0.08337'
Inlet Invert= 275.00', Outlet Invert= 150.00'
LL
Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic View)
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
F-_1 n—f - k
I — Outflow
,
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacle 14
Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert Avg. Depth=1.00' Max Vel=8.66 fps Inflow=1 7.85 cfs 10.618 af
D=36.0" n=0.013 L=40.0' S=0.0125'/' Capacity=74.57cfs Outflow= 17.85 cfs 10.617af
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Avg.Depth=0.65' MaxVel=5.53fps Inflow=17.86cfs 10.632af
n=0.060 L=350.0' S=0.1429'/' Capacity= 1,592.75 cfs Outflow=17.85cfs 10.618af
Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Avg.Depth=0.76' MaxVel=3.73fps Inflow=15.20cfs 8.742af
n=0.060 L=1,600.0' S=0.05507' Capacity=988.28cfs Outflow=14.99cfs 8.664af
Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic Avg. Depth=0.58' Max Vel=3.78 fps Inflow=8.40 cfs 5.045 af
n=0.060 L=1,500.0' S=0.0833'/' Capacity=1,127.77cfs Outflow=8.22cfs 5.004af
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15
Summary for Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert
[52] Hint: Inlet/Outlet conditions not evaluated
[621 Warning: Exceeded Reach 2R OUTLET depth by 0.35'@ 8.60 hrs
InflowArea 152.700 ac, 40.34% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.83" for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 17.85 cfs @ 8.58 hrs, Volume= 10.618 af
Outflow 17.85 cfs @ 8.58 hrs, Volume= 10.617 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0. 1 min
Routing by Stor-Incl+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 8.66 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 5.85 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.1 min
Peak Storage= 82 cf @ 8.58 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.00'
Bank -Full Depth= 3.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 74.57 cfs
36.0" Diameter Pipe, n= 0.013
Length=40.0' Slope=0.0125'/'
Inlet Invert= 12.00', Outlet Invert= 11.50'
LL
Reach 1 R: Fruitdale Creek RR Culvert
Hydrograph
F17.-85 Cis-]
0 V i
0 1 2 3 4 6' 6 6 10 1'1 1'2 23
Time (hours)
F—_1nf_1ow_j
I - ouff low
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacie 16
Summary for Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
[621 Warning: Exceeded Reach 3R OUTLET depth by 0.02'@ 1.50 hrs
Inflow Area 152.700 ac, 40.34% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.84" for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 17.86 cfs @ 8.55 hrs, Volume= 10.632 af
Outflow 17.85 cfs @ 8.58 hrs, Volume= 10.618 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.8 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 5.53 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 3.71 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.6 min
Peak Storage= 1,131 cf @ 8.56 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.65'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 1,592.75 cfs
3.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 33.00'
Length=350.0' Slope=0.1429'/'
Inlet Invert= 62.00', Outlet Invert= 12.00'
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
Hydrograph
F--i—nf I —w— I
I — Outflow
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,
Time (hours)
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD88.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacie 17
Summary for Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Olympic View)
[62] Warning: Exceeded Reach,4R OUTLET depth by 0.21'@ 8.75 hrs
Inflow Area 124.700 ac, 40.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.84" for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 15.20 cfs @ 8.38 hrs, Volume= 8.742 af
Outflow 14.99 cfs @ 8.60 hrs, Volurne= 8.664 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 12.8 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 3.73 fps, Min. Travel Time= 7.1 min
Avg. Velocity = 2.51 fps, Avg. Travel Tirne= 10.6 min
Peak Storage= 6,435 cf @ 8.48 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.76'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 988.28 cfs
3.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 33.00'
Length= 1,600.0' Slope= 0.05507'
Inlet Invert= 150.00', Outlet Invert= 62.00'
U.
Reach 3R: Middle Fruitdale (Sound View to Olympic View)
Hydrograph
0 1 2 '.1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,
Time (hours)
F-_ —In—fl.—w-1
I — Outflow I
Fruitdale Creek No Lowenthal Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall=1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/18/2010
HydroCAD88.50 s/n005771 @2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pacie 18 -
Summary for Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic View)
Inflow Area 73.200 ac, 41.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.83" for Edmonds 2yr-24hr event
Inflow 8.40 cfs @ 8.27 hrs, Volume= 5.045 af
Outflow 8.22 cfs @ 8.46 hrs, Volume= 5.004 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 11.7 min
Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Max. Velocity= 3.78 fps, Min. Travel Time= 6.6 min
Avg. Velocity = 2.62 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 9.6 min
Peak Storage= 3,267 cf @ 8.35 hrs, Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.58'
Bank -Full Depth= 5.00', Capacity at Bank -Full= 1,127.77 cfs
2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.060
Side Slope Z-value= 3.07' Top Width= 32.00'
Length= 1,500.0' Slope= 0.08337'
Inlet Invert= 275.00', Outlet Invert= 150.00'
0
U_
Reach 4R: Upper Fruitdale (above Olympic View)
Hydrograph
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,
Time (hours)
F-_ —Inf—low _j
I — Outflow
Lowenthal
Ta
10S
Root Runoff 00S�
'4�,4-�un.ff to Raingarden
Raingardens
[1R]
S
2 & #1 Impervious
Z1 2 & #13 Pervious
[2R]
Fruildale Creek RR Fruitdale Creek at
Culvert Sound View Place
on Lidk
Middle Fruitdale (Sound
View to Olympic View)
03S,
is
M FA I
A
i 18 Pervious
#14,15 16 Impervious
14, 15 16 Pervious
Upper Fruitdale (above
Olympic View)
-, t"
04
0
Fruitdale Creek Combined with Low Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 2yr-24hr Rainfall= 1.30", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/26/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
0
U.
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
F—In-f—iow-j
I — Ouff low
Fruitdale Creek Combined with Lo Type 1A 24-hr Edmonds 1 Oyr-24hr Rainfall=2. 00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/26/2010
HydroCADO 8.50 s/n 005771 @ 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
0
LL
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
Hydrograph
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
F--1n—f1.—v,—j
I — Ouff lowl
Fruitdale Creek —Combined with L Type A 24-hr Edmonds 100yr-24hr Rainfall=3.00", AMC=3
Prepared by WR Consulting, Inc. Printed 2/26/2010
HydroCAD@8.50 s/n005771 02007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Reach 2R: Fruitdale Creek at Sound View Place
0
LL
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
F--1 n f I —.w— I
I — Outflow
ftwoomn LAW Ma
00
File so. 850020
After Setording Return To%
Jame Robert Deal, Coumselor at Lav
Mn A.. 0 J IM11
-*5 WN it Via 12C 1
r%nMUU ie. - , Sa to
umands, WA 98010 774-0233 (0 00 PC vs�
r-LTt*4xj VMQRMIIFD
GRANT OF EASEKENT AND MINTEUKE ACR.REKW no it;
1. Effective Date: August 22, 1985.
1. Parties:
&. Estrella S. Rill, a, aigle womams, 0%-Wr of PropertIr A,
referred to herein as Hill, aci in& her heirs and assigns.
S. Charlotte E. Grant, a 'single wcoan, owner of Property 2,
referred to herein as Crant, itcluding her heirs and assigns.
3. Properties involved in this Agreement:
A. Propert7 A. the property being burdened by the easeimat
granted herein, which property is now owned by Hill.
Beginning at a gaitt on the Southwesterly line of the
Northeasterly 0 feet of Tract 10, Block 4, plat of
14monds Seaview Tracts, per plat recorded in Volume 3
of Plats, Page 76, xecorda of Snohomish County,
-Washington, South 52 degrees 43 zi=tas East. - a
distance *f 7.5 feet From the Southwesterly cl;�nelr
tbereof;
tbence Soaa 37 degrees 17 minutes West parallel with
the Vorthwxterly Uixe thereof. a distance of 2.0 feet;
thence South 52 degrees 43 mdaues East parallel with
the Southwesterly line thereof, a distance of 10.0
feat-,
themco South 37 degzaes 17 m1nutes West, a distance of
1.8 feet;
Tbeace South 5Z delptes 43 sivates Ust, a distancs of
16.4 feet;
Thence kasterly parallel with and 1.0 feet distant at
right angles to the Southeasterly vall secticm of said
garage, -5.0, feet more or lass, to a point of
ittexsection on the said Southwesterly line of the
Northeasterly 50 feet, edistance of 3Z.0 feet, more or
less, South 5' degrees 43 minutes -East from the Point
of Beginning;
thence. North 52 degrees 43 n�bzutes West, a distance of
31.0 feet more or less, to the Point of Beginning.
B. Ptopetty B. the property being be. efitted %y the e***ment,
now owned by Grant.
Soatbveat half of Lot 4: all of Lot 5; isortbeast 50
Eeet of Lot 10; sq4tbmst bAlf of the southwest half of
Lot M. Block A, Edmonds Seaviev Tracts. accardiAS to
Plat thereof recorded in Volume 3 in Plats pag* 76
records of said county; together with that portion of
vacated Oce= Avemie awtting. upon and adjwAnt to said
Lot 5 wJ the so4ithwest half of Lot 4, slso Lot 5,
block 9, FAmouds S4&viov Tracts, Sacbowt& C4=ty, Washington.
4 Grant of lasamenti Party A booreby grants to Party A and/or the
fi;Lrs or ossipm of Party - 5 an essament for kmw-pin the *xLxtin
gAragie and woodebad oa Property A. mds e"ement burdaus the
Prq*rty 1&W*d Property A &Ad bmfits the propc&rry labeled
as rrcT*Vty 3.
85U150244
ItIVIVX
S fj
TED
E,=z'
JAW 14 2010
i;
DEVELC",�t,"':�4T SER'V'GES C'T"1.
CITY OF WANDS
132" o RE E"T FILE
T
0
5. pAinteuLavat &greemntz Party I hereby agre" to agiAtain-tb*
0, stXua-turally I
e3tistin Sarap and moodabed StructurO in *fits2f:t=* free fzva
sound CmAltion—VAich inpoludos, IrROLV49 the Z=
j,Asact pests—aad in SUCh manner as to prev*nt AM ad"r" Ov"t
or tho lot of which PToperty A is A Put- UM JI
A waless for &WF liability rommitims fum a
in tb* property &Uj to pay WbAt$V4M A[ttorm-v* *
tioa arist fvm Party its
fees, C;�Wt C-3sts. md 4t*St$ Of CQlI*C
Onforeemmt of this Agreemut-
easeoent *ball tornivatt at th*
This
Termimatim of E*Xtmnr is resoved
time that tuo existive Prate arA oodshed strMtOre that
fzom ttm SIM W awl termivat* 600mr at Such time
?arty 5 Violatts the terms of Cbe SaUteumc* agretgent abo"-
f . An.-�n�
it'd I'l
CbAflotte E. GTanr,
state of wasbintou)
Comt'Y of
On r_hL,% day perso"117 apPeaTed b4fore m
CbAr
',Otte E. Gt&ut, tp m known to be rixe Amdividuals deRecibcd in
amd
and who. executed the within and foT-egolng 'thzIatjrrUm*fnvte and
ackmviedged that they signed the Sme as
voluntaTy OLCt aCA deed for the uses and V=po*ea tbaralg
Give . a uadex Sy hand and officiAl Seal CILID -7;5 d*"y O'f
Anguat, 1985.
otary C a
of Washington, R�sidlns at
I
SrATE (W
CAMWY Q-
is�—*Zc6kj jo 04140"gtv" *r own
"-Qft. -%.
&am a*- I., h. =I go *a iW
4:1
4r
o4im A, So** -ardwee
451115OZ44
alat"Llm
-U
FILEAfter recording return to: STREL
City Clerk
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 201004140154 6 PGS
04114/2010 10:35am 67,00
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, AHINGTON
Document Title(s)
Declaration of Covenant - Private Storm Water Facility
Reference Number(s) of Related Documents
N/A
Grantor(s) (Last; First, and Middle Initial)
Dennis D. Lowenthal and Lorna S. Lowenthal
Grantee(s) (Last, First, and Middle Initial)
City of Edmonds
Legal Description (abbreviated forms; i.e., lot, plat or section, township, range, quarter/quarter)
A TRACT OF LAND COMPRISING LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, ALL IN BLOCK "A-, EDMONDS
SEA VIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS,
PAGE 76, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE
3 EAST,.W. M (BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 1, BLOCK 5 OF THE UNRECORDED PLAT OF
FRUITDALE ON THE SOUND), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND SAID LINE
PRODUCED 280 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE EXTENDED
SOUTHWESTERLY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID EXTENDED SOUND VIEW PLACE LINE 50 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EXTENDED SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6 AND THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED STREET ADJOINING WHICH ATTACHED
THERETO BY OPERATION OF LAW;
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Ac.count Number at Time of Recording
00434600100600
The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form. The staff will read the document to verify
the accuracy of completeness of the indexing Information provided herein.
fKNE777486.D0Q1\00006.900170\)
E
is
DECLARATION OF COVENANT
Private Stonnwater Facility
WFIEREAS, the undersigned Declarant has installed a stormwater facility known as a
"rain gardeW' in lieu of other required more conventional stormwater systems; and
WBEREAS, the City of Edmonds has allowed installation of the rain garden as an
infiltration facility, subject to the execution and recording of this Declaration of Covenant;
NOW, TBEREFORE,
TBE UNDERSIGNED DECLARANT, being the owner of the real property ("the
Property") located at the following address: /872_6 SCUM—D vir--w PL,
in the City of
Edmonds, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full, hereby covenants and agrees, on behalf of
himself/herself/itself and his/herfits successors and assigns, as follows:
1 Declarant warrants that he/she is the owner of the� property described on Exhibit A and
has the authority to impose this covenant on the property and bind all future owners,
successors, and assigns of Declarant. The Declarant, future owners, successors, and
assigns of the Declarant shall be referred to collectively as "Owners."
2. The Owners of the property described on Exhibit A agree that the property contains a
stormwater management BW (best management practice) called a "rain garden," which
was installed to mitigate the stormwater quantity and -quality impacts of some or all of the
impervious or non-native pervious surfaces on the property. Rain gardens, also known as
"bioretention," are vegetated closed depressions or ponds that retain and filter stormwater
from an area of impervious surface or non-native pervious surface. The soil in the rain
garden has been enhanced to encourage and support vigorous plant growth that serves to
filter the water and sustain infiltration capacity. Depending on soil conditions, rain
gardens may have water in them throughout the wet season and may overflow during
major storm events.
3. The Owners of the property described on Exhibit A shall maintain the size, placement,
and design of the rain garden as depicted on the approved site plan, Exhibit B, and
design details shall be maintained and may not be changed without written approval
either from, the Engineering Division of the City of Edmonds or through a future
development permit from the City of Edmonds. Plant materials may be changed to suit
individual preferences, but chemical fertilizers and pesticides must not be used. Mulch
may be added and additional compost should be worked into the soil over time. All costs
of such maintenance and repair shall be the sole responsibility of the Owners.
4. The Owners of the property described on Exhibit A shall inspect rain gardens annually
for physical defects. After major storm events, the system shall also be checked to ensure
that the overflow system is working properly. If erosion channels or bare spots are
[ENE777486.D0Q1\00006.900170\ I
0 0
evident, they shall be stabilized with soil, plant material, mulch, or landscape ro& A
supplemental watering program may be needed the first year to ensure the long-term
survival of the rain garden�s vegetation- The Owners also shall maintain vegetation as
follows: 1) replace all dead vegetation as soon as possible; 2) remove fallen leaves and
debris as needed; 3) remove all noxious vegetation when discovered; 4) manually weed
without herbicides or pesticides; 5) during drought conditions, use mulch to prevent
excess solar damage and water loss.
5. The City of Edmonds is hereby granted by the Owners the right, but not the obligation, to
enter upon the property described on Exhibit A at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the private stormwater rain garden facility. If, as the result of any such
inspection the City of Edmonds determines that the rain garden is in disrepair, requires
maintenance or repair, or is otherwise not functioning as provided in the BNT site plan,
the City Engineer or his designee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to order the
Owners of the property described on Exhibit A to maintain or repair the same.
6. If the City of Edmonds determines that the rain garden requires maintenance or repair
pursuant to Section 5, the City of Edmonds shall provide notice to the Owners of the
deadline within which such maintenance or repair must be completed. Said notice may
further advise that, should the violator fail to perform required maintenance or make
repairs within the established deadline, the work may be done by the city or a contractor
designated by the City Engineer and the expense thereof shall be charged to the Owners.
The City's officers, agents, employees, and contractors shall have the right, which is
hereby granted by the Owners, to enter upon the property described on Exhibit A in order
to perform such wo& The Owners shall bear the cost of all work performed.
7. The Owners shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers,
officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses,
damages, judgments, attorneys' fees and/or costs of any Idnd whatsoever, arising out of
or in any way resulting from the approval of the rain gardens, the installation and
*presence of the rain gardens, and the acts or omissions of the Owners, their officers,
employees, contractors, and agents relating to the construction, operation and
maintenance of the rain gardens on the property, except for the City's intentional and
willful tortious acts, and waive and release the City of Edmonds from any and all claims
for damages and injunctive relief which the Owners may themselves have now or in the
future, by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of said rain gardens.
8. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon the Declarant, as the owner of
the property described on Exhibit A, and on Declarant's successors and assigns as to such
property.
Dated: 13 �4 2-010
PRI L
(KNE777486DOC;1\00006.900170\ }
DECLARANT:
�IL4� '�) - V - 0
(Signature)
t
D,EtJNi:s 'D , L -o vvz7m -iPA L
(Print Name)
State of Washington
ss.
County of Snohomish
APPROVED
CITY OF ED
(Print Nalne)
S4f 0 1- ni Uj ar4,aL C i1j I rl lee V 11-3
(Title) pro
'5 t-cf
On this day personally appeared before me '6 - , (Declarant) to me
known to be the individual, or individuals described in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (she or they) signed the same as his (her or
their) free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me th
0
TA r,
Q
A,
0 y'\
W A S
IKNE777486DOC;IX00006.900170\ I
(Name legibly printed or stamped)
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington.
ZT -7 -k- �21� -
Residing at:-&'O��
My commission expires Y - / �9 -,=?,d I
0
EXHIBIT "'All
A TRACT OF LAND COMPRISING LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, ALL IN BLOCK -A- EDMONDS
SEA VIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VCLU ME 3 CF' PLATS,
PAGE 76, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE
3 EAST,.W. M (BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 1, BLOCK S OF THE UNRECORDED PLAT OF
FRUITDALE ON THE SOUND), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND'SAID LINE
PRODUCED 280 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE EXTENDED
SOUTHWESTERLY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID EXTENDED SOUND VIEW PLACE LINE 50 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EXTENDED SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6 AND THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED STREET ADJOINING WHICH ATTACHED
THERETO BY OPERATION OF LAW;
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
z
Ld
0
Z LL
Z 0
Z 0 1 4
110.00,
im
110.00,
M
ro
HOUSE AND
X;61
GARAGE
bd'
"O's RAINGARDEN
0 20 40 80
Lowenthal Residence
18720 Sound View Place
SCALE: 1 40' Edmonds, WA 98022
Exhibit B
A
B L 0 C K
EDM-ONDS S E A
V 0 L. 3,
RAINGARDEN,;�AND--
NUMBER (TYP)
7
W.12'. . W 1'�
PROPERTY
LINE(TYP)
VIEW- TR ACTS
P G. 7 6
F
4-
13000'
310.00'
I
LOCATION AND SIZE
DRIVEWAY
4� n#3 310.00,
2
�Covenant for Rain Garden Stormwater System
April 13, 2010
Raingardens reviewed and approved under the City of Edmonds Building Permit No. BLD20090795
20' 1 20'
20'
b
00 6 LLJ
C4 'D
r,
a
W
Goo
Z
z 0
(n
20'
;C.
00
"i
El.=110,
M-1-15-
11100
��
NO
llllllllbi�
U211111110iMl
11150
00
111111110
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Dennis Lowenthal
1007 Bell Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Considerations
Proposed Singie-Family Residence
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425)747-5618 FAX(425)747-8561
October 30, 2009
JN 09224
This report is an update to a, previous geotechnical engineering study that was done by Otto
Rosenau and Associates (Study) dated July 10, 2006. At the time of the study, the residence
proposed on the site was to be about 65 feet from the western (project west) property line, which
:--was over 75 feet from the top of an existing steep slope. Based on recent correspondence with the
project architect, Marc! Bryant, the. plan for the residence has recently been updated and the
residence will now be located 25 from the property line. Because the residence will now be located
within 65 feet of the steep slope, this update report is needed per City of Edmonds Code.
The western deck of the residence will be located 25 feet from the western property line, while the
main residence will be at least another 6 feet to the east of the western property line. Thus, the
deck and main portion of the residence will be located about 37 and 43 feet from a steep slope that
is west of the western property line. A basement will be located on the western side of * the
residence, while the main level will be the lowest level on the eastern portion of the residence. The
basement level will be at approximately elevation 41 feet; this it will essentially daylight to the west.
The slab at the eastern side of the basement will be about 3.5 feet below the existing ground. Only
shallow;excavations are anticipated for the eastern portion of the residence.
The property is currently undeveloped, ' although we understand that a residence recently existed on
the eastern side of the site. The site is now mostly covered with low -growing vegetation. The site
declines gently (in the range of 10 percent) downward, to the west. However, as noted earlier, a
steep slope declines away from the site about 10 to 14 feet west of the western property line. The
slope is about 1.5 to 20 feet tall, and the Burlington Northern right-of-way and railroad tracks are
located at the base of this slope.
Based on information provided in the Study, the upper few feet of soil at the site consisted of loose
sand with silt that became loose to medium -dense down to about 7 feet. Below this depth, the
sand became medium -dense down to the maximum explored depth of approximately 9.5 feet.
Because of the updated plans, we believed that deeper soil information was needed at the western
side of the proposed residence. Thus, a test boring was drilled on the site on October 7, 2009 with
a small track -mounted rig. The location of this test boring is shown on the attached plan, Plate 1,
while the log of the test boring is attached as Plate 2. Below a few feet of loose soil, the test boring
revealed mostly medium -dense sand with silt soil down to approximately a depth of 15 feet. Below
the sand with silt, the test boring revealed very dense silty sand soil that had x1p i
gravel. . Ed EN tot .6
"2"TRE
NOV 16 2009
FIL E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Dennis Lowenthal JN 09224
October 30, 2009 Page 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The soils revealed in the test boring on the western side of the proposed residence were similar,
but somewhat more dense than was reported in the Study based on the test pits. The test boring
extended below the depth of the test pits, and very dense sand was revealed at about 14 feet
below mostly medium -dense sand. We agree with the soil parameters presented in the Study
based on the recent soil bodng. Our only significant disagreement with the Study is the
recommendation for placing a 2-foot layer of compacted fill below every footing; we believe that
only compacting the footing subgrade soils below the loose upper few feet of soil is necessary to
achieve the 2,000 psf bearing capacity as noted in the Study. Structural fill could be used, but is
not necessary, to raise the soil subgrade level if bearing soils are deeper than desired based on the
proposed grade of the foundation. The structural fill needs to be placed on soils that are below the
upper few feet of loose soil. The compaction of the onsite soils below the upper few feet of loose
soil and/or structural fill needs to be done with equipment that is -larger and more powerful than a
plate compactor.
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 10 to 14 feet west
of the subject property is considered to be a landslide hazard area per the Code because it is about
15 to 20 feet tall.
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". For this project, the buffer that is.being requested is about 20 to
24 feet from the steep slope to the west of the property. Based on the site explorations, especially
the deep test boring done- near the western edge of the proposed residence, it is apparent that the
core of the steep slope west of the subject property is comprised of very competent, native sand.
We did not observe indications of slope instability during our site visit, nor were any noted in the
Study visits. Because of these reasons, and because the slope is only about 15 to 20 feet in
height, it is our opinion that the buffer can be reduced to 20 feet, resulting in a total minimum
building setback of 35 feet from the top of the western slope.
Diverting stormwater from impervious surfaces near, or on, any steep slopes in the Puget Sound
area can potentially cause landslides. Thus, stormwater should not be diverted to any point near
the top or on the steep western slope. We recommend that the stormwater be diverted to the base
of the steep slope or at least 100 feet from the top of the steep slope.
Dennis Lowenthal
October 30, 2009
JN 09224
Page 3
We trust that this letter meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please
contact us if we can be of further service.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH "5ULTANTS, INC.
U."io
000'1100�
D. Robert Ward, P.E.
Principal
Attachments: Plates 1 and 2
cc: Marc! Bryant
via email vmarcibryant@msn.com
DRW: jyb
f-I
I
0
ca
1 8
C-)
cu o
Z
co
0-0
U) C=
a 0
c,4 E
P-- -0
CO W
u
Wz
(.� 8
It
5
10
is
'20
.25
30
35
40
11W BORING -1
p
% Description
'0 "VO 4& 4�
Grass over
Medium brown, silty SAND with fine gravel and some roots
15
.y, with some gravel, fine- to-medium-graindd, moist-, medlum-dens�
Brown SAND, less silt
7
2
increasing silt, very moist loose to medium -dense
sp
sm
16
3
-.becomes grayish brown, medium- to-coarse-gralned, wet medium -dense
15
4
''T
Gray, silty SAND, �ne-grained, with gravel, very moist, very dense
57
5
SM
50/5"
6
becomes moist
40
7
becomes brown, very gravelly
50/3"
8
becomes less silty
SIP
GP
50/61'
9
50/411
100
• Test boring was terminated at 40.3 feet on October 7, 2009.
• Perched groundwater at 7.5 feet; groundwater at 30 feet.
BORING LOG
GEOTECH 18720 Soundview Place
CONSULTA�NTS, INC. Edmonds, Washington
lJob IDate:. 1PIa
.... I Logged by.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REP6RT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
18720 SOUND VIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL No.
00434600100600
PREPARED FOR:
LEIF HELLEREN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
BY:
OTTO RoSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ORA JOB No. 06-318, REPORT No. 1
RECEIVED
16 2009
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GTR.
'j
CITY OF EDMONDS
OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
PTREET. FIL
E
0 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION ................... ; ........................................ : .................................................
1
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................
1
3.
SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................. I .................................
1
4.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................
2
4.1 Surface Conditions ..................................................................................................
2
4.2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................................
3
5.
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................
3
6.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................
3
6.1 General .................................. ; ................................................................................
3
6.2 Seismic Considerations ...........................................................................................
4
6.3 Foundations .............................................................................................................
5
6.4 Below-Gra.de Walls and Retaining Walls ................................................................
6
6.5 Slabs -On -Grade ......................................................................................................
7
6.6 Earthwork ................................................................................................................
7
6.6.1 Site Clearing .............................................................................................
7
6.6.2 Foundation and Slab Subgrade Preparation ..... : .......................................
7
6.6.3 Structural Fill - Material, Placement and Compaction ...............................
7
6.6.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ..........................................................
9
6.6.5 Temporary Cut Slopes .............................................................................
9
6.7 Steep Slopes ............................................................................................................
9
6.8 Drainage .............................................................................................................
10
6.8.1 Dewatering .............................................................................................
10
6.8.2 Retaining Wall Drainage .........................................................................
10
6.8.3 Surface Drainage ....................................................................................
10
6.9 Construction Observatio'n and Testing ................................................................
11
7.
REPORT LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................
11
APPENDIX
VicinityMap ........................................................................................................................ A-1
Site Plan A-2
......................................................................................................................
TypicalFoundation Detail ....................................................................................................... A-3
0 � 0
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
18720 SOUND VIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Prepared for
Mr. Leif Helleren Construction, Inc.
by Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc.
July 10, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed single-family
residence to be built at 18720 Sound View Place in Edmonds, Washington (Snohomish County Parcel
#00434600100600). The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map on page A-1 of the appendix.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that a two-story, wood -framed, single-family home will be constructed on the site, and
that the existing single-family residence is to be demolished. The new structure will have a crawl space
and will be supported on conventional spread footings. We understand that the site is considered to be
within a critical area (CA) due to the presence of steep slopes in close proximity to the northwest side of
the property. Based on the information provided to us, the proposed residence is to be setback
approximately 66 feet from the northwest property line and about 79 feet from the existing top of the
steep slopes. We understand that no development is planned within 50 feet of the northwest property
line.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services included a reconnaissance of the site by the geologist, a review of geologic
literature, and obtaining soil samples from three test pits at the approximate location shown on the Site
Plan on page A-2 of the appendix. Soil samples were taken of the subsurface soils at the depths
shown on the test pit logs presented on pages A-4 through A-6 of the appendix.
The geotechnical engineering services were performed by Otto Rosenau and.Associates, Inc. (ORA) to
provide the following information:
0 seismic design considerations including liquefaction potential,
0 suitable foundation systems with estimated settlements,
0 0
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 2 of 11
• allowable bearing capacity,
• lateral earth pressures and friction coefficients,
0 influence of groundwater on the development,
0 evaluation of the condition of the steep slopes at the site, and
0 site preparation and earthwork in a critical area.
4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
We reviewed the Draft "Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area, Central Puget Lowland,
Washington" (2004) by Booth, Derek B., Cox, Brett, F., Troost, Kathy G., and Shimel, Scott A. The
soils near the project site are mapped as "Pre -Fraser Deposits" (Qpf). "Pre -Fraser Deposits" (Qpf)
deposits generally consist of weakly to moderately oxidized sand and gravel, lacustrine silt and sand
with local peat layers.
We understand that the City of Edmonds Development Services Department of (DSD) considers that
portions of the site are located within a Critical Area (CA) due to the presence of steep slopes along the
northwest side of the site.
4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site grades down to the northwest from elevation of approximately 63 feet at Sound View Place, to
36 feet at the top of the'bank that abuts the Burlington Northern (BNSF) right-of-way to the beach at
sea level. The steep slope is located northwest of the northwest property line. The site grades slope
downwards to a rock -lined ditch along the southeast side of the railway embankment and is
approximately 20 feet in height. The inclination of the steep slopes appears to range from about 40 to
100 percent. We did not observe any indication of past or on -going slope instability at the steep slope
area, such as tension cracks, slump blocks, hummocky terrain, or sag ponds. The slope face is well -
vegetated with grasses and hydrophilic plants such as horsetails. These plants are indicative of a very
moist environment and may indicate groundwater seepage through the slope face, which we did not
observe.
The existing, one-story, single-family residence is located on the southeastern third of the site and is
scheduled to be demolished. The site is vegetated with grass and extensive landscaping around . the
perimeter of the property.
We observed a large maple tree at a distance of about 25 feet setback from the top of the slope. We
understand that the tree had been struck by lightning in the past and observed sco rching marks on the
tree. We also observed a large hollow at the base of the tree that had been partially filled with
concrete. The tree did not appear to be in a healthy condition. It is our opinion that the tree could be
removed without adversely affecting the -stability of the slope. If the*tree is removed, we recommend
0 0
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 3 of 11
that the root ball not be removed to minimize disturbance within the steep slope buffer area. The tree
may be flush cut to the ground surface or ground down to a depth of about 6 inches below the existing
site grade.
4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
We evaluated the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by completing three test pits at the site
on May 25, 2006. Test Pit 1 (TP-1) was completed approximately twelve feet southwest of the north
property corner on the northwest property line. Test Pit 2 (TP-2), was completed twenty feet southwest
of the northeast property line, fifty feet southeast of the northwest property line on the proposed footing
line. Test Pit 3 (TP-3) was completed one hundred feet southeast of TP-2. Please refer to the Site
Plan on page A-2 of the appendix for the approximate location of the test pits.
The site soils generally consist of brown silty fine SAND (SM) with organics, top soil in the upper 6
inches. The soils encountered from 6 inches to 2.5 feet consist of loose, brown, moist, fine SAND with
silt and organics (SP-SM). The soils encountered from approximately 2.5 feet to 7 feet generally
consist of loose to medium dense, tan, moist, fine to medium, SAND with silt (SP-SM) with increasing
gravel content with depth. The soils encountered from 7 feet to the termination of the test pits at 9.5
generally consist of medium -dense, very moist to wet, gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt and gravel
(SW-SM). Ground water was encountered in TP-1 and TP-2 at 9.5 feet below existing grade. A
moderate flow rate was observed in TP-2.
5. DISCUSSION
The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project as
presented in the Project Description Section and on the assumption that the subsurface conditions are
as assumed herein. Project conditions, regarding type and location of structures and foundation loads
can change and subsurface conditions are not always similar to those encountered during th6
subsurface exploration. Therefore, if discrepancies are noticed, the geotechnical engineer must be
contacted for review and for possible revision of the recommendations.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily built at the proposed
location with minimal risk of adversely impacting the stability of site slopes, existing residence or
adjacent properties provided that the work is completed in accordance with the recommendations of
this report. The engineering recommendations and advice presented in this report have been made in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. The
recommendations are based on our understanding of the geology of the area and on experience with
similar projects.
0
I
Otto Rosenau & Associates, 1hcorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 4 of 11
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily supported on conventional
spread footings that bear'on excavated and recompacted fine to medium SAND with silt (SP-SM)
encountered between 2.5 to 4.5 feet below existing grade. Please refer, to the following sections of the
report for specific site and foundation subgrade preparation recommendations.
6.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismic design of structures in the City of Edmonds is governed by the requirements of the 2003
edition of the International Building Code (113C). The IBC requires that the site be classified into a site
class. Based on the results of the soil exploration completed at the project site, it is our opinion that the
observed conditions most closely meet the described conditions of Site Class D (IBC Table 1615.1.1).
Site specific criteria can be obtained from maps in the IBC (Figures 1615(l) and 1615(2)) for short
period (Ss) and I -second -period (Si) spectral accelerations. The values for Ss and S, are spectral
accelerations (SRA) for a maximum considered earthquake event with a 2,500 year return period or a
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Values for Ss and S, are also available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National
Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website. The values recommended for use in this report were
obtained fr ' om the USGS website by inputting latitude and longitude for the project site (N 47.82856', W
122.36445'). The 1996 data set from the USGS website was used for consistence with the relevant
figures in the 2003 IBC. The following table presents recommended values from the 2003 IBC for
seismic design:
2003 Edition of International Building Code (IBC) Seismic Design Values
Mapped max. ea ' rthquake SRA at short periods, Ss, % g
126.6
Mapped max. earthquake SRA at 1-second period, S1, % g
43.5
Peak Ground Acceleration, % g
54.1
Site Coefficient Fa (Table 1 615.1.2(l))
1.0
Site Coefficient F, (Tablel 61:5.1.2(2))
1.57
Max. considered earthquake SRA for short periods, Sms
126.6
Max. considered earthquake SRA for I -second periods, Sm,
68.3
Design SRA at short periods, SDS
84.4
Design SRA at 1-second period, SDI
45.5
Liquefaction may be defined as the sudden loss of strength of soil as the soil is subjected to a rapid
cyclic loading, such as during an earthquake. The mechanism that allows this to occur is that excess
pore water pressures are generated between the soil particles. This excess pore water pressure
reduces the frictional contact between the soil particles and reduces the shear strength of the soil. If
the earthquake is of large magnitude and duration, the soil can begin to behave more as a liquid than a
0
0
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 6 of 11
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
with structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (IVIDD). This value of
passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
An ultimate coefficient of friction between footings and bearing soils of 0.35 may be used to resist
lateral foundation loads. If passive earth pressures are used in conjunction with base friction to resist
lateral loads, reduce the ultimate coefficient of friction to 0.30. A factor of safety of 1.2 should be
applied to these values.
Footings, stem walls, and any retaining walls should be reinforced to reduce the potential for distress
caused by differential foundation movements. A qualified engineer should determine the size, quantity,
and location of reinforcement. All footing excavations at this site should be made with a toothless
bucket to minimize disturbance of the foundation soils. The bearing surfaces shall be inspected by the
geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify that no unsuitable soils are present. The presence
of unsuitable soils under foundation elements can lead to substantial increases in post -construction
settlement.
6.4 BELOW -GRADE WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS
The below -grade foundation walls for this project must be designed as retaining walls. Lateral earth
pressures for design of permanent below -grade walls or retaining walls. with level backfill and with no
hydrostatic pressures or surcharge loads, may be calculated using the following equivalent fluid
pressures:
Active (unrestrained):
Undisturbed subgrade soils (level behind wall)
35 psf/ft.
Compacted granular soils (level behind wall)
35 psf/ft.
Active (restrained):
Undisturbed subgrade soils (level behind wall)
57 psf/ft.
Compacted granular soils (level behind wall)
57 psf/ft.
Passive:
Continuous footings
300 psf/ft.
Column footings
300 psf/ft.
The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to determine appropriate lateral earth pressures for
situations not described above. We recommend that seismic earth pressures be estimated using a
rectangular pressure distribution equal to 10H, where H is the height of the retained soil behind the
wall. A total soil unit -weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot should be used in design of any permanent
below -grade wall or retaining structures.
0 0
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 5 of 11
solid and "liquefy". In order for liquefaction to occur, several conditions must typically be present.
These include.the following:
a Saturated soil.
6 Fine to medium sand matrix containing less than about 10 percent fines (soil that can pass a
No. 200 sieve.
Very loose to medium dense soil conditions. This is usually defined as soils that have N-
yalues of 15 or less.
Based on the results of our explorations and our observation of the soil and groundwater conditions at
the site, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site is low to medium.
6.3 FOUNDATIONS
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily supported on conventional
spread footings that bear on a 2-foot foot thick zone of imported structural fill or a 2-foot thick zone of
overexcavated and recompacted, suitable native SAND with silt placed as structural fill. We also
recommend that the width of the overexcavation should extend at least 2 feet laterally on all sides of
the future foundation elements. Please refer to the figure titled Typical Foundation Detail presented on
page A-3 for a graphical presentation of our recommendations.
We recommend that the following allowable bearing capacities be used for the design of conventional
spread footings:
Foundation bearing on a 2-foot thick zone of imported structural fill, or overexcavated
and recompacted, suitable, native SAND with silt placed as structural fill: 2,000 psf
The allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. If the
recommendations in. this report are followed, we estimate that the maximum post -construction
settlements will be less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch and differential settlements will be less than
one-half (1/2) of an inch between comparably loaded column footings or along a 25-foot long section of
continuous wall footing.
We recommend that the minimum width of continuous footings be 1.5 feet and that the minimum size of
column footings be 1.5-foot by 1.5-foot. All foundation elements, including continuous spread footings,
and isolated column footings, shall be placed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
grade for frost protection and to meet the minimum code requirements as presented in Section 1805 —
Footings and Foundations of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC).
Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) where grade beams are cast on structural fill or dense native soils and backfilled on both sides
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View R6sidence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 7 of 11
6.5 SLABS -ON -GRADE
Based on our understanding of the project construction, we anticipate that the only slab -on -grade will
be in the garage. Slabs -on grade should be at least 4 inches in thickness and should be supported on
a minimum 4-inch-thick, free -draining, gravel base as described in the Structural Fill section of this
report. A vapor retarder such as 6-mil polyethylene sheeting shall be included beneath the slab to
minimize transmission of moisture through the concrete floor. A minimum, two-inch thick layer of clean
sand with less than 3 percent fines may be placed on top of the polyethylene sheeting to protect the
sheeting and to enhance the curing of the concrete slabs. The sand must not be saturated at the time
of concrete placement to provide a drainage path for bleed water from the curing concrete.
6.6 EARTHWORK
The recommendations presented in this report are predicated on fulfillment of the following earthwork
recommendations.
6.6.1 Site Clearing: Any existing vegetation, loose soil, and any other deleterious materials including
asphalt pavements and old foundation elements shall be removed from the future building area prior to
construction. After site clearing and stripping, the exposed surfaces should be graded to allow good
surface drainage during construction. An ORA representative should evaluate the stripping activities to
verify that adequate stripping of unsuitable soils has been performed.
6.6.2 Foundation and Slab Subgrade Preparation: All pavements, undocumented fill, organic debris,
and old topsoil must be removed from all foundation element locations and slab areas. The exposed
slab subgrade soil conditions should be verified by a representative of ORA to ensure that the soils are
adequately prepared to provide the required support.
The exposed subgrade soils at the future foundation site consist of loose to medium dense SAND with
silt. These soils should'be an overexcavated at least 2 feet in depth below the future foundation
elevation, and should extend laterally 2 foot past the anticipated edge of the footing. A smooth -bladed
bucket should be used to)perform excavations and to minimize the disturbance of bearing soils. The
exposed overexcavation subgrade soils should.be thoroughly compacted.to a firm and unyielding and
should be evaluated by an ORA representative before placing any structural fill.
6.6.3 Structural Fill — Material, Placement and Compaction: Material, Placement and Compaction:
In general, the native soils that consist of sand with silt (SP-SM) are suitable for,use as structural fill
provided that it is free of debris and is close to optimum moisture content. Native soils that consist of
silty sand (SM) should only be used as structural fill during drier summer months, and provided that the
soil is moisture -conditioned to within three (3) percent of optimum moisture. All fill and backfill materials
should be placed in relatively horizontal loose I ifts, not exceeding 10 inches in thickness, and should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by the modified
0 0
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 8 of 11
Proctor test (ASTIVI D1557). If manually -operated equipment such as a jumping jack compactor is
used, the thickness of each loose lift should be no greater than 6 ' inches. Light vibratory plate
compactors are not suitable for the compaction of structural fill. Soils consisting of clay, silt, peat or
containing deleterious matter are generally not suitable for Use as structural fill. Structural fill material
should be approved by ORA prior to use. The following table summarizes our recommendations of fill
material and compaction requirements of fill material and compaction requirements and refers to the
2006 edition of Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for
Road, Bridqe, and Municipal Construction for various types of aggregates.
Intended Use
Specification
Compaction Requirements
Structural fill for
2- to 4-inch,quarry spalls, or washed
Quarry spalls or clean crushed rock
overexcavation backfill
crushed rock with a typical particle
must be placed in lifts no greater than
below foundation
size between 1.25 and 2 inches and
12 inches in thickness, with each lift
elements
less than 5 percent fines
thoroughly compacted with a
vibratory roller, or hoepack mounted
on an excavator.
Structural fill below
Suitable native soil, Gravel Borrow
Fill placed at depths greater than 2
pavements or
(WSDOT 9-03.14(l), Select Borrow
feet below finish subgrade elevation
sidewalks
(WSDOT 9-03.14(2), Crushed
must be compacted to 90 percent of
Surfacing Base Course (WSDOT 9-
IVIDD. Fill placed at depths within 2
03.9(3)
feet of finish subgrade elevati,on.must
be compacted to 95 percent of IVIDD.
Free -draining wall
Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9-
Fill placed within 5 feet of below -
drainage material
03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Drains
grade walls or retaining walls shall be
behind below -grade
(WSDOT 9-03.12(4)
compacted with manually -operated
walls and retaining
compaction equipment. Fill placed at
walls
depths greater than 2 feet below
finish subgrade elevation compacted
to 90 percent of IVIDD. Fill placed at
depths within 2 feet of finish
subgrade elevation must be
compacted to 95 percent of IVIDD, if
the area will be supporting
pavements or roadway.
Capillary break
Pea gravel with a maximum particle
Washed, crushed rock shall be
material below slabs
size of about 3/8" and less than 3
mechanically compacted prior to
percent fines. Washed, crushed rock
placing concrete.
with a maximum particle size of about
5/81$
r
0 0
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 9 of 11
Structural fill to be compacted to 95 percent of IVIDD should be moisture -conditioned to within three (3)
percent ' of optimum moisture. Structural fill to be compacted to 90 percent of MDD should be moisture -
conditioned to within six (6) percent of optimum moisture content. - Placement of frozen soils or
placement of soils on frozen ground should not be attempted.
6.6.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The migration of sediments from the site must be
controlled in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements. , We recommend that the following
minimum erosion control measures be employed at the site:
1 . Provide silt fencing around the construction area to delineate the construction limits. No
construction or soil disturbance should take place outside of the construction limits.
2. Stockpiled soil at the site should be kept to a minimum. Any stockpiled soils should be covered
with carefully secured plastic sheeting.
3. Catch basin socks should be installed in nearby catch basins located downhill of the work area
that could be impacted by construction activities.
4. All sediment and soil should be removed from adjacent pavements at the end of each day of
construction activities.
5. Periodic inspection of the adequacy and condition of the installed erosion control measures by a
geotechnical engineer or an experienced representative assigned by the geotechnical engineer.
Additional erosion control -measures may be required as construction progresses.
6.6.5 Temporary Cut Slopes: -We anticipate that temporary cut slopes will be used at portions of the
site. We recommend that the inclination of the temporary cut slopes be no greater than 1.5HAV
(horizontal to vertical) in the loose to medium dense silty SAND. It is imperative that an ORA
representative evaluate the exposed soil conditions at the time of construction to verify that the
recommended slope inclinations are appropriate for the conditions I being encountered. In addition, the
configuration for temporary cut slope inclinations may need to be modified during the course of
construction if conditions change.
All temporary cut slopes and excavations must comply with the provisions of Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) Chapter 296-155, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor
performing, the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent
improvements. However, we recommend that the contractor submit a work plan and excavation
support plan for our review prior to beginning work on the site.
6.7 STEEP SLOPES
It is our opinion that there are no steep slope areas located on the project site. A steep slope area is
present along the BNSIF right -of way to the northwest of the site. It is our opinion that the proposed
setback of the residence of 66 feet from the property line and about 79 feet from the crest of the slope
is adequate for the proposed development. We recommend that on -site infiltrationof runoff water be
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 10 of 11
avoided at this site to reduce the amount of water introduced into the subsurface soils and to reduce
the risk of soil movement. If on -site infiltration of runoff water cannot..be avoided, we recommend that
the infiltration system be located as far from the steep slope area as p�ssible, and still allow a gravity -
flow system to be.built.
-Based on our understanding of the proposed development, it is our professional opinion that
J construction of the proposed project will not increase the risk for soil movement at the steep slope area.
Furthermore it is also our opinion that the risk to adjacent properties from soil instability, if constructed
in accordance with our recommendations, is minimal. The amount of risk due to slope instability at
steep slope sites is inherently greater than at gently sloping sites. It is our opinion that the proposed
improvements will not increase the risk for slope instability beyond that at similar steep slope areas in
the vicinity of the project site, or the pre -improvement condition.
Minimal risk does not mean no risk, but means that appropriate design measures have been taken to
reduce the level of risk to a very low or minimal level.
6.8 DRAINAGE
6.8.1 Dewatering: Ground water seepage will likely not be encountered during construction.
However, we anticipate that dewatering could be satisfactorily completed by routing water through
ditches to a low spot or sump in the excavation. Water collected in the excavation should be removed
as soon as possible and should be discharged to a location approved by the City of Edmonds and in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirements.
6.8.2 Below -Grade Wall and Retaining Wall Drainage:, Good drainage is considered critical to the
performance of earth -supported structures such as foundations, slabs -on -grade, and retaining walls.
Adequate drainage must be provided behind the planned below -grade walls and retaining walls for this
project. A typical footing drain detail is presented on the figure titled "Typical Foundation Detail" on
page A-3 of the appendix.
6.8.3 Surface Drainage: Good surface drainage is an integral part of the performance of earth -
supported structures such as foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. Therefore, construction
grades and final site grades should be designed to prevent water from entering the foundations or
gravel drains behind any retaining walls or from ponding on or next to pavements. Where pavement
does not immediately abut structures, slopes, with an outfall of at least three (3) percent for a mi nimum
distance of five (5) feet from exterior footings, should be provided. These slopes should be capped with
relatively impervious soils to prevent infiltration of water into the foundation soils.
0 0
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 11 of 11
6.9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report rely on adequate observa ' tion and testing of construction
materials and procedures by the geotechnical engineer or his qualified representative. At a minimum,
the testing program should include:
- Observation and review of site clearing, foundation excavations and pile driving to evaluate
whether actual conditions are consistent with those encountered during exploration and used
for design.
• Observation, testing of placement and compaction of all fill and backfill materials to evaluate
compliance with specifications.
• Field inspection, laboratory testing of materials, and field inspection of construction methods
as required by the local building code. Typically, this includes inspection of placement of
reinforcing steel and inspection and testing of portland cement concrete to evaluate
compliance with specifications regarding slump, temperature, air content, and strength.
7. REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use of Mr. Leif Helleren and other
members of the design team for the new residential structure to be constructed at 18720 Sound View
Place in Edmonds, Washington (Snohomish County Parcel #00434600100600). The recommendations
are based on the read ily-pvaila ble geologic literature and three test pits completed on May 25, 2006.
The recommendations of this report are not transferable to any other site. If there are any revisions to
the plans or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during
construction, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. (ORA) should be notified immediately to determine
whether changes to the design recommendations are required.
000
Note: The location of all features shown is approximate.
Reference: USGS Quad - WA, Edmonds East - ALL TOPO MAPS: Washington.
VICINITY MAP
(,L . Project Name: 18720 Sound View For: Leif Helleren Construction
Residence OTTO ROSENAU &
Location: 18720 Sound View Place ASSOCIATES, INC.
Edmonds, Washington ORA Project Number: 06-318
Date: June-16.,2006
a
Puget
Sound Location of
BNSF Railroad Tracks
t
L
79'-3"
b�
66-
TP-1
0000,
0
TP-
Approximate Location of
K Proposed Residence
0
Unhealthy maple tree
P-3 Property Line
Approximate Top of Slope
Approximate Toe of Slope (ditch)
\<5
ro
LEGEND
TP-1 - Test pit excavation witnessed by ORA on May 25, 2006
Note: The location of all features shown is approximate.
Reference: Drawing titled "General Notes and Plot Plan" prepared by Randall J. Munson dated April 4, 2006.
SITE PLAN
Project Name: 18720 Sound View
Residence OTTO ROSENAU & For: Leif Helleren Construction
Location: 18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington ASSOCIATES, INC. ORA Project Number: 06-318
—Date: Julv 10. 2006
1,
16
I
Non -woven geotextile
fabric - Mirafi 140N or
equivalent
V-6" min.
Notes:
5-foot (minimum)
Exterior Wall
4" diameter, rigid, perforated
pipe
Foundation Wall
3% Min. Slo e Imported, structural fill, or
recompacted, suitable
00 native soils placed as
0 0 _o?
0 0 0 0
W - structural fill
0 �_ 0
0
R -A
0
lo MinoSlo e 00
00 0
00 0 0
0 00
0 -A
0_ 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1
21 2'
Foundation VVidth
Not to scale
1. The bearing surfaces for all proposed foundation elements should be evaluated by an'ORA
representative to verify that the foundation subgrade soils are capable of providing the required allowable
bearing capacity.
2. All pipes should be sloped to drain to an approved discharge point.
3. Washed rock used as drainage material should consist of I inch to 1
4 4 inch washed rock.
4. Final site grades should be sloped to.drain away from foundation.
5. All structural fill must be placed in accordance with the recommendations of ORA's report for the
project.
6. Roof downspout drains may not discharge to footing drain.
I . TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL .1
Project Name: 18720 Sound View
Residence
Location: 18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Date: JuIv 6. 2006
OTTO ROSENAU &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
For: Leif Helleren Construction
ORA Project Number: 06-318
A-3
OTTO ROSENAU & ASOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Construct ion Inspection & Materials Testing
6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA
Tel: (206) 725-4600 e Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US * Fax: (206) 723-2221
WBE W2F5913684 * WABO Registered Agency * Website: www.ottorosenau.com
January 3, 2008 RESUB
Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects JAN 08 2008
21911 76th Ave W. Suite 210 CITY CO'blIpy 8%R%WMAMLEWr
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Geotechnical Response to Plan Review Corrections dated 12/5/2007
Proposed Knutson Residence
18720 Sound View Place v --CiMONDS
Edmonds, Washington rA V
K UV E-31
Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600100600
City of Edmonds Permit Number: 2007 0699
ORA Project Number: 06-318
Dear Jaime Hawkins:
INTRODUCTION
We have completed review of the project plans prepared by Taylor Gregory Butterfield
Architects dated November 1, 2007 (Sheets SP1.0, SP1.5, A2.00 and A3.00) and the project
plan sheets prepared by CG Engineering dated October 1, 2007 (Sheets C1.1, C2.1, C2.2,
C3.1, C4.11). We also reviewed the report prepared by CG Engineering titled "Drainage Report
& Calculations for Knutson Residence, 18720 Soundview Place, Edmonds, WA 98020" dated
September 28, 2007. Otto Rosenau & Associates (ORA) prepared a report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Structure, 18720 Sound View Place, Edmonds,
Washington" dated July 10, 2006.
IMPACT OF DISPERSION TRENCH ON BLUFFS ON BNSIF RAILROAD TRACKS
Based on our review of CG Engineering's drainage report for the project, we understand that the
water released from the site in the proposed developed condition will be at a slower than it is
currently being released. We recommended that the location of the dispersion trench be moved
as far upslope from the crest of the slope as is possible. As a result, the dispersion trench has
been set back about 60 feet from the crest of the bluff and immediately adjacent to the proposed
patio area as shown in CG Engineering's revised plan sheet C3.1 "Grading and Drainage Plan"
dated 12/18/2007.
0
Knutson Residence — 18720 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA January 3, 2008
We also reviewed the "Map Showing Recent and Historic Landslide Activity on Coastal Bluffs of
Puget Sound between Shilshole Bay and Everett, Washington", by Rex L. Baum, Edwin L. Harp,
and William A. Hultman (2000), USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2346, Version 1.0.
The map presents a summary of known landslide activity in the vicinity of the site including 2
"shallow earth slides" which appear to be located several hundred feet north of the project site
at Burlington Northern mile posts 19.25 and 19.30. No description of a possible cause of the
slides were noted. No slide activity appears to have occurred at the project site based on our
review of this map. We also did not observe any indication of the past slope instability at the
bluff that would lead us to believe that this site is more prone to failure because of past landslide
activity. The cuts for the
It is our opinion that the net reduction in the peak volumes of flow of runoff water during large
precipitation events by providing a detention system with a controlled release will enhance the
stability of the bluffs by reducing the volume of runoff water flowing over and through the bluff
face.
Furthermore, it is our opinion that location of the dispersion trench and the gentle slope between
it and the crest of the bluff should be adequate to allow the velocity of the sheet flow from the
dispersion trench to be greatly reduced and to be substantially reintroduced back into the
subgrade soil with minimal change from current runoff and groundwater flow patterns.
As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be any impact due to the presence of the
dispersion trench at on the BNSF railroad tracks located to the northwest of the site.
IMPACT OF GRASSCRETE DRVEWAY ON BNSF RAILROAD TRACKS
A relatively permeable "grasscrete" driveway is planned at a location approximately 220 feet
southeast of the crest of the slopes in the BNSF right-of-way. The location of the permeable
'.grasscrete" driveway was originally occupied with a relatively impervious crushed rock
driveway and landscaped areas. We did not observe a stormwater collection system for
stormwater runoff from the original driveway. The presence of a permeable "grasscrete"
driveway will permit a more dispersed pattern of infiltration of surface runoff water than was
originally present in this area. This more dispersed method of surface runoff water infiltration
will allow runoff water to be reintroduced into the subgrade soils in a manner that is approaches
the undeveloped condition. There should not be an increase in the amount of water being
introduced into the subgrade soils at the "grasscrete" driveway provided that runoff water from
off -site sources does not increase as a result of the development.
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3
Knutson Residence — 18720 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA January 3, 2008
As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be any impact due to the presence of the
grasscrete" driveway on the BNSF railroad tracks located to the northwest of the site.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely, 'Y G.
0 rTO ROSENA U & A SSOCIA rES, INC
Anthony Coyne, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
e
EXPIRES I It& /* ^^A
Ofto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3
SINIC3HOMISH COUNTY
11 W)-11
Miff— Q1111LJO 111LW Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value
PUBLIC UTILI'IY DisrizICT NO. I
December 5, 2007
Rob Chave
Lynnwood Planning Department
P. 0. Box 5008
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008
Dear Mr. Chave:
14A�-Cktrjl ,
04-6,., 1) v4b
P'AIVA%(.� - ?09?
Reference Number: BLD-2007-0699 & BLD-2007-1153 Knutson Residence
District DR Number: 07-627
The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed
development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading.
Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this
proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable
District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable
locations/easements upon their property for any underground electrical facilities that must be
installed to serve the proposed development. Contact with the District.is recommended prior to
design of the proposed project.
For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's
South County office at (425) 670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer.
Sincerely,
Dean Saksena
Senior Manager
Distribution Engineering Services
1802 — 75h Street S.W. 9 Everett, WA * 98203 / Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 * Everett, WA * 98206-1107
425-783-4300 9 Toll-fice in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 - www.snopud.com
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
s f. I g 9'J 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, wA 98020 (426) 771-0220
RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) AL ff
st n
DETERMINATION OF NONSI GNIFICANCE FILE
Description of proposal; The applicant has proposed to construct a new single family residence and
detached garage on a lot addressed as 18720 Souindview Place, located in a Single -Family Residential
(RS-12) zone. The grading associated with the proposed new residence and garage will be approximately
1,500 cubic yards. (File Nos. BLD-2007-0609 and BLD-2007-1153)
Proponent: Joe Molina, TGB Architects
Location of proposali including street address if any: 18720 Soundview Place
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have
been adequately addressed in the development, regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under
chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW
.43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no
significant adverse impacts will be created.
An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made
after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file -with the lead agency.
This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by December 11, 2007.
Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Planner
Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425-771-0220
Date: iVovtok _27 signature:
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave,- Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the
appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized. affidavit form
no later than December 11, 2001.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals.
XX Posted on November 27, 2007, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community
Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked". Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the
Checklist.
Page I of 2
SEPA DNS 07-0699 KNUTSON.DOC
11/26/07.SEPA
0
• Mailed SEPA Determination to properties within 300 feet of the site.
• Mailed SEPA Determination and the Environmental Checklist to the following:
XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager
XX Environmental Review Section
Snohomish Co. PUD
Department of Ecology
PO Box 1107
P.O. Bo)e47703 —
Everett, WA 98206-1107
Olympia,- WA 98504-7703
XX Applicant: Joe Molina
XX COMCAST
TGB Architects
I
Outside Plant Engineer, North Region
2191176 Avenue W, Suite 210
410 Valley Ave NW #12
Edmonds, WA 98026
Puyallup, WA 98371-3317
XX DNR SEPA Center
P.O. Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
pc: File Nos. BLD-2007-0699 and BLD-2007-1153
SEPA Notebook
Page 2 of 2
SEPA DNS 07-0699 KNUTSON. DOC
11/26/07.SEPA
E
CITY OF EDMONDS
WI. -
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
St. I
Purpose of Checklist.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.2 1 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with
probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help
you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if if can be done) and to
help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. I
Instructionsfor Applicana:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this
checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer
the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer
the questions ftom your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if
a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may
avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if
you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do- them over a period of time or on different parcels of
land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you
submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there
may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklistfor nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does.not apply." IN ADDITION, complete
the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
I Name ofproposed project, if applicable: V— o U d"J O&KA
2. Name of applicant: ADt- 1"40 4-, 1 AJ 4� > A4?—"
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact A erson:
&--sl E— 4:7,
TV —
"A
4. Date checklist prepared: It>
5. Agency requesting checklist: CLty ofEdmonds
Page I of 24
sqm chwkfist - pubbc.doc.4.3-2006
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): kj%) �5 0 1 LX> 1 10 (X f)CAW I I
I S, C--, 01, -4rjV-V )4. T�A
(STAFF COMMENT
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related
to this proposal.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
9.
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting.
the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 2 of 24
sepa checklist - pubfic.doc:4.3.2006
10. List any government appri6vals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
C, t 1:�J e.)f: 1 L A-1 i
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11. Give brief, complete description of your peopo'sal,'includin'g the'pr000sed uses find size'*6f the project and site.
There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You
do not need to repeat those answers on this pgkge.
,'U D 10 1-) AJ I T- AZ'byr—
(STAFF COMMENTS)
12.- Location- of the. proposal- Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your
proposed project, including a street address, if any, a nd see'tioii, township, and range,'if'kn6 wn. If a proposal
would occur over, a range of aeea,'provide range or -boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topograph ic map, if reasonably, available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agenC I y, yo - u . ari not requirid'to duplicate ma�s or detailed plans �u6 itted'with'any permit. applications related
tothis checklist.
IppQ-7-ea. sm. 'Z0 cz> no r-,-,ytrW nA t SE er>" r�
SX I Tt_
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 3 of 24
sepa checklist - public.doc:4.3.2006
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT,,..
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
2. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, e!rtheEr�
TILr- ef, I T �, I 10 - 00' L-rpj (, - 9 M'-r 1E A X -VXr4n-J
B.
,C2 Nj"ALL-
(STAFF COMMENT
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 92 32 P-0 Y- 76
(STAFF COMMENTS)
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (foe example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you
know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
e_ j L 7--!( F 10 2- Tz. T4r- FifalsIr (oil.
4'o e&VIS F, I bo-ly.-T iEwt' sA-'-j13
e, aoal 730" J� -6"1 - i -6o-51E - :rn - 1-1X61 U—"
$,r. :tjL" Wft j t.T Tb - 01r-�N i u &LA &A4um uci z
(STAFF..COMMENTS
d. , Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
:11:jy' " 11�" n' -s %J g&-O�tcx- tAJ lb % c-sLT-1 a-*%J S Of 0A1,ST-A15L&-
(STAFF COMMENT
Page 4 of 24
sep checklist - public.doc:4.3.2006
e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source
of fill.
#-,I I L�V— ft� T— c- 1w 1E, se ekq A-T, ri
1�� e- ::r-q , c.- T20 I t-Q I P.J C.- r—
!L-R— VLtJ C.% I OQ
(STAFF COMMENTS
f. Could-erosiOn occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Jf so, generally describe.
ki CA
(STAFF COMMENTS)
9. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
CC>
(STAFF COMMENTS
h. Proposed. measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
A=w ri A-Pm4 s
(STAFF COMMENT
2' . - - AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe
and give approximate quantities if known.
--M T>1 e---rv..A q--ry sr--T-i crvd 6J^Q-V— tat"A1K-12,i6,T%:,tA r,>U-cr- '7Y
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 5 of 24
sepa checkfist - pubfic.doc:4.3.2006
0
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
(STAFF COMMENTS --
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or. other impacts to the, if any:
(STAFF COMMENT
3. WATER
a. Surface�
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of.the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
0"3 pa,
(STAFF COMMENTS
(2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)'the described waters? If
yes, please describe and attach available plans.
<.r-m At2O7-'�-- N.F X S-1-00 11-)C�
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be, placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands'and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill
material.
(STAFFCOMMENT
sepa cbeckW - public doc:4.3.2006
Page 6 of 24
(4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals, or diversions? Give general description-,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
V-.3 6 " IL
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
7—
(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the
type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Ground:
(1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. .
k4&t #J Lit L(_ F_zV__ r->V---r 4�4 WY&A,'!o
(STAFF COMMENTS
Page 7 of 24
sepa checkfist - pubk.doc:4.3.2006
(2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if
any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural;
etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems.- the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systeT(s) are expected to serve.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
(1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water)-ind method of collection and disposal, if any
(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?
If so, describe.
AU-' 'EAN#J bFP 111U, L6-r-T'L!Zj V IA- -1�0
A&J T--, e 4M;�d C? ArU 0 c, , -GAAE- —LIATL� JILL, aE �pjjZr,,LjVn -M A. AJrmA
VE:a ",ricN4 idd" UmL aom-xx
IQTtl-k*�l `r1-qS1V-AY
(STAFF COMMENTS
(2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
e-- i
(STAFF COMMENTS
d. - Proposed measures to reduce -or control surf e,ground ! 'and runoff water impacts, if any:
'I VIC_
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 8 of 24
sepa checklist - public.docA3.2006
4. Plants
2. Check or circle types of vegetation found on -the site:
deciduous tree: alder4galspen, other:
iecn treeKljor')Icedar, pine, other.'
everg
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other:
water plants:'water lily, eelgrass, milfbil, other:
other types of vegetation:
(STAFF COMMENT
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
(STAFF COMMENTS
C. List threatened. or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
KI C-1- AIJ.&P-t pv� &,)LI
I
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 9 of 24
sepa checkW - pubfic.doc:4.3.2006
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,
if any:
1� L 7W1NW:'Mw'=4W A] I 10 n.—W. 11
(STAFF COMMENTS
5. Animals
a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or
near the site:
— g birds: hawk, heron, eagle,eo;as, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: I P-0-4—ue'
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: —ps! P0 e'AC-T
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
"D
(STAFF COMMENTS)
hige 10 of 24
wpa checkW - pubrw-doc:4.3.2006
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
(STAFF COMMENT
6. Energy and Natural Resources
3. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Eutt c-T Ct c- A" r), rQ AaU S. 4KAMM4)
(STAFF COMMENTS
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
0
(STAFF COMMENT
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed
measures to reduce or control,energy. impacts, if any:
(STAFF COMM
Page 11 of 24
sepa checklist - public.doc:4.3.2006
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure � to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spills or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe.
E = -3 RA �-'T% U1 R V IT T
(STAFF COMMENTS
(1) Describe special emergency services thatmight be required.
STAFF COMMENTS
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
J�j
(STAFF COMMENTS
b. Noise
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
MWIV.,nIIIIII 111111prIIII 1Q1111 )I
(STAFF COMMENT
Page 12 of 24
sqn checklist - pubfic.docA3.2006
(2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associate - d with the project on a short-term or
a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,, oilier)? Indicate what hour's noise
would come from the site.
::"-L C-AA, C-004 '%TRU c.;zE: i CW NPIS-K
C- -MOW: S,1-/btJJNA" F=V.&tVLA1Ti4A-- lsk:�&SIV
(STAFF COMMENTS
(3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
(STAFF COMMENTS)
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
(STAFF COMMENTS
Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
(STAFF COMMENTS
Page 13 of 24
sepa checklist - public.docA3.2006
0
C. Describe any structures on the site.
(STAFF -COMMENTS
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
(STAFF COMMEN
C. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
(STAFF COMMENTS
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
(STAFF COMMENTS)
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site?
!�> t I a u C-%,4 04 lic % I 5> It&[Irl JL (_ -7-y-
(STAFF
Page 14 of 24
sqa checklist - public.doc:4.3-2006
11
0
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? It so, specify.
(STAFF COMMENTS
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
(STAFF COMMENTS
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
(STAFF COMMENTS)
L Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
(STAFF COMMENTS
-the proposal is compatible with- existing "and projected land uses and plans, if
1. Proposed measures -to ensure
any:
AW 1,J t L-t-- Boa_T-
(STAFF. COMMENTS)
Page 15 of 24
sepa checklist - pubfic.doc:4-3.2006
9. Housing
2. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether -high, middle, or low-income
housing.
41CL-k IM C4WIr- goO 9&--
(STAFF COMMENTS
b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
(STAFF COMMENTS
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
(STAFF COMMENTS
10. Aesthetics
3. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle
exterior building material(s) proposed?
acjctL_r :)�_ &,q -7 61 Tkim!�41'tjr
X)S�,m& 14 A -TV. e-,j AA- I S ' CeCD AIL at, LX_:5'
(STAFF COMM
Page 16 of 24
seps checklist - publitdoc:4.3.2006
9* 0.
b. . What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?,
(STAFF.COMMENTS
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
C- F- A-1- I P-) C.*� f5(J AJ 40k L-0
L- i KA r=t, M C-rt-U ^I= V-VX40AIQ--. qLSnaJ <-A�
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
AJI NJ I &� VI T' I:Lb�nAR-D I: C-1cn KT-S
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. ' Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
N 0
(STAFF COMMENTS)
C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
(STAFF COMMEN
Page 17 of 24
'sepa checklist - public.doc:4.3.2006
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
(STAFF COMMENTS
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
-5 FAdQk, Ad A- M 1 (-1— 1294tJ-1-Ok/Al
E-1DK4ax1DS- A� W-V T-4W— QW AM
(STAFF COMMENTS
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to. be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
(STAFF COMMENTS
Page 18 of 24
sepa checklist - public-doc:4.3.2006
0
13; Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. - Are t here " any places -or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers
known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
(STAFF COMMENT
b., Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,or cultural importance
known to be on or next to the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
0-1\J
(STAFF COMMENTS)
14. Transportation
A.' Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
<- VTT V51 F-14 IC-:L r- - -S i -M
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 19 of 24
scps checklisi - public. doc:43.2006
0 0
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
0o 4 w it!s M NCAEX617
(STAFF COMMENTS
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
-M-V-� tJj&A.= 66Yr- AT 4--�6,T 4 6124-c-trk-
:t3kM e- L-j— T P--1-tK4iAJA-M Ar-Ns/
(STAFF COMMENTS)
d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including
driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
(STAFF COMMENT
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or Air transportation? If so,
generally describe.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Page 20 of 24
sepa chcckfist - pubk.doc:4.3.2006
L How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
(STAFF
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
K I /�r�
(STAFF COMMENTS)
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: rite protection, police
protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally, describe.
TAw- tr- 61E i e--e !& As-r- AVAIc-&&L-ift- -M S"i
AND <,4 (-D PJ51--" A..k 0,3 -t4V— !4. A *W C—
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any:
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Pap 21 of 24
sep checklist -public.doc:4.3.2006
16. Utilities
a. Circle
ls�s currently available at the site: ��S'(2ER� ice, '�!�e,
sajq��r, septic,system, other:
(STAFF COMMENTS
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, thextility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
(STAFF COMM
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and -complete to the best of my knowledge. 11 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to -
make its decision.
Signature of Proponent Date Submitted
Page 22 of 24
sepa checklist - public.doc:4.3.2006
t
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET. FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheelforprojeci actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction. with the list of the elements of the
environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal,
would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
general terms.
1. How would the, proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of
toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Page 23 of 24
sepa checkhst - pubficAoc:4.3.2006
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or
under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered
species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to adect'land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land .
or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. . Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
Page 24 of 24
sepa cbecklist - public. doc.4.3-2006
0' TO ROSENAU & ASACIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA
Tel: (206) 725-4600 e Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US 9 Fax: (206) 723-2221
WBE W2F5913684 * WABO Registered Agency * Website: www.ottorosenau.com
November 8, 2007
Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects
21911 76th Ave W. Suite 210
Edmonds, WA 98026 CITY COPY
Re: Geotechnical Review of Project Plans
Proposed Knutson Residence
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600100600 RESUB
City of Edmonds Permit Number: 2007 0699 NOV 13 2007
r3UILDING DEPAR-rMENT
ORA Project Number: 06-318 rlTy OF EDMONDS
Dear Mr. Molina:
We have completed review of the project plans prepared by Taylor Gregory Butterfield
Architects dated November 1, 2007 (Sheets SP1.0, SP1.5, A2.00 and A3.00) and the project
plan sheets prepared by CG Engineering dated October 1, 2007 (Sheets C1.1, C2.1, C2.2,
C3.1, C4.1). We also reviewed the report prepared by CG Engineering titled "Drainage Report
& Calculations for Knutson Residence, 18720 Soundview Place, Edmonds, WA 98020" dated
September 28, 2007. Otto Rosenau & Associates (ORA) prepared a report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Structure, 18720 Sound View Place, Edmonds,
Washington" dated July 10, 2006. It is our opinion that our recommendations have been
properly incorporated into the current project plans.
We understand that the City requested an evaluation of the impact of the use of a permeable
"grasscrete" driveway on the stability of the slopes located in the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) right-of-way at the northwest side of the site. The "grasscrete" driveway located
approximately 220 feet southeast of the crest of the slopes in the BNSF right-of-way. The
location of the permeable "grasscrete" driveway was originally occupied with a relatively
impervious crushed rock driveway and landscaped areas. We did not observe a stormwater
collection system for stormwater runoff from the original driveway. The presence of a
permeable "grasscrete" driveway will allow a more diffuse pattern of infiltration of surface runoff
water than was originally present in this area. As a result, we anticipate that there should be no
adverse affects on the stability of the adjacent slopes in the BNSF right-of-way due to the
presence of the "grasscrete" driveway. It is likely that the use of the "grasscrete" driveway will
enhance the stability of the slopes by reducing surface water runoff towards the slopes.
Knutson Residence — 18720 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
0 7TO ROSENA U &A SSOCIA TES, INC
Aac&� e&7-7-�
Anthony C�oyne, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
0
November 8, 2007
of! k
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2
NO EXCISE TAX
REQUIRED
;MAR 3 0 2001
File'dfor Record at the Request Of:
pe ar.id Leann Helleren 808 DANTINi, Sn0h0flish COuntY Treasurer
P.'O. B6k 822
�OFr�6nds*,--W shington 98020 By-- BO
a
11110 11111111111 IM 111111111111 m i I
211 1429 3 PGS
rl�jj 7
Mo M
H
H CU 1ANGTON
Notice of Easement and Agreement
Grantors Thdin , m.P: Mar . v . ie ailO Lauralee H. Harville, husband and wife
Grant" : Dana -S' .' Kni�tsqiy,` dn untnanieOperson
Legal Description Loti 6, 7,-� a6d I 0;'Block A, Edmonds Sea Mew Tracts (Vol. 3, Pg. 76)
'Government W, �,.`S�Ion 13, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M.
Assessors Tax Parc�l 40. Nii.*.--b0434600100700, 27031300403600 and 00434600100600
Notice is hereby given that lr)-tianeld�Fatipn--pf mutual benefits to be derived, Thomas P. Harville and
Lauralee H. Harville, husband Ond.- ��ner gf-16,e�pllowing described property, situate in the City of
Edmonds, County of Snohomish, $tqt6bf -Washln§ton, to wft:
A tract of land comprising Lot . northeasted.o�i)qf Lot 8, a portion of Lot 10, All in
Block"A", and a portion of vacated Ocean Av6nue, All in.Edmonds Sea View Tracts, as
per plat recorded in Volume 3 of Plpts*, page* 7q, retords of Snohomish County,
Washington:
TOGETHER WITH a portion of Govemrin ' ent Lot 3. § ediion 13, Township 27 North, Range
3 East, W.M., (being a part of Tracts 1 arid 2,-Blddk.5'0166�.unrecorded plat of Frultdale
on the Sound), described as follows: ........
j
Beginning at the most northerly comer of said tot
thence southeasterly along the northeasterly lindof-said-.Lof and said line produced 280
feet to the northwesterly line of Sound View Place extended -southWestedy',
thence southwesterly along said extended sound Viei� Pl?i6e 114 7� feet;
thence northwesteNy parallel with said line of Lot 7 and' -$aid fine pr6dLlc6d, 310 feet to the
northwesterly line of said vacated Ocean Avenue; ............
thence northeastedy along said vacated Avenue line, 75 feet
thence southeasterty 30 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
do hereby reserve and convey unto Dana S. Knutson, an unmarried peri6n,jfer heirs; sudpessors and
assigns, owner of the following described property, situate in the City of Edm6Ms,-douptYQf Sn6homish,
State of Washington, to vAt:
ty Sf* f**
the land referred to is situated in the County of Snohomish, C1 of Edmonds, atq. o.,
Washington, and is described as follows:
Pag.e I of 3
A tract of land comprising Lot 6 and a portion of Lot 10, All In Block "A*, Edmonds Sea
`,.:View Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, records.
ofsaid County,
-'70geter With a portion of Government Lot 3, Section 13, Township 27 North, Range 3
W.M.,- (being a part of Tracts 1, *Block 5 of the unrecorded plat of Frultdale on the
SQuMj, des0b6d as follows:
...B�glnnifqit thi' m c**;st northerly comer of said Lot 6;
thenbe pq6theast"Olong the northei3sterty line of said Lot 6 and said line produced 280
li�et to-ihe naro*e*rl�:line of Sound View Place extended sou#Twestedy
the6ce se6ih�'miiirt�elong said extended sound View Place'line 50 feet;
thdnoe`�orth\�esterl� along the extended southwesterly line of Lot6 and the southwesterly
line of.salil Lot'll -to,ttw most westerly line comer of said Lot 6;
thence%nor6qd plo4g the northwesterly line of Lot 6 to the point of beginning;
�tl 1511Y
TOGETHER ITH that.p�qiob of -vacated street adjoining which attached thereto by
operation o
a permanent exclusive mentfor #i60se and enjoyment and for the installation and maintenance of
ornamental landscaping, fengfn9ptiq IhVation plRing.and appurtenances, over, under, across, through
and upon the northeasterly 2.00,feet ofAhQ,s&Ahpg6terly 150.00 feet of the prbperty first hereinabove
described..
FURTHER, the parties hereto agree that thib pr9p6ity.06 between the two properties hereinabove
described shall be as presently staked. -upon the groun�.y!�dqljneated on that certain 'Plat of Survey",
recorded under Auditoes File -Number 200602085140,,ricord67-of S�ohomish County, Washington.
.............
This instruments.hall be a covenant running with the lands here I jriabovi�desobed and is binding upon the
owners of such lands, their heirs, successors and assigns, fo�eveir.
..........
IN WITNESS WHEREOF we hersupto set our hands and seals this. 4by.9f 2007.
Thomas P. Harville 'Lauralee H. Harville
Dana S. Knutson
Page 2 of 3 ........
State pi Washington
ceriffy th�t I inowor,have satisfactory evidence that Dana S. Knutson, a unmarried person, Is the person
mb. and she acknovAedged that she signed this instrument and acknovAedged it
t6be-herfre6 and VOILki�iry.act for the uses and purpose's mentioned in the instrument.
Dated:::SIIZOA111-1�q
Pais
ION
1z
P#JBLjr*
Notary public In arid. for: the statq. (PI
Washington, residirib. at wbk w-Un & 6 -
My appointment expirkl"1�5,�;;Ow!, M
State of Washington)
County of Snohomish)
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence -that Thpm6s P. Harville and Lauralee H. Harville,
husband and wife, are the persons who appearedbefqre� mo, and said persons acknowledged that they
signed this Instrument and acknovAedged ft;t6 be thdir free`and.,,�oluntary act for the uses and purposes
mentioned -in the instrument.
Dated: —621110) -1200 1 P
ek, ihA it A 1
Notary public In and for the state of
Washington, residing at
My appointment expires Ai-A&-AVA,
Page 3 of 3
EDM:07-85
4
July 10, 2006
0TOG-ROSENAU"t'ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Unstruction Inspection & Materials Testing
Leif Helleren Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 1764 -
Edmonds, WA 98020
6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA
Tel: (206) 725-4600 e Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US * Fax: (206) 723-2221
WBE W2F5913684 * WA80 Registered Agency 9 Website: www.ottorosenau.com
c9_W-7- 0(a q9 INW60
I S I a D so () NJ DI V / G LO 'Pt --
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Residential Development
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600100600
ORA Project Number: 06-318, Report 1
Dear Mr. Helleren:
RESUB
C01DW JUL 17 2007
BUILDING DEPAR7MENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
We are pleased to provide this report for the referenced project. Based on the subsurface explorations
that we witnessed and our analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be
satisfactorily supported on conventional spread, footings, which bear on a two -foot thick zone of imported
structural fill, or on a two -foot thick zone of suitable, native,,sand that is placed as structural fill.
It is our opinion that the 66-foot setback from the property line to the future residence (79 foot setback
from the top of the steep slope) is appropriate for the proposed development. It is our opinion that the
proposed residential structure can be built with minimal risk of soil movement on- and off-sitao'gr, *dae_(da,
that the recommendations of our report are followed.
Detailed earthwork and foundation recommendations are presented in the attached report. If you have
any questions, or if we may be of additional service, please contact us.
—7 / ( 0 /-z- o 0/6
Copies to: Addressee (5)
Sincerely,
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc.
1� �Zd� aa_-e�
Anthony G. Coyne, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
HnDE�CFYED
n nFr 10
. 2
F�r 1. 0 2007
EECE
1- 1. 1 0 TARI P r)F: r-nNT1=K1T-Q 0
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .:� .............. : ............................................................................ 1
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................... 1
4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................ 2
4.1 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................. 3
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 3
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 3
6.1 General .................................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Seismic Considerations ............................................................................................ 4
6.3 Foundations ............................................................................................................. 5
6.4 Below -Grade Walls and Retaining Walls ................................................................ 6
6.5 Slabs -On -Grade ..................................................................................................... 7
6.6 Earthwork ................................................................................................................ 7
6.6.1 Site Clearing ............................................................................................ 7
6.6.2 Foundation and Slab Subgrade Preparation .......................... : .................. 7
6.6.3 Structural Fill - Material, Placement and Compaction ............................... 7
6.6.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control .......................................................... 9
6.6.5 Temporary Cut Slopes ............................................................................. 9
6.7 Steep Slopes .......................................................................................................... 9
6.8 Drainage ............................................................................................................. 10
6.8.1 Dewatering ............................................................................................. 10
6.8.2 Retaining Wall Drainage ......................................................................... 10
6.8.3 Surface Drainage ........................................................ ........................... 10
6.9 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................ 11
7. REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 11
APPENDIX
VicinityMap ....................................................................................................................... A-1
SitePlan ........................................................ I ............................................................... A-2
TypicalFoundation Detail ....................................................................................................... A-3
-.W
0 9
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
18720 SOUND VIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Prepared for
Mr. Leif Helleren Construction, Inc.
by Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc.
July 10, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed single-family
residence to be built at 18720 Sound View Place in Edmonds, Washington (Snohomish County Parcel
#00434600100600). The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map on page A-1 of the appendix.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that a two-story, wood -framed, single-family home will be constructed on the site, and
that the existing single-family residence is to be demolished. The new structure will have a crawl space
and will be supported on conventional spread footings. We understand that the site is considered to be
within a critical area (CA) due to the presence of steep slopes in close proximity to the northwest side of
the property. Based on the information provided to us, the proposed residence is to be setback
approximately 66 feet from the northwest property line and about 79 feet from the existing top of the
steep slopes. We understand that no development is planned within 50 feet of the northwest property
line.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services included a reconnaissance of the site by the geologist, a review of geologic
literature, and obtaining soil samples from three test pits at the approximate location shown on the Site
Plan on page A-2 of the appendix. Soil samples were taken of the subsurface soils at the depths
shown on the test pit logs presented on pages A-4 through A-6 of the appendix.
The geotechnical engineering services were performed by Otto Rosenau and Associates, Inc. (ORA) to
provide the following information:
0 seismic design considerations including liquefaction potential,
* suitable foundation systems with estimated settlements,
Otto Rosenaul Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Matedals Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10. 2006
Page 2 of 11
• allowable bearing capacity,
• lateral earth pressures and friction coefficients,
• influence of groundwater on the development,
• evaluation of the condition of the steep slopes at the site, and
• site preparation and earthwork in a critical area.
4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
We reviewed the Draft "Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area, Central Puget Lowland,
Washington" (2004) by Booth, Derek B., Cox, Brett, F., Troost, Kathy G., and Shimel, Scott A. The
soils near the project site are mapped as "Pre -Fraser Deposits" (Qpf). "Pre -Fraser Deposits" (Qpf)
deposits generally consist of weakly to moderately oxidized sand and gravel, lacustrine silt and sand
with local peat layers.
We understand that the City of Edmonds Development Services Department of (DSD) considers that
portions of the site are located within a Critical Area (CA) due to the presence of steep slopes along the
northwest side of the site.
4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site grades down to the northwest from elevation of approximately 63 feet at Sound View Place, to
36 feet at the top of the bank that abuts the Burlington Northern (BNSF) right-of-way to the beach at
sea level. The steep slope is located northwest of the northwest property line. The site grades slope
downwards to a rock -lined ditch along the southeast side of the railway embankment and is
approximately 20 feet in height. The inclination of the steep slopes appears to range from about 40 to
100 percent. We did not observe any indication of past or on7going slope instability at the steep slope
area, such as tension cracks, slump blocks, hummocky terrain, or sag ponds. The slope face is well -
vegetated with grasses and hydrophilic plants such as horsetails. These plants are indicative of a very
moist environment and may indicate groundwater seepage through the slope face, which we did not
observe.
The existing, one-story, single-family residence is located on the southeastern third of the site and is
scheduled to be demolished. The site is vegetated with grass and extensive landscaping around the
perimeter of the property.
We observed a large maple tree at a distance of about 25 feet setback from the top of the slope. We
understand that the tree had been struck by lightning in the past and observed scorching marks on the
tree. We also observed a large hollow at the base of the tree that had been partially filled with
concrete. The tree did not appear to be in a healthy condition. It is our opinion that the tree could be
removed without adversely affecting the stability of the slope. If the tree is removed, we recommend
Otto Rosen aulq Associates, Incorporated
Geolechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Mateflals Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 3 of 11
that the root ball not be removed to minimize disturbance within the steep slope buffer area. The tree
may be flush cut to the ground surface or ground down to a depth of about 6 inches below the existing
site grade.
4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
We evaluated the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by completing three test pits at the site
on May 25, 2006. Test Pit 1 (TP-1) was completed approximately twelve feet southwest of the north
property corner on the northwest property line. Test Pit 2 (TP-2) was completed twenty feet southwest
of the northeast property line, fifty feet southeast of the northwest property line on the proposed footing
line. Test Pit 3 (TP-3) was completed one hundred feet southeast of TP72. Please refer to the Site
Plan on page A-2 of the appendix for the approximate location of the test pits.
The site soils generally consist of brown silty fine SAND (SM) with organics, top soil in the upper 6
inches. The soils encountered from 6 inches to 2.5 feet consist of loose, brown, moist, fine SAND with
silt and organics (SP-SM). The soils encountered from approximately 2.5 feet to 7 feet generally
consist of loose to medium dense, tan, moist, fine to medium, SAND with silt (SP-SM) with increasing
gravel content with depth. The soils encountered from 7 feet to the termination of the test pits at 9.5
generally consist of medium dense, very moist to wet, gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt and gravel
(SW-SM). Ground water was encountered in TP-1 and TP-2 at 9.5 feet below existing grade. A
moderate flow rate was observed in TP-2.
5. DISCUSSION
The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project as
presented in the Project Description Section and on the assumption that the subsurface conditions are
as assumed herein. Project conditions, regarding type and location of structures and foundation loads
can change and subsurface conditions are not always similar to those encountered during the
subsurface exploration. Therefore, if discrepancies are noticed, the geotechnical engineer must be
contacted for review and for possible revision of the recommendations.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily built at the proposed
location with minimal risk of adversely impacting the stability of site slopes, existing residence or
adjacent properties provided that the work is completed in accordance with the recommendations of
this report. The engineering recommendations and advice presented in this report have been made in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. The
recommendations are based on our understanding of the geology of the area and on experience with
similar projects.
Otto Rosen at Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 4 of I I
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily supported on conventional
spread footings that bear on excavated and recompacted fine to medium SAND with silt (SP-SM)
encountered between 2.5 to 4.5 feet below existing grade. Please refer to the following sections of the
report for specific site and foundation subgrade preparation recommendations.
6.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismic design of structures in the City of Edmonds is governed by the requirements of the 12003
edition of the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC requires that the site be classified info— a site
class. Based on the results of the soil exploration completed at the project site, it is our opinion that the
observed conditions most closely meet the described conditions of Site Class Q (QC Table 1615.1.1).
Site specific criteria can be obtained from maps in the IBC (Figures 1615(l) and 1615(2)) for short
period (Ss) and 1-second-period (Si) spectral accelerations. The values for Ss and S, are spectral
accelerations (SRA) for a maximum considered earthquake event with a 2,500 year return period or a
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Values for Ss and S, are also available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National
Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website. The values recommended for use in this report were
obtained from the USGS website by inputting latitude and longitude for the project site (N 47.828560, W
122.364450). The 1996 data set from the USGS website was used for consistence with the relevant
figures in the 2003 IBC. The following table presents recommended values from the 2003 IBC for
seismic design:
2003 Edition of International Building Code (IBC) Seismic Design Values
Mapped max. earthquake SRA at short periods, Ss, % g
126.6
apped max. earthquake SRA at 1 -second period, S1, % g
43.5
Peak Ground Acceleration, % g
54.1
Site Coefficient Fa (Table 1 615.1.2(l))
1.0
Site Coefficient F, (Table 1615.1.2(2))
1.57
Max. considered earthquake SRA for short periods, Sms
126.6
Max. considered earthquake SRA for I -second periods, Sm,
68.3
Design SRA at short periods, SDS
84.4
Design SRA at 1 -second period, SD1
45.5
Liquefaction may be defined as the sudden loss of strength of soil as the soil is subjected to a rapid
cyclic loading, such as during an earthquake. The mechanism that allows this to occur is that excess
pore water pressures are generated between the soil particles. This excess pore water pressure
reduces the frictional contact between the soil particles and reduces the shear strength of the soil. If
the earthquake is of large magnitude and duration, the soil can begin to behave more as a liquid than a
Otto Rosenauq Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 5 of 11
solid and "liquefy". In order for liquefaction to occur, several conditions must typically be present.
These include the following:
0 Saturated soil.
• Fine to medium sand matrix containing less than about 10 percent fines (soil that can pass a
No. 200 sieve.
• Very loose to medium dense soil conditions. This is usually defined as soils that have N-
values of 15 or less.
Based on the results of our explorations and our observation of the soil and groundwater conditions at
the site, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site is low to medium.
6.3 FOUNDATIONS
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily supported on conventional
spread footings that bear on a 2-foot foot thick zone of imported structural fill or a 2-foot thick zone of
overexcavated and recompacted, suitable native SAND with silt placed as structural fill. We also
recommend that the width of the overexcavation should extend at least 2 feet laterally on all sides of
the future foundation elements. Please refer to the figure titled Typical Foundation Detail presented on
page A-3 for a graphical presentation of our recommendations.
We recommend that the following allowable bearing capacities be used for the design of conventional
spread footings:
Foundation bearing on a 2-foot thick zone of imported structural fill, or overexcavated
and recompacted, suitable, native SAND with silt placed as structural fill: 2,000 psf
The allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. If the
recommendations in this report are followed, we estimate that the maximum post -construction
settlements will be less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch and differential settlements will be less than
one-half (1/2) of an inch between comparably loaded column footings or along a 25-foot long section of
continuous wall footing.
We recommend that the minimum width of continuous footiEgs be 1.5 feet and that the minimum size of
column footings be 1.5-foot by 1.5-foot. All foundation elements, including continuous spread footings,
and isolated column footings, shall be placed at leastr
1.8-inches-below-the--lowest -adia-cent finished
grade for frost protection and to meet the minimum code requirements as presented in Section 1805 —
Footings and Foundations of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC).
Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) where grade beams are cast on structural fill or dense native soils and backfilled on both sides
Otto RosenaultAssociates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Matedals Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 6 of 11
with structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (MDD). This value of
passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
An ultimate coefficient of friction between footings and bearing soils of 0.35 may be used to resist
lateral foundation loads. If passive earth pressures are used in conjunction with base friction to resist
lateral loads, reduce the ultimate coefficient of friction to 0.30. A factor of safety of 1.2 should be
applied to these values.
Footings, stem walls, and any retaining walls should be reinforced to reduce the potential for distress
caused by differential foundation movements. Aqualified engineer should determine the size, quantity,
and location of reinforcement. All footing excavations at this site should be made with a toothless
bucket to minimize disturbance of the foundation soils. The bearing surfaces shall be inspected by the
geotechnical engineer'or his representative to verify that no unsuitable soils are present. The presence
of unsuitable soils under foundation elements can lead to substantial increases in post -construction
settlement.
6.4 BELOW -GRADE WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS
The below -grade foundation walls for this project must be designed as retaining walls. Lateral earth
pressures for design of permanent below -grade walls or retaining walls., with level backfill and with no
hydrostatic pressures or surcharge loads, may be calculated using the following equivalent fluid
pressures:
Active (unrestrained):
Undisturbed subgrade soils (level behind wall)
35 psf/ft.
Compacted granular soils (level behind wall)
35 psf/ft.
Active (restrained):
Undisturbed subgrade soils (level behind wall)
57 psf/ft.
Compacted granular soils (level behind wall)
57 psf/ft.
Passive:
Continuous footings
300 psf/ft.
Column footings
300 psf/ft.
The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to determine appropriate lateral earth pressures for
situations not described above. We recommend that seismic earth pressures be estimated using a
rectangular pressure distribution equal to 10H, where H is the height of the retained soil behind the
wall. A total soil unit -weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot should be used in design of any permanent
below -grade wall or retaining structures.
Otto Rosena'UR Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Matelials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06_318
July 10, 2006
Page 7 of 11
6.5 SLABS -ON -GRADE
Based on our understanding of the project construction, we anticipate that the only slab -on -grade will
be in the garage. Slabs -on grade should be at least 4 inches in thickness and should be supported on
a minimum 4-inch-thick, free -draining, gravel base as. described in the Structural Fill section of this
report. A vapor retarder such as 6-mil polyethylene sheeting shall be included beneath the slab to
minimize transmission of moisture through the concrete floor. A minimum, two-inch thick layer of clean
sand with less than 3 percent fines may be placed on top of the polyethylene sheeti�g to —protect the
-_iK&_e_t'ing and to enhance the curing of the concrete slabs. The sand must not be saturated at the time
of concrete placement to provide a drainage path for bleed water from the curing concrete.
6.6 EARTHWORK
The recommendations presented in this report are predicated on fulfillment of the following earthwork
recommendations.
6.6.1 Site Clearing: Any existing vegetation, loose soil, and any other deleterious materials including
asphalt pavements and old foundation elements shall be removed from the future building area prior to
construction. After site clearing and stripping, the exposed surfaces should be graded to allow good
surface drainage during construction. An ORA representative should evaluate the stripping activities to
verify that adequate stripping of unsuitable soils has been performed.
6.6.2 Foundation and Slab Subgrade Preparation: All pavements, undocumented fill, organic debris,
and old topsoil must be removed from all foundation element locations and slab areas. The exposed
slab subgrade soil conditions should be verified by a representative of ORA to ensure that the soils are
adequately prepared to provide the required support.
The exposed subgrade soils at the future foundation site consist of loose to medium dense SAND with
silt. These soils should be an overexcavated at least 2 feet- in�qe�pth below the future foundation
elevation, and should extend laterally 2 foot "ast he anticipated edge of the footing. A smooth -bladed
bucket should be used to perform e abons andTo —minimize the disturbance of bearing soils. The
exposed overexcavation subgrade soils should be thoroughly compacted to a firm and unyielding and
should be evaluated by an ORA representative before placing any structural fill.
6.6.3 Structural Fill — Material, Placement and Compaction: Material, Placement and Compaction:
In general, the native soils that consist of sand with silt (SP-SM) are suitable for use as structural fill
provided that it is free of debris and is close to optimum moisture content. Native soils that consist of
silty sand (SM) should only be used as structural fill during drier summer months, and provided that the
soil is moisture -conditioned to within three (3) percent of optimum moisture. All fill and backfill materials
should be placed in relatively horizontal loose lifts, not exceeding 10 inches in thickness, and should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by the modified
Otto Rosenaft Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 8 of 11
Proctor test (ASTM D1557). If manually -operated equipment such as a jumping jack compactor is
used, the thickness of each loose lift should be no greater than 6 inches. Light vibratory plate
compactors are not suitable for the compaction of structural fill. Soils consisting of clay, silt, peat or
containing deleterious matter are generally not suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill material
should be approved by ORA prior to use. The following table summarizes our recommendations of fill
material and compaction requirements of fill material and compaction requirements and refers to the
2006 edition of Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for
Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction for various types of aggreqates.
Intended Use
Specification
Compaction Requirements
Structural fill for
2- to 4-inch quarry spalls, or washed
Quarry spalls or clean crushed rock
overexcavation backfill
crushed rock with a typical particle
must be placed in lifts no greater than
below foundation
size between 1.25 and 2 inches and
12 inches in thickness, with each lift
elements
less than 5 percent fines
thoroughly compacted with a
vibratory roller, or hoepack mounted
on an excavator.
Structural fill below
Suitable native soil, Gravel Borrow
Fill placed at depths greater than 2
pavements or
(WSDOT 9-03.14(l), Select Borrow
feet below finish subgrade elevation
sidewalks
(WSDOT 9-03.14(2), Crushed
must be compacted to 90 percent of
Surfacing Base Course (WSDOT 9-
MDD. Fill placed at depths within 2
03.9(3)
feet of finish subgrade elevation must
be compacted to 95 percent of MDD.
Free -draining wall
Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9-
Fill placed within 5 feet of below -
drainage material
03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Drains
grade walls or retaining wa Ils shall be
behind below -grade
(WSDOT 9-03.12(4)
compacted with manually -operated
walls and retaining
compaction equipment. Fill placed at
walls
depths greater than 2 feet below
finish subgrade elevation compacted
to 90 percent of MDD. Fill placed at
depths within 2 feet of finish
subgrade elevation must be
compacted to 95 percent of MDD, if
the area will be supporting
pavements or roadway.
Capillary break
Pea gravel with a maximum particle
Washed, crushed rock shall be
material below slabs
size of about 3/8" and less than 3
mechanically' compacted prior to
percent fines. Washed, crushed rock
placing concrete.
with a maximum particle size of about
5/8"
Otto Rosen a*Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Matedals Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 9 of I I
Structural fill to be compacted to 95 percent of MDD should be moisture -conditioned to within three (3)
percent of optimum moisture. Structural fill to be compacted to 90 percent of MDD should be moisture -
conditioned to within six (6) percent of optimum moisture content. Placement of frozen soils or
placement of soils on frozen ground should not be attempted.
6.6.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The migration of sediments from the site must be
controlled in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements. We recommend that the following
minimum erosion control measures be employed at the site:
1. Provide silt fencing around the construction area to delineate the construction limits. No
construction or soil disturbance should take place outside of the construction limits.
2. Stockpiled soil at the site should be kept to a minimum. Any stockpiled soils should be covered
with carefully secured plastic sheeting.
3. Catch basin socks should be installed in nearby catch basins located downhill of the work area
that could be impacted by construction activities.
4. All sediment and soil should be removed from adjacent pavements at the end of each day of
construction activities.
5. Periodic inspection of the adequacy and condition of the installed erosion control measures by a
geotechnical engineer or an experienced representative assigned by the geotechnical engineer.
Additional erosion control -measures may be required as construction progresses.
6.6.5 Temporary Cut Slopes: We anticipate that temporary cut slopes will be used at portions of the
site. We recommend that the inclination of the temporary cut slopes be no greater than 1.5H:1V
(horizontal to vertical) in the loose to medium dense silty SAND. It is imperative that an ORA
representative evaluate the exposed soil conditions at the time of construction to verify that the
recommended slope inclinations are appropriate for the conditions being encountered. In addition, the
configuration for temporary cut slope inclinations may need to be modified during the course of
construction if conditions change.
All temporary cut slopes and excavations must comply with the provisions of Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) Chapter 296-155, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching - and Shoring." The contractor
performing the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent
improvements. However, we recommend that the contractor submit a work plan and excavation
support plan for our review prior to beginning work on the site.
6.7 STEEP SLOPES
It is our opinion that there are no steep slope areas located on the project site. A steep slope area is
present along the BNSF right -of way to the northwest of the site. It is our opinion that the proposed
setback of the residence of 66 feet from the property line and about 79 feet from the crest of the slope
is adequate for the proposed development. We recommend that on -site infiltration of runoff water be
4q Associates, Incorporated
Otto Rosenad
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 10 of 11
avoided at this site to reduce the amount of water introduced into the subsurface soils and to reduce
the risk of soil movement. If on -site infiltration of runoff water cannot be avoided, we recommend that
the infiltration system be located as far from the steep slope area as possible, and still allow a gravity -
flow system to be built.
Based on our understanding of the proposed development, it is our professional opinion that
construction of the proposed project will not increase the risk for soil movement at the steep slope area.
Furthermore it is also our opinion that the risk to adjacent properties from soil instability, if constructed
in accordance with our recommendations, is minimal. The amount of risk due to slope instability at
steep slope sites is inherently greater than at gently sloping sites. It is our opinion that the proposed
improvements will not increase the risk for slope instability beyond that at similar steep slope areas in
the vicinity of the project site, or the pre -improvement condit ion.
Minimal risk does not mean no risk, but means that appropriate design measures have been taken to
reduce the level of risk to a very low or minimal level.
6.8 DRAINAGE
6.8.1 Dewatering: Ground water seepage will likely not be encountered during construction.
However, we anticipate that dewatering could be satisfactorily completed by routing water through
ditches to a low spot or sump in the excavation. Water collected in the excavation should be removed
as soon as possible and should be discharged to a location approved by the City of Edmonds and in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirements.
6.8.2 Below -Grade Wall and Retaining Wall Drainage: Good drainage is considered critical to the
performance of earth -supported structures such as foundations, slabs -on -grade, and retaining walls.
Adequate drainage must be provided behind the planned below -grade walls and retaining walls for this
project. A typical footing drain detail is presented on the figure titled "Typical Foundation Detail" on
page A-3 of the appendix.
6.8.3 Surface Drainage: Good surface drainage is an integral part of the performance of earth -
supported structures such as foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. Therefore, construction
grades and final site grades should be designed * to prevent water from entering the foundations or
gravel drains behind any retaining walls or from ponding on or next to pavements. Where pavement
does not immediately abut structures, slopes, with an outfall of at least three (3) percent for a minimum
distance of five (5) feet from exterior footings, should be provided. These slopes should be capped with
relatively impervious soils to prevent infiltration of water into the foundation soils.
Otto Rosenalt Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 11 of I I
6.9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report rely on adequate observation and testing of construction
materials and procedures by the geotechnical engineer or his qualified representative. At a minimum,
the testing program should include:
• Observation and review of site clearing, foundation excavations and pile driving to evaluate
whether ac ual conditions are consistent with those encountered during exploration and used
for design.
• Observation, testing of placement and compaction of all fill and backfill materials to evaluate
compliance with specifications.
• Field inspection, laboratory testing of materials, and field inspection of construction methods
as required by the local building code. Typically, this includes inspection of placement of
reinforcing steel and inspection and testing of portland cement concrete to evaluate
compliance with specifications regarding slump, temperature, air content, and strength.
7. REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use of Mr. Leif Helleren and other
members of the design team for the new residential structure to be constructed at 18720 Sound View
Place in Edmonds, Washington (Snohomish County Parcel #00434600100600). The recommendations
are based on the read ily-ava ilable geologic literature and three test pits completed on May 25, 2006.
The recommendations of this report are not transferable to any other site. If there are any revisions to
the plans or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during
construction, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. (ORA) should be notified immediately to determine
whether changes to the design recommendations are required.
000
0
0.
APPENDIX
-,NNW
fr.
PUGETSOUND
jt
)L
18720 Sound View Place
A
Jd-4 Ln
s 17,
ILL
L
Tf T
196th St SW
Al X
11 1 64 4
................... .... ......
------------- — , 2b
A
Se
I rl�
EDMONDS !T "k
LYNNWOOD
IN
7
SR-99
in
A
IF
150
Note: The location of all features shown is approximate.
Reference: USGS Quad - WA, Edmonds East - ALL TOPO MAPS: Washington.
VICINITY MAP
Project Name: 18720 Sound View For: Leif Helleren Construction
Residence
OTTO ROSENAU &
Location: 18720 Sound View Place ASSOCIATES, INC.
Edmonds, Washington ---- ---- ---- ORA Project Number: 06-318
,Date: June 16. 2006
A-1
I
; Puget
S
ound
Y*'*�
TP-1
Approximate Location of
BNSF Railroad Tracks
79'-3"
66-
-
/*
T -2/
Unhealthy maple tree
Approximate Top of Slope
Approximate Toe of Slope (ditch)
LEGEND
TP-1 - Test pit excavation witnessed by ORA on May 25, 2006
Approximate Location of
Proposed Residence
Property Line
4X
Note: The location of all features shown is approximate.
Reference: Drawing titled "General Notes and Plot Plan" prepared by Randall J. Munson dated April 4, 2006.
SITE PLAN
Project Name: 1872.0 Sound View For: Leif Helleren Construction
Residence
OTTO ROSENAU &
Location: 18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington ASSOCIATES, INC. ORA Project Number: 06-318
,Date: Julv 10. 2006 1 1
A-2
Non -woven geotextile
fabric - Mirafi 140N or
equivalent
V-6" min.
21
Notes:
5-foot (minimum)
MA IT, t M M
Exterior Wall
4" diameter, rigid, perforated
pipe
Foundation Wall
Imported, structural fill, or
recompacted, suitable
native soils placed as
structural fill
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
C) C) C) 0 C) C) C) G C) 0-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0 - 0 - 0 -0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0-
2' 21
Foundation VVidth
Not to scale
1. The bearing surfaces for all proposed foundation elements should be evaluated by an ORA
representative to verify that the foundation subgrade soils are capable of providing the required allowable
bearing capacity.
2. All pipes should be sloped to drain to an approved discharge point.
3. Washed rock used as drainage material should consist of .2 inch to 1-41 inch washed rock.
4
4. Final site grades should be sloped to drain away from foundation.
5. All structural fill must be placed in accordance with the recommendations of ORA's report for the
project.
6. Roof downspout drains may not discharge to footing drain.
TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL
Project Name: 18720 Sound View
Residence For: Leif Helleren Construction
Location: 18720 Sound View Place OTTO ROSENAU &
I Edmonds, Washington ASSOCIATES, INC.
I Date: JuIv 6. 2006 1 ORA Project Number: 06-318
M
S
SCALE : I,_x
4.> a, IV w 45' W
I C,
Ir r?-mmvj6NDs
_%SAWITAR
Y
)Lf-.A BASIS OF BEARINGS
AS
W 3W7VOr E MEASURED ALONG THE m0muwEIM CENTER
LINE OF SOUND MEW PLACE PER PLAT OF StArVEY FLED UNDER
t VOL 13 OF SURVEYS. PG, 174. RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
A COUNTY. WA,
'S,
LEGEND
EX. PIPE WIZ CAP s,
....... STAMPED 'LSA 22M'
'04'25* 2.5n
w" 381164 31270 SET I1r X 24* ROMA & CAP
, \,/
MAR= IRWIN GGEO-OATUM
I
(S 30 E.
2' X r X 2e WOOD STAKE NTH TACK AND WLA%
WASHER STAMPED '22M'
A,
(M)
COURSE ANO/OR DISTANCE MEASURED PER THIS
SUIRVEY
4,
4, 6>
6' e>
. . ......... EX 3/4' TRON PIPE EQLnPMENT : VAMLE So ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION
"TH TACK IN LEM METHOD : FIELD TRAVERSE
PLUG N
CASING ACCURACY ; cwatws TO wAc =-iw-m
VISITED 1-9-05 MONUMENTS VISITED : AANuARY 9. 2ow
NOTE
s
THIS MAP DOES N07 PURPORT TO SHOW THE TION OF AUL
m ANY EASEMENTS THAT WAY AFFECT THE PROPERTY.
LEGAL DESCRIPMON
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS SITUATED IN THE COMFY OF
SWOHOMtSHL CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF WASHRICTON. AND IS
DESCRWED AS
M10"M
ALL IN BL LAND CM04MM LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10.
A TRACT OF
OCK "A". EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRAC ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT
> THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLAYS. PAWS)
M RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
F= =.2.4* TOGETHER WITYL A POR71ON OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3� SECIM I�
SQUTHW"Cs7my TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RAHOE 3 EAST. W.M. (MING A PORTION OF
-=0 521 TRACT 1. BLOCK 3 OF THESUNRECOROM PLAY OF FRUNTDAUE ON
THE SOUMD� DESCRIBED A FOLLOIS�
13CONOUNG AT THE MOST MCNITHEPLY CORNER OF SAM LOT 5:
Cl THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY MAW THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SW
LOT 0 AM SAM LINE PRODUCED 280 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY
R U I _r D A L E 0 N T �4 F S 0 U
N D LINE OF SOUKD VIEW KAM EXTDM SOUTHWESTERLY.
U N P. F C 0 R D E: ) ..... THENCE SOUTH-11ORLY MAW SAJD EXTENDED SOUND MEW KAM
Ex PIPE UNE 50 FEET:
W12)r ALUM. CAP THENCE NOR Y ALONG THE EXTENDED SOUIWWESTERLY
MARICED www
1 WOD 30964 & 31976 t UNE OF LOT a AM THE S0UTft"Z`ERkY UWE OF SAID LOT 6 TO
THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAO LOT 4;
TMENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6
V E R N M E N 'T L 0 -r 3 To THE POW OF BEOWNSGZ
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED STREET ADJOINING
WHICH ATTA04ED TMWID BY OPERATION OF LAW
97UATE IN THE COUNTY OF SWHOMISK STATE OF WASHDXTDN
EX CASED CONCRETE
MOMLASENT WITH
PLAT OF SURVEY
TAM IN LEAD PLUG
VISITED : 1-9-05
FOR
-DANA'-KNUMN
114. SW1-/-4"QF- i4El/4- 'AND NW1/4 OF SE1/4
E., W.M.
' CWY OF,EORON DS
SNOH0ASH,-,COUN-TY--,2 WAtHINGTON
A.F. NO.
T.
1 of 1
RmDOsDm CERTUICAM
FILM FOR RECORD " LOML-IUMADILAND ASSOC, 1. DAY OF
20M A.& AT -UP- UM70 PAST -QL- OCLOCK M.
Sulmrm" CnTurATIC
THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPOIESENTS A SUIRVE`f MADE V ME OR UNDER
My D"IECTION IN CONFORMANICE WITH THE REQUIRDA" OF THE SURVEY
.--SHEET
Lqy-eB`SauprIaii(T'A Assoaates, Inc.
_?
AND RMOORDED IN VOLUME —OF SUNFAYS. ON PAGES—.
RECORDING ACT AT THE REQUEST OF DANA KNUTSON
RECORDS or SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON
THIS M DAY OF 2005.
194M 33rd A� W_ edw em Lpl..4-fi Om -.0afii-159r, (425)M-79"Ja'
OR TERINLUGER
B AUDITUR
avfiftL
%,ARM;��L Z.
mx w
DR: 177 10!____T,,L -3i: 1.4845_10�:06
Tj I
'36
I. *
0
OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials 'resting
6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA
Tel: (206) 725-4600 e Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US - Fax: (206) 723-2221
WBE W21`59113684 - WABO Registered Agency - Website: www.ottorosenau.com
November 8, 2007
Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects
21911 76th Ave W. Suite 210
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Geotechnical Review of Project Plans
Proposed Knutson Residence
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600100600
City of Edmonds Permit Number: 2007 0699
ORA Project Number: 06-318
Dear Mr. Molina:
STREET FILE
NOV 13 2007
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
We have completed review of the project plans prepared by Taylor Gregory Butterfield
Architects dated November 1, 2007 (Sheets SP1.0, SP1.5, A2.00 and A3.00) and the project
plan sheets prepared by CG Engineering dated October 1, 2007 (Sheets C1.1, C2.1, C2.2,
C3.1, C4.1). We also reviewed the report prepared by CG Engineering titled "Drainage Report
& Calculations for Knutson Residence, 18720 Soundview Place, Edmonds, WA 98020" dated
September 28, 2007. Otto Rosenau & Associates (ORA) prepared a report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Structure, 18720 Sound View Place, Edmonds,
Washington" dated July 10, 2006. It is our opinion that our recommendations have been
properly incorporated into the current project plans.
We understand that the City requested an evaluation of the impact of the use of a permeable
.grasscrete" driveway on the stability of the slopes located in the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) right-of-way at the northwest side of the site. The "grasscrete" driveway located
approximately 220 feet southeast of the crest of the slopes in the BNSF right-of-way. The
location of the permeable "grasscrete" driveway was originally occupied with a relatively
impervious crushed rock driveway and landscaped areas. We did not observe a stormwater
collection system for stormwater runoff from the original driveway. The presence of a
permeable "grasscrete" driveway will allow a more diffuse pattern of infiltration of surface runoff
water than was originally present in this area. As a result, we anticipate that there should be no
adverse affects on the stability of the adjacent slopes in the BNSF right-of-way due to the
presence of the "grasscrete" driveway. It is likely that the use of the "grasscrete" driveway will
enhance the stability of the slopes by reducing surface water runoff towards the slopes.
Knutson Residence — 18720 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA
November 8, 2007
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
OTTO ROSENA U &A SSOCIA TES, INC
0/� e&771-�
Anthony Coyne, P.E.
Geotechnicai Engineer
EXPIRES 10
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2
N
< <
z
w
z
0
C)
C)
LJ
z
0
x
0
z
m
L,
0
n-
o
1
co
Ai
N 50*32'00" W
:ORT
<
R=35.0
C
EXIST. GRADE
-IV
ELEVATIONS
i 10. 00
----
S� -EfT 5B �A Ca'-,T
99' n.
--------
12'-0" h 5'- 1
------------
io-;
OR
10,
o"
-�2'-8"
----
----------
t ---
C-86.02'
(ACTUAL 53.�-,
A=75.52'
SEWER
(ACTUAL
1.
I
---------- -----------------
0
L2
0
NEW RESIDONCE
:z
0
1
1
1 -----
it I I
-4
I
1
I
Go RED WALK
li
I
I : ,
0 110
-00
0
BSIVIT F.F.=41.25
IF.F.-51.25
---------
I
--------------
I I
G RAGE
F.F. 54
0
C
E
24"
E
I
Lc)
SHOP
TUALI
41') 1
E� -a =-V-1
F.F. 2�,
iL
—
,
/
(ACTUAL �3,5j-::t—
cf')
CAER-37.5'
10'r
L -------
L-12'-O-��26'-O"
"
i
L
12'-C
T---
lo'-o"
5' 1 ��'
J--21
- 4 77;c"
2'-
\ —1Z
7zo'
-----------------
ol 10'
Q)
"V 110.00'
ll�Q 310.(
77
HEIGHT CALCULATION SH'ED
A=75.52' (ACTUAL 41') LOT AREA = 15,500 SQ FT OWNER: DENN
B=75.52' (ACTUAL 41') LOT COVERAGE = 3430 SQ FT (22%) ADDRESS: 18-7
C=88.02' (ACTUAL 53.5') LOT SLOPE = 8% EDI
D=88.02' (ACTUAL 53.5')
AVERAGE GRADE = 81.77'/ 7, 7 PARCEL #: OC
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED = 106.77'
ACTUAL BUILDIG HEIGHT = 106.77' EX. HOUSE
<
SE,
C
-0 rl\
DATUM POINT +100'(ACTUAL=65.48')
TOP OF STORM SEWER GRATE
EX. SHED
EXIST. GRADE ELEVATIONS
�O co 310.00' Q) C\l
(o CORNER�a.o'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C=SB.02' lo'-o"
(ACTUAL 53.�-) SIDE RD
3 YA JSETBACK 4"FIR
T. .. . ..
I 1 0.
- - - - - - - - - - -
D ADE ON GRADING Ple'
AN
c) 01
GARAGE
---------- -
54'
Lc-)
0')
(ACTUAL 53.5'
------------ 11
'Y - -- - --
-�IDE (AR SE CK
10' 0 10-0" DRIVEWAY �RADE 10%
AVERAGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11
,310. 0 0'
OWNER: DENNIS & LORNA LOWENTHAL
ADDRESS: 18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA 98020
PARCEL #: 004346001006-00
I
-63.0
LICE 2 0
c�
ER
Li
Li
C/)
ry
F--
DO
<
00
.1
I
29
z LL1
0 -) U
CN <
EL
LLJ
0
cj�
OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA
Tel: (206) 725-4600 a Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US * Fax: (206) 723-2221
WBE W2F5913684 * WABO Registered Agency * Website: www.ottorosenau.com
July 10, 2006
Leif Helleren Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 1764
Edmonds, WA'98020
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Residential Development
18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600100600
ORA Project Number: 06-318, Report 1
Dear Mr. Helleren:
a" = i �41 REET FILE
R ES U 13
JUL 17 2007
BUILDING DEPAMMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
We are pleased to provide this report for the referenced project. Based on the subsurface explorations
that we witnessed and our analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be
satisfactorily supported on conventional spread footings, which bear on a two -foot thick zone of imported
structural fill, or on a two -foot thick zone of suitable, native, sand that is placed as structural fill.
It is our opinion that the 66-foot setback from the property line to the future residence (79 foot setback
from the top of the steep slope) is appropriate for the proposed development. It is our opinion that the
proposed residential structure can be built with minimal risk of soil movement on- and off -site provided
that the recommendations of our report are followed.
Detailed earthwork and foundation recommendations are presented in the attached report. If you have
any questions, or if we may be of additional service, please contact us.
-7 /( 0 A-0,0/'
Copies to: Addressee (5)
Sincerely,
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc.
Anthony G. Coyne, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
t N TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................... 1
4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................ 2
4.1 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................. 3
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 3
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 3
6.1 General .................................. ................................... o ........................................... 3
6.2 Seismic Considerations ............................................................................................ 4
6.3 Foundations ............................................................................................................. 5
6.4 Below -Grade Walls and Retaining Walls ................. I ............................................... 6
6.5 Slabs -On -Grade ..................................................................................................... 7
6.6 Earthwork ................................................................................................................ 7
6.6.1 Site Clearing ............................................................................................ 7
6.6.2 Foundation and Slab Subgrade Preparation ............................................. 7
6.6.3 Structural Fill - Material, Placement and Compaction ............................... 7
6.6.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control .......................................................... 9
6.6.5 Temporary Cut Slopes ............................................................................. 9
6.7 Steep Slopes .......................................................................................................... 9
6.8 Drainage ............................................................................................................. 10
6.8.1 Dewatering ............................................................................................. 10
6.8.2 Retaining Wall Drainage ......................................................................... 10
6.8.3 Surface Drainage ................................................................................... 10
6.9 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................ 11
7. REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 11
APPENDIX
VicinityMap ....................................................................................................................... A-1
SitePlan ....................................................................................................................... A-2
TypicalFoundation Detail ....................................................................................................... A-3
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
18720 SOUND VIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Prepared for
Mr. Leif Helleren Construction, Inc.
by Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc.
July 10, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed single-family
residence to be built at 18720 Sound View Place in Edmonds, Washington (Snohomish County Parcel
#00434600100600). The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map on page A-1 of the appendix.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that a two-story, wood -framed, single-family home will be constructed on the site, and
that the existing single-family residence is to be demolished. The new structure will have a crawl space
and will be supported on conventional spread footings. We understand that the site is considered to be
within a critical area (CA) due to the presence of steep slopes in close proximity to the northwest side of
the property. Based on the information provided to us, the proposed residence is to be setback
approximately 66 feet from the northwest property line and about 79 feet from the existing top of the
steep slopes. We understand that no development is planned within 50 feet of the northwest property
line.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services included a reconnaissance of the site by the geologist, a review of geologic
literature, and obtaining soil samples from three test pits at the approximate location shown on the Site
Plan on page A-2 of the appendix. Soil samples were taken of the subsurface soils at the depths
shown on the test pit logs presented on pages A-4 through A-6 of the appendix.
The geotechnical engineering services were performed by Otto Rosenau and Associates, Inc. (ORA) to
provide the following information:
0 seismic design considerations including liquefaction potential,
* suitable foundation systems with estimated settlements,
f Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 2 of I I
• allowable bearing capacity,
• lateral earth pressures and friction coefficients,
• influence of groundwater on the development,
• evaluation of the condition of the steep slopes at the site, and
• site preparation and earthwork in a critical area.
4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
We reviewed the Draft "Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area, Central Puget Lowland,
Washington" (2004) by Booth, Derek B., Cox, Brett, F., Troost, Kathy G., and Shimel, Scott A. The
soils near the project site are mapped as "Pre -Fraser Deposits" (Qpf). "Pre -Fraser Deposits" (Qpf )
deposits generally consist of weakly to moderately oxidized sand and gravel, lacustrine silt and sand
with local peat layers.
We understand that the City of Edmonds Development Services Department of (DSD) considers that
portions of the site are located within a Critical Area (CA) due to the presence of steep slopes along the
northwest side of the site.
4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site grades down to the northwest from elevation of approximately 63 feet at Sound View Place, to
36 feet at the top of the bank that abuts the Burlington Northern (BNSF) right-of-way to the beach at
sea level. The steep slope is located northwest of the northwest property line. The site grades slope
downwards to a rock -lined ditch along the southeast side of the railway embankment and is
approximately 20 feet in height. The inclination of the steep slopes appears to range from about 40 to
100 percent. We did not observe any indication of past or on -going slope instability at the steep slope
area, such as tension cracks, slump blocks, hummocky terrain, or sag ponds. The slope face is well -
vegetated with grasses and hydrophilic plants such as horsetails. These plants are indicative of a very
moist environment and may indicate groundwater seepage through the slope face, which we did not
observe.
The existing, one-story, single-family residence is located on the southeastern third of the site and is
scheduled to be demolished. The site is vegetated with grass and extensive landscaping around the
perimeter of the property.
We observed a large maple tree at a distance of about 25 feet setback from the top of the slope. We
understand that the tree had been struck by lightning in the past and observed scorching marks on the
tree. We also observed a large hollow at the base of the tree that had been partially filled with
concrete. The tree did not appear to be in a healthy condition. It is our opinion that the tree could be
removed without adversely affecting the stability of the slope. If the tree is removed, we recommend
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 3 of 11
that the root ball not be removed to minimize disturbance within the steep slope buffer area. The tree
may be flush cut to the ground surface or ground down to a depth of about 6 inches below the existing
site grade.
4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
We evaluated the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by completing three test pits at the site
on May 25, 2006. Test Pit 1 (TP-1) was completed approximately twelve feet southwest of the north
property corner on the northwest property line. Test Pit 2 (TP-2) was completed twenty feet southwest
of the northeast property line, fifty feet southeast of the northwest property line on the proposed footing
line. Test Pit 3 (TP-3) was completed one hundred feet southeast of TP-2. Please refer to the Site
Plan on page A-2 of the appendix for the approximate location of the test pits.
The site soils generally consist of brown silty fine SAND (SM) with organics, top soil in the upper 6
inches. The soils encountered from 6 inches to 2.5 feet consist of loose, brown, moist, fine SAND with
silt and organics (SP-SM). The soils encountered from approximately 2.5 feet to 7 feet generally
consist of loose to medium dense, tan, moist, fine to medium, SAND with silt (SP-SM) with increasing
gravel content with depth. The soils encountered from 7 feet to the termination of the test pits at 9.5
generally consist of medium dense, very moist to wet, gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt and gravel
(SW-SM). Ground water was encountered in TP-1 and TP-2 at 9.5 feet below existing grade. A
moderate flow rate was observed in TP-2.
5. DISCUSSION
The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project as
presented in the Project Description Section and on the assumption that the subsurface conditions are
as assumed herein. Project conditions, regarding type and location of structures and foundation loads
can change and subsurface conditions are not always similar to those encountered during the
subsurface exploration. Therefore, if discrepancies are noticed, the geotechnical engineer must be
contacted for review and for possible revision of the recommendations.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily built at the proposed
location with minimal risk of adversely impacting the stability of site. slopes, existing residence or
adjacent properties provided that the work is completed in accordance with the recommendations of
this report. The engineering recommendations and advice presented in this report have been made in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. The
recommendations are based on our understanding of the geology of the area and on experience with
similar projects.
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 4 of I I
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily supported on conventional
spread footings that bear on excavated and recompacted fine to medium SAND with silt (SP-SM)
encountered between 2.5 to 4.5 feet below existing grade. Please refer to the following sections of the
report for specific site and foundation subgrade preparation recommendations.
6.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismic design of structures in the City of Edmonds is governed by the requirements of the 2003
edition of the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC requires that the site be classified into a site
class. Based on the results of the soil exploration completed at the project site, it is our opinion that the
observed conditions most closely meet the described conditions of Site Class D (IBC Table 1615. 1. 1)-
Site specific criteria can be obtained from maps in the IBC (Figures 1615(l) and 1615(2)) for short
period (Ss) and 1-second-period (Si) spectral accelerations. The values for Ss and S, are spectral
accelerations (SRA) for a maximum considered earthquake event with a 2,500 year return period or a
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Values for Ss and S, are also available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National
Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website. The values recommended for use in this report were
obtained from the USGS website by inputting latitude and longitude for the project site (N 47.828560, W
122.36445*). The 1996 data set from the USGS website was used for consistence with the relevant
figures in the 2003 IBC. The following table presents recommended values from the 2003 IBC for
seismic design:
2003 Edition of International Building Code (1113C) Seismic Design Values
Mapped max. earthquake SRA at short periods, S,, % g
126.6
Mapped max. earthquake SF;LA at 1-second period, S1, % g
43.5
Peak Ground Acceleration, % g
54.1
Site Coefficient Fa(Table1615.1.2(1))
1.0
Site Coefficient F, (Tablel 615.1.2(2))
1.57
Max. considered earthquake SRA for short periods, Sms
126.6
Max. considered earthquake SRA for 1 -second periods, Sm,
68.3
Design SRA at short periods, SDS
84.4
Design SRA at 1 -second period, SDI
45�5
Liquefaction may be defined as the sudden loss of strength of soil as the soil is subjected to a rapid
cyclic loading, such as during an earthquake. The mechanism that allows this to occur is that excess
pore water pressures are generated between the soil particles. This excess pore water pressure
reduces the frictional contact between the soil particles and reduces the shear strength of the soil. If
the earthquake is of large magnitude and duration, the soil can begin to behave more as a liquid than a
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 5 of 11
solid and "liquefy". In order for liquefaction to occur, several conditions must typically be present.
These include the following:
0 Saturated soil.
Fine to medium sand matrix containing less than about 10 percent fines (soil that can pass a
No. 200 sieve.
Very loose to medium dense soil conditions. This is usually defined as soils that have N-
values of 15 or less.
Based on the results of our explorations and our observation of the soil and groundwater conditions at
the site, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site is low to medium.
6.3 FOUNDATIONS
It is our opinion that the proposed residential structure can be satisfactorily supported on conventional
spread footings that bear on a 2-foot foot thick zone of imported structural fill or a 2-foot thick zone of
overexcavated and recompacted, suitable native SAND with silt placed as structural fill. We also
recommend that the width of the overexcavation should extend at least 2 feet laterally on all sides of
the future foundation elements. Please refer to the figure titled Typical Foundation Detail presented on
page A-3 for a graphical presentation of our recommendations.
We recommend that the following allowable bearing capacities be used for the design of conventional
spread footings:
Foundation bearing on a 2-foot thick zone of imported structural fill, or overexcavated
and recompacted, suitable, native SAND with silt placed as structural fill: 2,000 psf
The allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. If the
recommendations in this report are followed, we estimate that the maximum post -construction
settlements will be less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch and differential settlements will be less than
one-half (1/2) of an inch between comparably loaded column footings or along a 25-foot long section of
continuous wall footing.
We recommend that the minimum width of continuous footings be 1.5 feet and that the minimum size of
column footings be 1.5-foot by 1.5-foot. All foundation elements, including continuous spread footings,
and isolated column footings, shall be placed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
grade for frost protection and to meet the minimum code requirements as presented in Section 1805 —
Footings and Foundations of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC).
Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) where grade beams are cast on structural fill or dense native soils and backfilled on both sides
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 6 of 11
with structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (IVIDD). This value of
passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
An ultimate coefficient of friction between footings and bearing soils of 0.35 may be used to resist
lateral foundation loads. If passive earth pressures are used in conjunction with base friction to resist
lateral loads, reduce the ultimate coefficient of friction to 0.30. A factor of safety of 1.2 should be
applied to these values.
Footings, stem walls, and any retaining walls should be reinforced to reduce the potential for distress
caused by differential foundation movements. A qualified engineer should determine the size, quantity,
and location of reinforcement. All footing excavations at this site should be made with a toothless
bucket to minimize disturbance of the foundation soils. The bearing surfaces shall be inspected by the
geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify that no unsuitable soils are present. The presence
of unsuitable soils under foundation elements can lead to substantial increases in post -construction
settlement.
6.4 BELOW -GRADE WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS
The below -grade foundation walls for this project must be designed as retaining walls. Lateral earth
pressures for design of permanent below -grade walls or retaining walls, with level backfill and with no
hydrostatic pressures or surcharge loads, may be calculated using the following equivalent fluid
pressures:
Active (unrestrained):
Undisturbed subgrade soils (level behind wall)
35 psf/ft.
Compacted granular soils (level behind wall)
35 psf/ft.
Active (restrained):
Undisturbed subgrade soils (level behind wall)
57 psf/ft.
Compacted granular soils (level behind wall)
57 psf/ft.
Passive:
Continuous footings
300 psf/ft.
Column footings
300 psf/ft.
The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to determine appropriate lateral earth pressures for
situations not described above. We recommend that seismic earth pressures be estimated using a
rectangular pressure distribution equal to 101-1; where H is the height of the retained soil behind the
wall. A total soil unit -weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot should be used in design of any permanent
below -grade wall or retaining structures.
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 7 of 11
6.5 SLABS -ON -GRADE
Based on our understanding of the project construction, we anticipate that the only slab -on -grade will
be in the garage. Slabs -on grade should be at least 4 inches in thickness and should be supported on
a minimum 4-inch-thick, free -draining, gravel base as described in the Structural Fill section of this
report. A vapor retarder such as 6-mil polyethylene sheeting shall be included beneath the slab to
minimize transmission of moisture through the concrete floor. A minimum, two-inch thick layer of clean
sand with less than 3 percent fines may be placed on top of the polyethylene sheeting to protect the
sheeting and to enhance the curing of the concrete slabs. The sand must not be saturated at the time -
of concrete placement to provide a drainage path for bleed water from the curing concrete.
6.6 EARTHWORK
The recommendations presented in this report are predicated on fulfillment of the following earthwork
recommendations.
6.6.1 Site Clearing: Any existing vegetation, loose soil, and any other deleterious materials including
asphalt pavements and old foundation elements shall be removed from the future building area prior to
construction. After site clearing and stripping, the exposed surfaces should be graded to allow good
surface drainage during construction. An ORA representative should evaluate the stripping activities to
verify that adequate stripping of unsuitable soils has been performed.
6.6.2 Foundation and Slab Subgrade Preparation: All pavements, undocumented fill, organic debris,
and old topsoil must be removed from all foundation element locations and slab areas. The exposed
slab subgrade soil conditions should be verified by a representative of ORA to ensure that the soils are
adequately prepared to provide the required support.
The exposed subgrade soils at the future foundation site consist of loose to medium dense SAND with
silt. These soils should be an overexcavated at least 2 feet in depth below the future foundation
elevation, and should extend laterally 2 foot past the anticipated edge of the footing. A smooth -bladed
bucket should be used to perform excavations and to minimize the disturbance of bearing soils. The
exposed overexcavation subgrade soils should be thoroughly compacted to a firm and unyielding and
should be evaluated by an ORA representative before placing any structural fill.
6.6.3 Structural Fill — Material, Placement and Compaction: Material, Placement and Compaction:
In general, the native soils that consist of sand with silt (SP-SM) are suitable for use as structural fill
provided that it is free of debris and is close to optimum moisture content. Native soils that consist of
silty sand (SM) should only be used as structural fill during drier summer months, and provided that the
soil is moisture -conditioned to within three (3) percent of optimum moisture. All fill and backfill materials
should be placed in relatively horizontal loose lifts, not exceeding 10 inches in thickness, and should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by the modified
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 8 of 11
Proctor test (ASTM D1557). If manually -operated equipment such as a jumping jack compactor is
used, the thickness of each loose lift should be no greater than 6 inches. Light vibratory plate
compactors are not suitable for the compaction of structural fill. Soils consisting of clay, sift, peat or
containing deleterious matter are generally not suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill material
should be approved by ORA prior to use. The following table summarizes our recommendations of fill
material and compaction requirements of fill material and compaction requirements and refers to the
2006 edition of Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for
Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction for various types of aggregates.
Intended Use
Specification
Compaction Requirements
Structural fill for
2- to 4-inch quarry spalls, or washed
Quarry spalls or clean crushed rock
overexcavation backfill
crushed rock with a typical particle
must be placed in lifts no greater than
below foundation
size between 1.25 and 2 inches and
12 inches in thickness, with each lift
elements
less than 5 percent fines
thoroughly compacted with a
vibratory roller, or hoepack mounted
on an excavator.
Structural fill below
Suitable native soil, Gravel Borrow
Fill placed at depths greater than 2
pavements or
(WSDOT 9-03.14(l), Select Borrow
feet below finish subgrade elevation
sidewalks
(WSDOT 9-03.14(2), Crushed
must be compacted to 90 percent of
Surfacing Base Course (WSDOT 9-
MDD. Fill placed at depths within 2
03.9(3)
feet of finish subgrade elevation must
be compacted to 95 percent of MDD.
Free -draining wall
Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9-
Fill placed within 5 feet of below -
drainage material
03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Drains
grade walls or retaining walls shall be
behind below -grade
(WSDOT 9-03.12(4)
compacted with manually -operated
walls and retaining
compaction equipment. Fill placed at
walls
depths greater than 2 feet below
finish subgrade elevation compacted
to 90 percent of MDD. Fill placed at
depths within 2 feet of finish
subgrade elevation must be
compacted to 95 percent of MDD, if
the area will be supporting
pavements or roadway.
Capillary break
Pea gravel with a maximum particle
Washed, crushed rock shall be
material below slabs
size of about 3/8" and less than 3
mechanically compacted prior to
percent fines. Washed, crushed rock
placing concrete.
with a maximum particle size of about
5/8"
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 9 of 11
Structural fill to be compacted to 95 percent of MDD should be moisture -conditioned to within three (3)
percent of optimum moisture. Structural fill to be compacted to 90 percent of MDD should be moisture -
conditioned to within six (6) percent of optimum moisture content. Placement of frozen soils or
placement of soils on frozen ground should not be attempted.
6.6.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The migration of sediments from the site must be
controlled in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements. We recommend that the following
minimum erosion control measures be employed at the site:
1 . Provide silt fencing around the construction area to delineate the construction limits. No
construction or soil disturbance should take place outside of the construction limits.
2. Stockpiled soil at the site should be kept to a minimum. Any stockpiled soils should be covered
with carefully secured plastic sheeting.
3. Catch basin socks should be installed in nearby catch basins located downhill of the work area
that could be impacted by construction activities.
4. All sediment and soil should be removed from adjacent pavements at the end of each day of
construction activities.
5. Periodic inspection of the adequacy and condition of the installed erosion control measures by a
geotechnical engineer or an experienced representative assigned by the geotechnical engineer.
Additional erosion control -measures may be required as construction progresses.
6.6.5 Temporary Cut Slopes: We anticipate that temporary cut slopes will be used at portions of the
site. We recommend that the inclination of the temporary cut slopes be no greater than 1.5H:1V
(horizontal to vertical) in the loose to medium dense silty SAND. It is imperative that an ORA
representative evaluate the exposed soil conditions at the time of construction to verify that the
recommended slope inclinations are appropriate for the conditions being encountered. In addition, the
configuration for temporary cut slope inclinations may need to be modified during the course of
construction if conditions change.
All temporary cut slopes and excavations must comply with the provisions of Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) Chapter 296-155, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor
performing the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent
improvements. However, we recommend that the contractor submit a work plan and excavation
support plan for our review prior to beginning work on the site.
6.7 STEEP SLOPES
It is our opinion that there are no steep slope areas located on the project site. A steep slope area is
present along the BNSIF right -of way to the northwest of the site. It is our opinion that the proposed
setback of the residence of 66 feet from the property line and about 79 feet from the crest of the slope
is adequate for the proposed development. We recommend that on -site infiltration of runoff water be
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 10 of 11
avoided at this site to reduce the amount of water introduced into the subsurface soils and to reduce
the risk of soil movement. If on -site infiltration of runoff water cannot be avoided, we recommend that
the infiltration system be located as far from the steep slope area as possible, and still allow a gravity -
flow system to be built.
Based on our understanding of the proposed development, it is our professional opinion that
construction of the proposed project will not increase the risk for soil movement at the steep slope area.
Furthermore it is also, our opinion that the risk to adjacent properties from soil instability, if constructed
in accordance with our recommendations, is minimal. The amount of risk due to slope instability at
steep slope sites is inherently greater than at gently sloping sites. It is our opinion that the proposed
improvements will not increase the risk for slope instability beyond that at similar steep slope areas in
the vicinity of the project site, or the pre -improvement condit ion.
Minimal risk does not mean no risk, but means that appropriate design measures have been taken to
reduce the level of risk to a very low or minimal level.
6.8 DRAINAGE
6.8.1 Dewatering: Ground water seepage will likely not be encountered during construction.
However, we anticipate that dewatering could be satisfactorily completed by routing water through
ditches to a low spot or sump in the excavation. Water collected in the excavation should be removed
as soon as possible and should be discharged to a location approved by the City of Edmonds and in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirements.
6.8.2 Below -Grade Wall and Retaining Wall Drainage: Good drainage is considered critical to the
performance of earth -supported structures such as foundations, slabs -on -grade, and retaining walls.
Adequate drainage must be provided behind the planned below -grade walls and retaining walls for this
project. A typical footing drain detail is presented on the figure titled "Typical Foundation Detail" on
page A-3 of the appendix.
6.8.3 Surface Drainage: Good surface drainage is an integral part of the performance of earth -
supported structures such as foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. Therefore, construction
grades and final site grades should be designed to prevent water from entering the foundations or
gravel drains behind any retaining walls or from ponding on or next to pavements. Where pavement
does not immediately abut structures, slopes, with an outfall of at least three (3) percent for a minimum
distance of five (5) feet from exterior footings, should be provided. These slopes should be capped with
relatively impervious soils to prevent infiltration of water into the foundation soils.
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
18720 Sound View Residence
ORA Project No.: 06-318
July 10, 2006
Page 11 of 11
6.9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report rely on adequate observation and testing of construction
materials and procedures by the geotechnical engineer or his qualified representative. At a minimum,
the testing program should include:
- Observation and review of site clearing, foundation excavations and pile driving to evaluate
whether actual conditions are consistent with those encountered during exploration and used
for design.
- Observation, testing of placement and compaction of all fill and backfill materials to'evaluate
compliance with specifications.
- Field inspection, laboratory testing of materials, and field inspection of construction methods
as required by the local building code. Typically, this includes inspection of placement of
reinforcing steel and inspection and testing of portland cement concrete to evaluate
compliance with specifications regarding slump, temperature, air content, and strength.
7. REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use of Mr. Leif Helleren and other
members of the design team for the new residential structure to be constructed at 18720 Sound View
Place in Edmonds, Washington (Snohomish County Parcel #00434600100600). The recommendations
are based on the read ily-availa ble geologic literature and three test pits completed on May 25, 2006.
The recommendations of this report are not transferable to any other site. If there are any revisions to
the plans or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during
construction, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. (ORA) should be notified immediately to determine
whether changes to the design recommendations are required.
000
77;
a
z
LU
a.
CL
-y
PUGETSOUND
18720 Sound View Race
R,
M
;12
)r4 NA
4W
1k
�0'
-7.
J. -T 196th St Sw
�71TT
-�r. �k 414
..........
EDMON
L y NNWOO
"A
v -99
2% N"N'His
Note: The location of all features shown is approximate.
Reference: USGS Quad - WA, Edmonds East - ALL TOPO MAPS: Washington.
VICINITY MAP
Project Name: 18720 Sound View
For: Leif Helleren Construction
Residence
OTTO ROSENAU &
Location: 18720 Sound View'Place
ORA Project Number: 06-318
Edmonds, Washington
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date: June 16. 2006
A-1
Puget
Sound
Approximate Location of
BNSF Railroad Tracks
TP-1
TF
Unhealthy maple tree
I Approximate Top of Slol
Approximate Toe of Slope (ditch)
LEGEND
79'-3"
* TP-1 - Test pit excavation witnessed by ORA on May.25, 2006
Approximate Location of
Proposed Residence
Property Line
Note: The location of all features shown is approximate.
Reference: Drawing titled "General Notes and Plot Plan" prepared by Randall J. Munson dated April 4, 2006.
SITE PLAN
Project Name: 187210 Sound View
Residence
Location: 18720 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
,Date: Julv 10. 2006
===== OTTO ROSENAU &
----------- ASSOCIATES, INC.
For: Leif Helleren Construction
ORA Project Number: 06-318
Z
A-2
Non -woven geotextile
fabric - Mirafi 140N or
equivalent
V-6" min.
21
Notes:
5-foot (minimum)
Exterior Wall
4" diameter, rigid, perforated
pipe
Foundation Wall
Imported, structural fill, or
recompacted, suitable
native soils placed as
structural fill
— 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 — 0
C) 0 C) C) C) C) C) 6 C) 0-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ()
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-
- 2f 1 Foundation VVidth - I - 21
Not to scale
1. The bearing surfaces for all proposed foundation elements should be evaluated by an ORA
representative to verify that the foundation subgrade soils are capable of providing the required allowable
bearing capacity.
2. All pipes should be sloped to drain to an approved discharge point.
3. Washed rock used as drainage material should consist of .1 Inch to 1-14 inch washed rock.
4
4. Final site grades should be sloped to drain away from foundation.
5. All structural fill must be placed in accordance with the recommendations of ORA's report for the
project.
6. Roof downspout drains may not discharge to footing drain.
TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL
Project Name: 18720 Sound View
Residence For: Leif Helleren Construction
Location: 18720 Sound View Place OTTO ROSENAU &
I Edmonds, Washington ASSOCIATES, INC.
I Date: JuIv 6. 2006 ORA Project Number: 06-318
M
jag.
Wl
ku-
"fill
'lz
f O,Ai ff#*^
r7,
10
for
49'
A
ja
OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing
6747 M. L. King Way South, Seattle, Washington 98118-3216 USA
Tel: (206) 725-4600 * Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US * Fax: (206) 723-2221
WBE W2F5913684 - WABO Registered Agency - Website: www.ottorosenau.com
'E' 1B
January 3, 2008 " OU
Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects JAN 0 8 2008
21911 76th Ave W. Suite 210 FILE
8`40RE'aw
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Geotechnical Response to Plan Review Corrections dated 12/5/2007
Proposed Knutson Residence
18720 Sound View Place MONDS
CITY U`- '"
Edmonds, Washington A,, , R ED
Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600100600 yp.. OV
City of Edmonds Permit Number: 2007 0699
ORA Project Number: 06-318
Dear Jaime Hawkins:
INTRODUCTION
We have completed review of the project plans prepared by Taylor Gregory Butterfield
Architects dated November 1, 2007 (Sheets SP1.0, SP1.5, A2.00 and A3.00) and the project
plan sheets prepared by CG Engineering dated October 1, 2007 (Sheets C1.1, C2. 1, C2.2,
C3.1, C4.1). We also reviewed the report prepared by CG Engineering titled "Drainage Report
& Calculations for Knutson Residence, 18720 Soundview Place, Edmonds, WA 98020" dated
September 28, 2007. Otto Rosenau & Associates (ORA) prepared a report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Structure, 18720 Sound View Place, Edmonds,
Washington" dated July 10, 2006.
IMPACT OF DISPERSION TRENCH ON BLUFFS ON BNSF RAILROAD TRACKS
Based on our review of CG Engineering's drainage report for the project, we understand that the
water released from the site in the proposed developed condition will be at a slower than it is
currently being released. We recommended that the location of the dispersion trench be moved
as far upslope from the crest of the slope as is possible. As a result, the dispersion trench has
been set back about 60 feet from the crest of the bluff and immediately adjacent to the proposed
patio area as shown in CG Engineering's revised plan sheet C3.1 "Grading and Drainage Plan"
dated 12/18/2007.
-,o -
Knutson Residence — 18720 Soundview Pl. Edmonds, WA January 3, 2008
We also reviewed the "Map Showing Recent and Historic Landslide Activity on Coastal Bluffs of
Puget Sound between Shilshole Bay. and Everett, Washington", by Rex L. Baum, Edwin L. Harp,
and William A. Hultman (2000), USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2346, Version 1.0.
The map presents a summary of known landslide activity in the vicinity of the site including 2
11 shallow earth slides" which appear to be located several hundred feet north of the project site
at Burlington Northern mile posts 19.25 and 19.30. No description of a possible cause of the
slides were noted. No slide activity appears to have occurred at the project site based on our
review of this map. We also did not observe any indication of the past slope instability at the
bluff that would lead us to believe that this site is more prone to failure because of past landslide
activity. The cuts for the
It is our opinion that the net reduction in the peak volumes of flow of runoff water during large
precipitation events by providing a detention system with a controlled release will enhance the
stability of the bluffs by reducing the volume of runoff water flowing over and through the bluff
face.
Furthermore, it is our opinion that location of the dispersion trench and the gentle slope between
it and the crest of the bluff should be adequate to allow the velocity of the sheet flow from the
dispersion trench to be greatly reduced and to be substantially reintroduced back into the
subgrade soil with minimal change from current runoff and groundwater flow patterns.
As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be any impact due to the presence of the
dispersion trench at on the BNSF railroad tracks located to the northwest of the site.
IMPACT OF GRASSCRETE DRVEWAY ON BNSF RAILROAD TRACKS
A relatively permeable "grasscrete" driveway is planned at a location approximately 220 feet
southeast of the crest of the slopes in the BNSF right-of-way. The location of the permeable
.grasscrete" driveway was originally occupied with a relatively impervious crushed rock
driveway and landscaped areas. We did not observe a stormwater collection system for
stormwater runoff from the original driveway. The presence of a permeable "grasscrete"
driveway will permit a more dispersed pattern of infiltration of surface runoff water than was
originally present in this area. This more dispersed method of surface runoff water infiltration
will allow runoff water to be reintroduced into the subgrade soils in a manner that is approaches
the undeveloped condition. There should not be an increase in the amount of water being
introduced into the subgrade soils at the "grasscrete" driveway provided that runoff water from
off -site sources does not increase as a result of the development.
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3
Knutson Residence — 18720 Soundview Pi. Edmonds, WA January 3, 2008
As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be any impact due to the presence of the
grasscrete" driveway on the BNSF railroad tracks located to the northwest of the site.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
OTTO ROSENA U &A SSOCIA TES, INC
Anthon Coyne, P.E. 7
Geotechnical Engineer
I . I �310 e
IRES lit 1121-1-1 �^A
Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3
BRYANT& COMPANY
GENERAL NOTES:
1 ALL WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL
CODE, 2006, AS AMENDED BY SEATTLE ORDINANCE.
2, LUMBER & WOOD PANEL GRADES: SEE SHEET S-1
3. MISC. STRUCTURAL STEEL: SEE SHEET S-1
4. CONCRETE: SEE SHEET S-1
5. PLYWOOD JOINTS AT ROOF AND EXTERIOR WALL DIAPHRAMS SHALL BE PLACED
WITH BOTH EDGES NAILED TO ONE COMMON JOIST, STUD, SILL PLATE, TOP
PLATE, OR RIM JOIST. PLYWOOD JOINTS SHALL ALSO BE PLACED OVER ONE
COMMON BLOCKING MEMBER WHEN BLOCKING IS SPECIFIED
6. DESIGN LOADS: SEE SHEET S-1
7. DIMENSIONS TO FACE OF FRAMING UNLESS NOTED
8. WALL SHEATHING TO BE NAILED PER ENGINEER'S SHEAR WALL SCEDULE, SEE
STRUCTURAL SHEETS. SEE SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFIC SHEAR WALLS
9. PROVIDE SOLID BEARING & STEEL STRAPS AT ENDS OF ALL BEAMS. PROVIDE SOLID
BLOCKING OVER ALL BEAMS & BEARING WALLS. DOUBLE JOISTS AT ENDS OF
CANTILEVERS
10. TRUSSES: SHALL BE PLANT FABRICATED OF DOUG-FIR/LARCH OR HEM FIR. TRUSS
MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS STAMPED, SIGNED AND
DATED BY A WA. STATE LICENCES STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. ALL TRUSS PLATES AND
CONNECTORS SHALL BE ICBO APPROVED VERIFY MECHANICAL UNIT LOADS AND
LOCATIONS WITH SUPPLIER AND FURNISH ADDITIONAL TRUSSES AS REQUIRED. SUBMIT
SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION.
A- SHALL HAVE MANUFACTURER'S STAMP
B- SHALL BE INSTALLED & BRACED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS
C- WILL NOT BE FIELD ALTERED WITHOUT PRIOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE
ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS
D. SHALL HAVE DESIGN DETAILS & DRAWINGS ON SITE FOR FRAMING INSPECTIONS
E. INTERIOR NON -BEARING WALLS TO BE CONNECTED TO TRUSSES FOR LATERAL SUPPORT
WITH SIMPSON STC OR DTC CLIPS OR EQUAL. DO NOT SHIM AND/OR NAIL TRUSSES
DIRECTLY TO NON -BEARING WALLS
11. ALL FRAMING & EMBEDDIDED HARDWARE TO BE SIMPSON UNLESS NOTED. INSTALLATION TO BE
PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. EMBEDDED HARDWARE TO BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO
FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
12. ALL HEADERS : SEE SHEET S-1
13, DUCT ALL VENT FANS, DRYER, AND RANGE HOOD TO OUTSIDE
14. ALL DOOR GLASS & GLASS IN HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS TO BE TEMPERED SAFETY GLASS
15. NAILING TO BE PER ENGINEER'S SPECIFICATION SHEET S-1
16. NOT USED
17, FIREBLOCK PER IRC 2006
0
n
V
M
z 11�4_'
1 15' BSBL 00
r--20 - 5'_ G-- FROM BUFFER 44 TOE W WALL 47: TOE WALL EX, SHED (b
47' TOP WALL 47 TOP WALL N 50*32'00" W
4-12'- 9 ET. SYS. PER EXIST. GRADE ELEVATIONS
/,.)RAIIIIE PLAN,�/ 11 0
CORY R=38.0' 0.00' PROPOSED 3' (b 310.00' CORNER-a.10'
z '�/HIGH ROCKERY
- ----------------
t- - - - - -11 ----------
w I _CK
SET
0" z:: -3
< 0.1 EASEMENT
0 a�=__ AND L_
I Iz 10' 07' 14 r" \12' a MAINTENA6CE AGREEMENT t
0 A=75 01 1 4'FIR
_J '11T MU -WO.-15� - -- - - - - - - - - - - f ELEVATEV WALK A.F. NO. 8311150244 SI�LYARDJSETBACK
aE
M
4VATE, WALK A
3' '4 r----
'T -�7N.521
-1 a' - at, < L 4
T --- �CTUA__' �T_
U
LLJ 1
ZI 1< < I
0 z
LU 0 < I I \ \1 1 t
0 1 N,EW RESID�NCE Sff-R, 1 0.
1 1'�.30 U ON GRADING Pl.�N C-3
LLJ N REQUIRED
8 MT F.F.=41.25
< ()o � I D' I I C M
10 1 1 EA NC
EIC TOM FTO 0 85MT - 40.25 OVERED WALK C51 E
10 BOTrOM FTC 0 1 1 0111 .1 �3'_O" PROPOSED Ile
0 EN -MY 45.25 1 - GARAGE DRIVEWAY
IF.F.-51.25 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
18. A. ALL FIREPLACES TO BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED FLUE DAMPER AND 6 So IN OF
COMBUSTION AIR, DUCTED TO INSIDE FRONT OF FIREBOX, WITH DAMPER
B. FACTORY BUILT ZERO CLEARANCE FIREPLACES TO BEAR THE STAMP OF AN APPROVED
TESTING LABORATORY AND TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. PROVIDE
NON-COMBUSTIBLE HEARTH & MINIMUM 1" CLEAR TO FRAMING. PROVIDE 5/8" TYPE X GWB
TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF SHEATHING INSIDE CHASE
19. FURNACE & WATER HEATER:
A. INSTALL PER W.E.C. & I.R.C.
B_ WATER HEATER PER 9OA-80
C. WHEN LOCATED IN GARAGE, ALL PILOTS, BURNERS, &
SWITCHES TO BE MIN. 18" ABOVE FLOOR
D. DUCTING PENETRATING HOUSE/GARAGE WALL TO BE 26 GALV. STEEL
20, TUBS & SHOWER STALLS:
A. FIREBLOCK BETWEEN STUDS
B. LIMIT SHOWER FLOW TO 2.5 G.P.M.
C_ WALLS TO BE WATERPROOF TO MIN. 70" ABOVE DRAIN INLET
D. ALL GLAZING INCLUDING WINDOWS, WITHIN 70" ABOVE DRAIN INLET TO BE SAFETY
CLASS. GLASS ENCLOSURE DOORS & PANELS TO BE LABELED CATEGORY 11, AND
DOORS TO SWING OUTWARD
21. STAIRS & RAILINGS
A. FIREBLOCK: BETWEEN STRINGERS AT TOP & BOTTOM & ALONG RUN BETWEEN STUDS
B. USEABLE SPACE UNDER STAIRS, 5/8" TYPE X, WITH FRAMING AT NOT MORE
THAN 16" O.C.
C. MAX. RISE 7-3/4": MIN. RUN 10". MAY NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 3/81,
D. MIN. HEADROOM ABOVE STAIR: 6'-8" ABOVE NOSING
E. PROVIDE HANDRAIL 1-112" TO 2" DIAMETER ROUND 34" TO 38" ABOVE NOSING
WITH ENDS RETURNED TO WALL OR NEWEL POST,
F. MIN WIDTH OF WINDING STAIR AT NARROWEST POINT 6"
G. HANDRAILS & GUARDRAILS TO WITHSTAND HORIZONTAL FORCE AT TOP OF 200 LBS/L.F. A0
TO HAVE MAX WIDTH OF 4" BETWEEN BALUSTERS OR RAILS. INTERMEDIATE MEMBERS TO
RESIST A LOAD OF 50 LBS PSF.
22. SKYLIGHTS IN HEATED ENVELOPE TO:
A. CONFORM TO PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF W.S.E.C.
B. BOTTOM LAYER OF GLASS TO BE MIN. 7/32" LAMINATED SAFETY GLASS
C. CURB HEIGHT TO BE 4".
D. PROVIDE SCREEN IF NECESSARY PER SEATTLE RESIDENTIAL CODE 308.6
23. ALL METAL FASTENERS IN CONTACT WITH PRESSURE PRESERVATIVE WOOD TO BE HOT
DIPPED GALVANIZED STEEL, STAINLESS STEEL, SILICON BRONZE, COPPER OR MATERIAL
APPROVED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR CONTACT WITH THE WOOD PRESERVATIVE.
ENERGY CODE GENERAL NOTES:
DESIGN PER WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE, RELATED NOTES
51. INSULATION
CEILING: R-38
VAULTED CEILING: R-30
WALLS ABOVE GRADE: R-21
FLOOR OVER CRAWL: R-30
52. MAINTAIN MIN. 1" AIRSPACE ABOVE CEILING INSULATION,
53. PROVIDE WATER RESISTANT RIGID VENT BAFFLES AT EAVES OVER
LOOSE FILL INSULATION.
BAFFLES TO EXTEND MIN. 6" OVER COMPRESSED INSULATION
AND MIN. 12" OVER LOOSE FILL INSULATION
54. PROVIDE 6 MIL. POLYETHELENE VAPOR BARRIER IN CRAWL AND
4 MIL POLY FOR VAPOR BARRIER ON WALLS, PROVIDED ON WARM
SIDE
55. ALL OPENINGS IN BUILDING ENVELOPE, INCLUDING DOOR &
WINDOW FRAMES, OPENINGS BETWEEN WALLS & FOUNDATION,
BETWEEN WALL & ROOF, UTILITY PENETRATIONS, AND ALL
OTHERS SHALL BE SEALED, CAULKED, GASKETED, OR
WEATHERSTRIPPED TO LIMIT AIR LEAKAGE
56. RECESSED LIGHTING INSTALLED IN BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL
COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF WSEC 502.4.4
57. HEATING DUCTS IN UNCONDITIONED SPACES TO BE INSULATED TO
R-8 MIN.
DUCTWORK SEAMS TO BE TAPED & SEALED & FASTENED WITH MIN OF
FASTENERS
VENTILATION & AIR QUALITY
80. BATH & LAUDRY FANS TO BE A MIN. OF 50 CFM, KITCHEN
FANS TO BE A MIN. OF 100 CFM.
81. ALL SOLID FUEL BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITH TIGHT FITTING GLASS OR METAL DOORS AND AN OUTSIDE
SOURCE OF COMBUSTION AIR DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE
FIRE BOX.
82. WHOLE HOUSE FAN TO BE DESIGNATED & WITH A TIMER AND
PER SPECIFICATION ON DRAWINGS
8,3, FRESH AIR TO BE PROVIDED TO HABITABLE ROOMS THROUGH
FURNACE SYSTEM WITH FRESH AIR INTAKE DUCT PER VIAO
303.4.1.5.
Zonej L- J7_ naa DATUM POINT +100'(ACTUAL=65.48')
Corner TOP OF STORM SEWER GRATE
�etbacks Aga ",r LLJ
Actu I
Front e
SidesNIS 10-1/0 10/10 Cn
A D Y PL N NG >- ,
Rear 0 z< PRO CK
Other t /D <
Height _Z�=/ Z I - -7 =9i q. 2-
z 00
hoo�e_ wl e- < -4-
cn
0
- 17-0
x
I' )
z
'P 1 i
80 TOM FTC 0 E. ED HOUSE W/
AWL 47.7p
24"
11
6"'
F.F.
54-
1
0
Ir
U)
E ECK
SHOP
\Ile
a-
<
z
<
0
L
r- �.F- 31.� -1
L - - - - - - --
F.F.=51. 2�\
Iry
DO
0
WER LI NE
F
L B 75.0- 1
-4,
TKdTu KC 0 6'
1
\ 1 2"
I
10;"_A-CTU-A-L-5O.b-)
SIDEYA
10 0,,SETBACK
10
DRIVEI RADE 10%
1 ___ .
- 3
15'
4 .
(ACTUAL 4 8
9.051r�
H=84.77" =B 0
=�G
I AMT6XN53.5
UAL 53.5
10"-0"
1 26 - 0.,L--
_I'l
2'-0"-
-15'/_1 10'-0"
V-4
10-6
-- - - - - - - - - --- -
- - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
a- C
0
%
I
__C�CDCDQIS�Qenrn
I
ORI
IER-63.0'
(w
C) 1 10.00''
I\-/- �v
PROPOSED 3'
HIGH ROCKERY 47.5: TOE WALL
14"S 20"�
47.5 TOP WALL
310. 0 0'
PRUCE
LLJ
44.5: TOE WALL
47.5 TOP WALL
SH'ED
HEIGHT CALCULATION HOUSE
HEIGHT CALCULATION GARAGE
<
I_A=75.02'
(ACTUAL 41')
E=85.27' (ACTUAL 50.75')
OWNER: DENNIS & LORNA LOWENTHAL
LOT AREA 15,500 SQ FT
6=75.02' (ACTUAL 41')
F=88.02- (ACTUAL 53.5')
ADDRESS: 18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 3467 SO FT (22%)
C=83.52' (ACTUAL 49')
<
0=88.02' (ACTUAL 53.5')
EDMONDS, WA 98020
HOUSE & FRONT DECK 2367 SQ FT
lb
LL1
D=83.02' (ACTUAL 48.5')
H=84.77- (ACTUAL 50.5')
PARCEL 004346001006-00
GARAGE = 1012 SQ FT
'\�rI, 1 0 I\r
AVERAGE GRADE = 79.15'
AVERAGE GRADE = 86.52'
#:
COVERED TRELLIS = 88 SQ FT
C�
<
UMAX HEIGHT ALLOWED =104.15'
BUILDING HEIGHT =101.9'
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (15')= 101.52'
ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT = 100.72' EX. HOUSE
LOT SLOPE = 8%
ACTUAL
1�1
'��
11m,wil
��' 9�_ 1�0
>
NOTE: SITE PLAN AND STRUCTURAL PLANS TO COMPLY WITH GEOTECH REPORT JN09224 PRODUCED BY GEOTECH COSULTANTS DATED 12/28/09
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL GEOTECHICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT.
Applicant shall repair/replacG all damage to
utilities or frontage improvements in City
right-of-way per Qty standards that Is caused
or occurs during the permitted project.
PLF-h-,F- V-ePSM -rb CIVIL-
be�AMPI,i_% r-OC_
MN�\E\011
10
20
0
40
0
z LL1
0 U
0
<
_J
L-Li
0
V)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
OWNERS: LORNA & DENNIS LOWENTHAL
18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA 98020
TAX ID #: 00434600100600
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
ZONING :
NEW LOT COVERAGE 2965 SO FT (NO TRELLIS)
LOT SIZE/AREA : 15,500 SO FT
ACTUAL NEW LOT COVERAGE: 3430 s.q ft (22%)
(W/ COVERED DECK & PORCH) -
NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE
PROPOSED NEW SO FT :
BASEMENT (HEATED): 850 SO FT
MAIN FLOOR : 1900 SQ FT
NEW HEATED SO FT: 2750 SO FT
NEW UNHEATED GARAGE: 520 SO FT
NEW SHOP: 235 SQ FT
NEW COVERED PORCH & PATIO FTG: 345 SO FT
NEW DECK SO FTG: 300 SO FT/170 COVERED
ENERGY CALCULATIONS
NEW HOUSE TOTAL SO FT (HEATED): 2750 SO FT
NEW GLAZING PERCENTAGE: UNLIMITED
PERSCRIPTIVE PATH # IV
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
NEW HOUSE/GARACE-ROOF FOOTPRINT: 4085 SQ FT
(WITH COVERED PORCH)
�D
C�
DRIVEWAY 2087 SO FT
TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 6172 SO FT
JOB DESCRIPTION
UUN�;IHUCIION OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON A DEVELOPED LOT
CONTACT INFORMATION
DESIGNER:
MARCI BRYANT
BRYANT & COMPANY
P.O. BOX 99042
SEATTLE, WA 98139
206.954.0712
DRAWING INDEX
ENGINEER:
DAN SAY
SWENSON SAY FACET
2124 3RD AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98121
206.956.3711
CA-1:
COVER SHEET/SITE PLAN
C-
1:
CIVIL GENERAL NOTES
C-
2:
TESC SHEET
C-3:
GRADING PAVING & UTILITY PLAN
NQ1
A-1:
NEW BASEMENT & MAIN PLAN
A-2:
NEW GARAGE PLAN
A-3:
NEW SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS
A-4:
NEW NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS
A-5:
NEW GARAGE ELEVATIONS
A-6:
NEW BUILDING SECTIONS
A-7:
NEW BUILDING SECTIONS, TYP WALL DETAIL
A-8:
NEW BUILDING SECTIONS
S-1:
STRUCTURAL NOTES
S-2:
FOUNDATION
S-3:
FLOOR FRAMING
S-4:
NEW ROOF FRAMING
S-5:
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
S-6:
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
S-7:
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
3221 39TH AVENUE WEST
P.O. BOX 99042
SEATTLE, WA
98199
P, 206.954.0712
F. 206.352.2427
vmarcibryant(gmsn.com
LOWENTHAL RESIDENCE
NEW RESIDENCE
18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA
98020
P. 425.672.9640
JOB NUMBER: 0908
DATE,
DRAWN: 11-10-09
DATE
REVISED: 1-10-10
DATE
REVISED:
DATE
REVISED:
DATE
REVISED:
DRAWN BY: M. BRYANT
SHEET DRAWINGS:
COVER SHEET
SITE PLAN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
GENERAL NOTES
JAN I A 2b*IJ
SHEET NUMBER:
z1A
R4!!9<?e 74�71,6-
c
STREET FILE
GENERAL NOTES
1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDA RDS AND
THE 2008 WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AND STANDARD PLANS. A COPY OF THESE
DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
2. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN MUST BE ON SITE WHENEVER
CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
4. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
SCHEDULE AND ATTEND A PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE
CITY OF EDMONDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT OF THE PRECONSTRUCTION
MEETING TIME AND LOCATION.
5. PAVED SURFACES INCLUDING ROADWAYS, SIDEWALKS, AND CURBS THAT
ARE DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED AS
REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS INSPECTOR.
6. DATUM: MLLW AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SITE SURVEY. TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY PER CITY OF EDMONDS BENCHMARK MAP FROM LSA SITE
SURVEY.
7. NOT USED.
ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE
RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE
ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE
ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO FURTHER
DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN HEREON
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN.
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL CASTINGS AND
UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONTACT THE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATOR SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT
LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST ALL EXISTING MANHOLE RIMS,
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LIDS, VALVE BOXES, AND UTILITY ACCESS
STRUCTURES TO FINISH GRADE WITHIN AREAS AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
11.NOT USED.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR ALL COMPACTION TESTS
REQUIRED BY THE INSPECTOR.
13. BACKFILL MATERIAL USED IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL MEET
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF
EDMONDS.
14. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL WORK IN STREET
RIGHTS -OF -WAY WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS. I T SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE
INSPECTIONS, ALLOWING PROPER ADVANCE NOTICE. THE INSPECTOR
MAY REQUIRE RECONSTRUCTION OF ITEMS THAT DO NOT MEET CITY
STANDARDS OR THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT INSPECTION.
15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY
SEDIMENTATION COLLECTION FACILITIES TO INSURE THAT
SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL OR PUBLIC
DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED
(SEASONAL) CONDITIONS DICTATE, MORE SILTATION CONTROL FACILITIES
MAY BE REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL OF THE
PROJECT. THEREFORE, DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION IT
SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR
TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY HIS
ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES THAT MAY BE
NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF -SITE STREETS CLEAN AT ALL
TIMES BY SWEEPING. WASHING OF THESE STREETS WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
17. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL
ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD).
SURVEY NOTE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE
BASED UPON THE SURVEY "BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR
DANA KNUTSON of , BY LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOC., INC., DATED
JANUARY 1, 2006, AND RECORD DRAWINGS. NO WARRANTY OR
GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS IS EITHER IMPLIED OR
EXPRESSED. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID UTILITIES AND
IMPROVEMENTS IN. THE FIELD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES THAT MAY
HAVE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE
PROJECT LIMITS AND FOR CHECKING LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL
DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING
FROM HIS OPERATION.
GENERAL SEWER NOTES
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
SIDE SEWERS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS
STANDARDS (PUBLICATION #E71).
2. PIPE SHALL BE PVC AND FITTINGS SHALL BE PER ASTM D3034,
SDR35 WITH RUBBER GASKET JOINTS.
3. SIDE SEWER PIPE SHALL BE INSPECTED AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS.
4. FOUNDATION DRAIN PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE PVC PER ASTM
D2241 SDR21 (CLASS 200) WITH RUBBER GASKET JOINTS. PIPE
SHALL HAVE SLOTTED PERFORATIONS. SLOTS ARE TO BE 0.040" WIDE
1.0" LONG AND SPACED 0.25" APART.
5. BEDDING SHALL BE CLASS B FOR ALL PIPE EXCEPT DUCTILE IRON
PIPE, WHICH SHALL BE CLASS D. BEDDING MATERIAL FOR PVC PIPE
SHALL BE GRANULAR SAND OR PEA GRAVEL. BEDDING MATERIAL FOR
PVC PIPE SHALL BE MECHANICALLY COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM
DRY DENSITY AS MEASURED BY ASTM D-698.
6. WHERE A NEW PIPE CLEARS AN EXISTING OR NEW UTILITY BY 60' OR
LESS, POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FOAM SHALL BE PLACED AS A CUSHION
BETWEEN THE UTILITIES.
7. SIDE SEWERS SHALL NOT BE BACKFILLED UNTIL THE PIPE HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND APPROVED AND THE LOCATION AND DEPTH IS
RECORDED BY THE INSPECTOR.
8. FOR SIDE SEWER INSPECTION, PHONE ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS AT
(425) 771-0220, EXT. 1326 A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE
WATER SERVICE NOTES
1. COORDINATE WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION AND RELOCATION WITH CITY
OF EDMONDS WATER DEPARTMENT.
2. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS WATER
DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRMENTS (PUBLICATION #E86).
3. ALL WATER SERVICE PIPING ON PROPERTY MUST BE INSPECTED PRIOR
TO BACKFILLING TRENCH.
4. FOR INSPECTION, PHONE ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS AT (425)
771-0220, EXT. 1326 A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE.
DRAINAGE NOTES
1. ALL DRAINAGE PIPE AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY
PREPARED FOUNDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT SPECIFICATIONS. THIS
SHALL INCLUDE LEVELING AND COMPACTING THE TRENCH BOTTOM, THE TOP
OF THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL, AND ANY REQUIRED PIPE BEDDING, TO A
UNIFORM GRADE SO THAT THE ENTIRE PIPE IS SUPPORTED BY A UNIFORMLY
DENSE UNYIELDING BASE.
2. ALL DISTURBED PERVIOUS AREAS (COMPACTED, GRADED, LANDSCAPED, ETC.)
OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE (EXCLUDING RAINGARDEN AREAS - SEE
RAINGARDEN NOTES) MUST DEMONSTRATE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: THE
EXISTING DUFF LAYER SHALL BE STAGED AND REDISTRIBUTED TO MAINTAIN
THE MOISTURE CAPACITY OF THE SOIL, OR; AMENDED SOIL SHALL BE ADDED
TO MAINTAIN THE MOISTURE CAPACITY.
RAINGARDEN NOTES
1. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER
DESIGN MANUAL (KCSWDM) 2009, SECTION C.2.5.1.
2. A MINIMUM 5-FOOT SETBACK SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE
RAINGARDEN AND ANY STRUCTURE OR PROPERTY LINE.
3. SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL.
THE CONTAINMENT BERM SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET WIDE AT THE
TOP. THE OVERFLOW MUST BE SITUATED AND STABILIZED WITH A ROCK PAD
SO THAT OVERFLOW DOES NOT CAUSE EROSION DAMAGE OR UNPLANNED
INUNDATION.
4. A ROCK PAD SHALL BE PROVIDED TO RELEASE WATER WHEN THE
RAINGARDENS WATER LEVEL EXCEEDS 9 INCHES. THE ROCK PAD SHALL BE
COMPOSED OF CRUSHED ROCK, 6 INCHES DEEP AND TWO FEET WIDE, AND
MUST EXTEND AT LEAST 4 FEET OR BEYOND THE CONTAINMENT BERM.
5. PLANTING SOIL SHALL CONSIST OF SOIL AMENDED WITH 4 INCHES OF
COMPOST TILLED INTO THE UPPER 12" OF SOIL OR 12" OF IMPORTED
SAND/COMPOST BLEND HAVING 8 TO 13% ORGANIC MATERIAL BY DRY WEIGHT.
6. PLANTINGS SHALL BE WATER TOLERANT PLANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH KCSWDM
TABLE C.2.5.A. PLANTS NATIVE TO WESTERN WASHINGTON ARE PREFERRED.
CONSTRUCTION EROSION.ZSEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) NOTES
1. CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE AND APPROVED PRIOR
TO ANY EARTH DISTURBANCE. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF
EDMONDS STANDARDS (PUBLICATION #E72)
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION COLLECTION
FACILITIES TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL OR
PUBLIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED
(SEASONAL) CONDITIONS DICTATE, MORE SILTATION CONTROL FACILITIES MAY BE
REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL OF THE PROJECT. THEREFORE,
DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE
CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES THAT MAY BE
NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE ESC PLANS AND THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE,
REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADING OF THESE ESC FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IS APPROVED.
THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH ALL CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES, AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO INSURE
THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR VIOLATE
APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS.
4. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR
ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THESE ESC
FACILITIES SHALL BE UPGRADED (E.G. ADDITIONAL SUMPS, RELOCATION OF DITCHES AND
SILT FENCES, ETC.) AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS.
5. THE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED
AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED FUNCTIONING.
6. ANY AREA STRIPPED OF VEGETATION, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, WHERE NO
FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY
STABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC METHODS (E.G. SEEDING, MULCHING, NETTING,
EROSION BLANKETS, ETC.). IF SOILS ARE NOT WORKED WITH FOR MORE THAN TWO
DAYS DURING OCTOBER1 THROUGH MAY 31, THEY SHALL BE COVERED WITH APPROVED
ESC METHODS.
7. ANY AREA NEEDING ESC MEASURE, NOT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, SHALL BE
ADDRESSED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS.
8. THE ESC FACILITIES ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED A
NINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH OR WITHIN THE 48 HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM EVENT.
9. AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN ONE FOOT OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE
WITHIN A CATCH BASIN. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE
CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT
LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM.
10. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND WASH PADS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE
BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OFJHE PROJECT.
ADDITIONAL MEASURE MAY BE REQUIRED TO INSURE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT
CLEAN FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
11. WHERE SEEDING FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL IS REQUIRED, FAST GERMINATING
GRASSES SHALL BE APPLIED AT AN APPROPRIATE RATE (E.G. ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL
RYE APPLIED AT APPROXIMATELY 80 POUNDS PER ACRE).
12. RAINGARDEN AREAS SHALL NOT BE SEEDED WITH GRASS; STRAW MULCH SHALL BE
APPLIED FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL.
13. WHERE STRAW MULCH FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE
APPLIED AT A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF THREE INCHES.
14. PROVIDE PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM. LANDSCAPE ALL EXPOSED EARTH
SURFACES WITH SUITABLE VEGETATION TO PREVENT EROSION.
EROSION CONTROL&ONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. ARRANGE AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH BETWEEN OWNER OR
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR AND SITE INSPECTOR. f,4"0994M(n INSWCT160 UINV
2. CONTRACTOR'S SURVEYOR TO ESTABLISH AND STAKE OUT CONTROL POINTS .051-71, 02�14 X 1 '32( 0
FOR WORK.
3. ERECT FILTER FABRIC FENCE AND STRAW WATTLES; INSTALL CATCH BASIN
EROSION AND SEDIMENTARY SOCKS AS NEEDED.
4. CONSTRUCT STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
5. CLEAR AND GRUB AREA.
6. REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT, SURFACE FEATURES AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
AS NOTED.
7. COORDINATE REMOVAL AND CAPPING OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES WITH
APPROPRIATE PURVEYOR.
8. GRADE SITE PER PLAN. STABILIZE GRADED AREAS WITH TEMPORARY EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES AS REQUIRED.
9. CONSTRUCT SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
10. MULCH REMAINING DISTURBED AREAS.
11. RETURN SILTATION CONTROL AREAS TO ORIGINAL GROUND CONDITIONS.
12. REMOVE REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY AFTER
SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND CITY OF EDMONDS INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED
THE REMOVAL.
S � Ell m,_-, S k- � I
M A R 21 4 2 0 10
OUILDING DEPARTMENI
07,101: EMMONDS
(D
u
u n
(D
> Cf)
0 Cf)
u�
-41
0 0
(D
3: E
0 00
Civil Engineer:
WR Con�sulting, Inc.
3611 45th Ave W.
Seattle, WA 98199
P: 206.285.1593
Job No.
o9o,31
Designed:
JWR
Drawn:
JWR
Checked:
JWR
Scale:
it$ = 10,
Date: November 16, 20(
Revisions:
Jan. 6, 2010
Feb. 25, 201
Mar. 19, 201
GENERAL
NOTES
CALL 48 F-OURS
BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-421--5555
OR CALL 8-1 -1
SHEET C1 OF 3
a
LJ
I 1'%Wl r ---Nd-w I % In L- I N 1% 1 1 1 1
EX. HOUSE
C
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SCALE: 1 " = 10'-0"
NOTE: CATCH BASIN EROSION AND
SEDIMENTARY CONTROL SOCI�%'S SHALL
BE INSTALLED.
L-A. tilAKL klYF)
TESC PLAN
0 5 10 20
SCALE: 1 10'
7111
RY
NX se
Applicant shall mpair/replace all damage to
utilities or frontage improvements in City
right-of-way per City standards that is caused
or occum during tho permitted project.
STAGGER JOINTS (TYP.
SEE NOTE '
PLAN VIEW
WATTLE SPACING TABLE
SLOPE
MAXIMUM SPACING
1: 1
............ ;�
0-0
2:1
............
0-0
3:1
30 I —Olt
L 4:1
40'
OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESFUNbULt
FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DAMAGE
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC
FENCES SHALL BE
INSTALLED ALONG
CONTOUR
WHENEVER
JOINTS IN FILTER FAP,731C.
SHALL BE SPLICED A'o POSTS.
USE STAPLES, WIRE RINGS:"< --
OR EQUIVALENT TO ATT
FABRIC TO POSTS.
2"x2" BY 14 Ga. WIRE
OR EQUIVALENT, IF
STANDARD STRENGTH
RIC USED
FI LTER—,W
FABRIC
---LL—OW -cl
POSSIBLE MINIMUM 8" WIDE x
24 HR. V'OTICE n-En.
,1 -1
NOTES
1.Wattles shall be in accordance with Standard
SPACING VARIES (TYP.) Specification 9-14.5(5). Install Wattles along
SEE ROLL/WATI-LE contours. Installation shall be in accordance
SPACING TABLE with Standard Specif.ication 8-01.3(10).
2.Securely knot each end of Wattle. Abut
adjacent Wattles tightly, end to end, without
2"X2"X3' WOODEN overlapping the ends.
STAKE
ST
fRAW ROLL/WATTLE 3.Pilot holes may be driven through the Wattles
TRENCH, SEE and into the soil when soil conditions require.
NOTE 1 ii-� 4. Live stakes may be used for Permanent
installation and shall
be in accordance with Standard Specification
9-14.5(6).
00
5. Wattles shall be inspected regularly, and
TYPICAL SECTION immediately after.a rainfall produces runoff, to
T X 2" X 3 ensure they remain thoroughly entrenched and
WOODEN STAKE WATTLE DETAIL in contact with the soil.
SPACED EVERY 6.Perform maintenance in accordance with
4'-0" O.C. Standard Specification 8-01.3(15).
(TYP-)
//,r—SEDIMENT
TRAPPING SPACING VARIES (TYP)
AREA (TYP.) SEE WATTLE SPACING
TABLE.
ROLL/WATTLE
SEE
DETAIL
SECTION(&
2�STRAW ROLL (WATTLE) DETAIL
C2)SCALE: N.T.S.
6 MAX. 12" DEEP TRENCH
PLACE 3/4"-1-5" WASHED:/
2 to x2" WOOD POSTS,—/ GRAVEL IN TRENCH AND
STEEL FENCE POSTS, ON BOTH SIDES OF FENCE
REBAR, OR EQUIVALENT ON THE SURFACE
(�-3�SILT FENCE DETAIL
��2 SCALE: N.T.S. GRAT
4-
CD
FILTER SOCK WITH
OVER FLOW HOLES
I CATCH BASIN I
2
0
ro
STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E1.1.1).
1-0 q11 D THIS APPLICAITION SHALL BE MAINTAINED
AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION
PERIOD.
NDS
MAR 2) 4 2010
t"WILDING DEPARWENT
F0%
GITY 0'
"N� 4 TE
MPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS CALL 48 HOURS
LC2,) SCALE: N.T.S. BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
OR CALL 8-1 -1
3:
U�
(D
U
C)
0
u n
(f) Cn
Q)
0 0 Cl)
U�
0 0
(D
3: E
0 00 -0
17-- 111
Civil Engineer:
WR Consulting, Inc.
3611 45th Ave W.
Seattle, WA 98199
P: 206.285.1593
Job No.
09031
Designed:
JWR
Drawn:
JWR
Checked:
JWR
Scale:
if$ = 10'
Date: November 16, 20(
Revisions:
Jan. 6, 2010
Feb. 25, 201(
Mar. 19, 201 (
TESC
PLAN AND
DETAILS
SHEET C2 OF 3
R
WA
zo 0
z
155
NAL
Mill! M
IN M1
A3 NEW
AND NSPECTION REQUIRED
a M NJ LIM
!�.4"O (TYP ii ii
EACH END) AND AID ADDRESS SIGN REQUIRED
Mali
of CAR,
MAXIMUM DRIVEWAy SLOpE
23 LF �0
:NTION TANK D 14%
- i UTLET I E 55
B I i 1L W/ CDIFF TO �4
P "..�ENT LEAII(AGE
I of
W�PE 2-48
0 L. 39.5
36
4ATdQ Z, C R .1i �'N
Iml Elk
(D
W
110116`11-1
U
mv
F1 A' In 11 IEQ'D.
min g I
11: 111, R ". aft
0TSi I I lim fin 0
2 OF11 51 Iraq FEW
u n
igym
wd I 1 10 IN Affiffif Al TAI
%P
IM
FG. 42.0 .................... . . ...... (D
. ..............
'S C.O. W/ 12
ING LAMPHOLE C 0 V*R FG. 44.0
I IN r, WA.N11111111
G" HL�40LTS)
1 OLF 6"0 SSS 0 2% (MIN.)
CONNECT TO EX. SS HPAN
IE 32.0+/— (FIELD VERIFY)
<
PROP. CORNER (TYP)
1. 1 L_ - - - - - - - -- -1 � LJ MMIAIJO aprlt4 C--11hV_0a*3 11 0 -
BW 44.5 WIDE PRECAST R >
EINFORCED WALL GAS SERVICE 2
/ ROCK FACINEX. OU SE U� 1 "0 WATER, BY PSE MODU PAVING C3 (D C)
OR MSE WALL CONNEC E*�'. UNIT TU FSTONE)
METE' X, 2 Fr. WIDE FILTER D AY, DRAINS
GRADING, PAVING, AND UTILITY PLAN LINE STAKE (TYP) x STRIP AT ALL
RAINGARDENS (0
ADJACENT
TO AINGARDENS
TO
0 10 20
5 DRIVEWAY (WP) 0/,\ 0
SCALE: 1 10'
MINUS NAINUANULN E
_ """ ---I APP VED BY
RAINGARDEN 24 Hit NOW,, E
QUARRY PLANTINGS W/WATER S RM ENGINEERING 0
0
OVERFLOW SPALLS OR TOLERANT PLANTS 30" DIAM. MH FRAME . ANCHOR
D ETAI L (TyP) 8 TYP WASHED RIVER PER KCSWDM 2009, ApplIcant jzhall WalrftePlace all damage to e: FRAME TO SLAB W/ 4—J 0 X 10
utilities or frontinge Improvements in City ANCHOR J—BOLTS EMBEDDED IN SLAB
ROCK RIP TABLE C.2.5.A(-FYP) right-okvtay Pc.-" Cly standards that Is caused
'uring the permItted project.
I E/ONE WH-84-2 DUPLEX PUMPING
MAX. WATER or occurs. e ACCEP.1ABLE YIGH'PLINE 0 00
3: RAP
DEPTH 9 iWITERAL
N SAWCHT EX PAVEMENT— PAVING RnA 35 STATION W/EXPLOSION PROOF MOTO
RAINGARDEN
I N.) BCH 40 AND CONTROLS
F.G. PER PLAN 3 3:1 MAX. (TYP) 24 FIN. GRADE EL. N-12 , �
PLANTING AREA 0 HANCOR INTERNAL WETWELL
40' +
EX. GRADE--\ 12 EXIST. PAVING VENT (2" DIAM.) TO Civil Engineer:
SLOPE (TYP)
BLDG WALL WR Consulting, Inc.
A" TOID(ZOII
I 4bth Ave W.
0 0 0
Seattle
WA 98199
77/-,
/ONE EQUALIZER
—77 RA EN F.G.
.... . . . ....
ALARM & TWO PUMPS ON: EL. 38. P: 206.285.1593
X >
JUNC ON BOX
12 N (TYP) 5
>
& ALARM CABLES
x ELECTRICAL QUICK -
PIT RUN
AREA DRAIN
PAVEMENT BASE
BACKFILL DISCONNECT
0 SOIL (NEMA 6P)
NYLON LIFTING ROPE
\VV\ AND HMA
K,
COMPACTED 30 0 DETENTION
lill DISCHARGE LINE (304 SS) Job N o. 09031
X'
6" SD @ MIN. 2% TO 95% MAX. PIPE 0.5%
Designed: JWR
':..'"—QUICK DISCONNECT ASSY.(304 SS)
MINUS, CSTC,
n JWR
RAINGARDEN TYPICAL SECTION FLEX. DISCHARGE HOSE
DENSITY 24" DETENTION PIPE ONE (imp Draw
COMPACTED TO 95
COMPACTED
EXTENSION TO MH EL. 5.6 Checked: JWR
NTS % MAX. DENSITY X, 0 CHECK VALVE
1 N 8" MAX. IE 36.0 Scale: 1 10,
X/ ANTI -SIPHON VALVE
FILL GRASSCRETE I >/- I" M PUMPS OFF EL.
PRECAST CONCRETE LI FTS
BEDDING MATERIAL 0 Date: November 16, 20(
., W -
VOIDS W/TOPSOIL /K
MODULAR PAVING UNITS
COMPACTED TO 95% X
AND HYDROSEED > PRECAST 54 0 MH Revisions: Jan. 6, 2010
SEMI -POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT
MAX. DENSITY
Feb. 25, 201
Mar. 19, 201(
a: PUMP EACH DIRECTLY DRIVEN
_qAND BEDDING
2 7o (Ty
W=1.5 x PIPE DIA + W x
CSTC MINUS)
1 8"MIN FOR 6" W=27"MIN.
X/
8" W=30"MIN.
BEDDING MATERIAL
THOROUGHLY
COMPACTED COMPACTED TO 95%
SUBGRADE MAX. DENSITY
(0
('2'� TURFSTONE DETAIL (,3'� TRENCH DETAIL �D,5--owit-, smv-4- w-r go asmwm-v_-rKe -ru
� �3 NTS �C3) NTS
emeWr)
T -1 H MU I U T Ut Z)
EL. 33.0+/
�M C
rMM 'OVEN"
6VILDING DEPii
-4 2e,16041140"TiLl C1 OF EDMONDS
UMP STAND (316 SS)
BEDDING (TYP)
('4'� STORM DRAIN PUMPING STATION DETAIL CALL 48 HOURS
NTS BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
OR CALL 8-1 —1
GRADING
PAVING &
UTILITY
PLAN
SHEET C3 OF 3
,197,v
s u
MIAR 2 4 2010
a DI-PAMN,
sm-om
STREET FILE
EX MH
TOP=,37.51
INV=62.40
Ae ao,
p
10' CITY OF EDMONDS
SANITARY/STORM EASEMENT
A.F. NO. 1964601
Q�
5
C9
/0 / )k lot
.0 '10 <11
EX. PIPE W/2X- ALUM. CAP 0.
MARKED WWW GEO-DATUM 0
NO'D 38964 & 31976 \ \ 0 Is, 6' 0 +
(S 56'04'26" E, 2.52') s\ C) 4
% 110.
00
,e\ 0",
00-1
< ks,
/ 6
j INI
Ile l\
EX. 3/4" IRON PIPE
WITH TACK IN LEAD
2�
PLUG IN CASING
cl VISITED : 1-9-06
/ --1 1-1 --,, /'
7 IN & -, , / + -'\
UTILITY
lro,
</o E)
+ -%
IN, EASEMENT AND
Iq OH
IN, MAINTENANCE AGRE-EMENT \�-o R
'Ix A.F. NO. 851115024 u VC��EAD -10.
4C) + TI 7y UTILITY
HEAD ON
LINEs
Po 4>11
on., u
EX. C. B.
0 00. TOP=64 20
.00, d)
70 INV=61�2
5 FT BLDCK IN'
RICK"PA
ARE
cj
EX. C. B.
TOP=65.42
INV=64.14 2
+ �. 'pt / - '. .. `1\ ..
EX. 4' WOOD RAIL 4�
IV, 1-1 EX MH
FENCE APPROX. ±2.4'
SOUTHWESTERLY TOP=65.48
INV=59.22
FRUITDALE ON THE SOUND
U N R E C 0 R D E D
EX. PIPE W/2V' ALUM. CAP
MARKED WWW` GEO-DATUM-
NO'D 38964 & 31976
a
GOVERNMENT LOT 3
WATER
METER
BENCH MARK
"0" IN OPEN ON FIRE HYDRANT ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUND MEW PLACE
APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF WHARF STREET
ELEVATION 93.74 (PER EDMONDS BENCH MARK MAP)
DATUM : M.L.L.W.
PROJECT BENCH MARK : TOP OF PK NAIL AT THE CENTERLINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE
ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
ELEVA71ON : 64.93
llkr"950
EX. CASED CONCRETE
MONUMENT WITH
TACK IN LEAD PLUG
VISITED : 1-9-06—
THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE OWNER
SHOULD CONTACT THE PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILTIES IN THE AREA TO DETERMIONE THE LOCATION AND
DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES ON AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
TREE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.
T.
of WAS71,
22969
U00
EXPIRES 10-15-07
I Ink
BASIS OF BEARINGS
N 39*28'00" E AS MEASURED ALONG THE MONUMENTED CENTER
LINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE PER PLAT OF SURVEY FILED UNDER
VOL. 13 OF SURVEYS, PG. 174, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WA.
LEGEND
SET 1/2- X 24- REBAR & CAP
STAMPED "LSA 22969"
2" X 2" X 24" WOOD STAKE WITH TACK AND BRASS
WASHER STAMPED "22969"
(M) COURSE AND/OR DISTANCE MEASURED PER THIS
SURVEY
NOTE
THIS MAP DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF ALL
EASEMENTS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROPERTY.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
SNOHOMISH, CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A TRACT OF LAND COMPRISING LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10,
ALL IN BLOCK "A", EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE(S)
76, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
TOGETHER WITH, A PORTION OF -GOVERNMENT: 'LOT 3, SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. (BEING A POR11ON OF
TRACT 1, BLOCK 5 OF THE UNRECORDED PLAT OF FRUITDALE ON
THE SOUND), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 6 AND SAID LINE PRODUCED 280 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE EXTENDED SOUTHWESTERLY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID EXTENDED SOUND VIEW PLACE
LINE 50 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EXTENDED SOUTHWESTERLY
LINE OF LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO
THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
TOGETHER NTH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED STREET ADJOINING
WHICH ATTACHED THERETO BY OPERATION OF LAW.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON
BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY
FOR
DANA KNU TSON
SW1/4 OF NE1/4 AND NW1/4 OF SE1/4
SECTION 13, T.27 N., R.3 E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
a5c
cl%l
ss
'EDVAC)"05
<Su v
U F M(,"R
S)"',
� fil
,;�V7-OF�
X7
,�o snmdv1.�w?L
56�
/� 4 4,50 �j
EX MH
TOP=37.51
INV=62.40
'd, _10.
Ab
<2j
10' CITY OF EDMONDS
SANITARY/STORM EASEMENT
A.F. NO. 1964601
v (Zi 0, A
A5 5
C2
lot
EX. PIPE W/2Y2- ALUM. CAP ks"
MARKED WWW GEO-DATUM
NO'D 38964 & 31976 110.
(S 56*04'26" E. 2.52')
1-10.
/T
06
%K <
(j 6 G,
Nrc 2--
EX. 3/4" IRON PIPE
WITH TACK IN LEAD
PLUG IN CASING
VISITED : 1-9-06
sro,
"I-\, � N\�
7 1\ \ I / \ , / _4+ 'N\
UTILITY
ggLE
I'v 1\
EASEMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RH UTILITY
A.F. NO. 851115024 '7V7LE��EAD ON
Ii u Ury LINES POLE
Po
58
8 0 EX. C. B.
'00, TOP=64.20
INV=63.72
0- "PA
BRICK Z
ARE'
5 FT BLOC
A, c
EX. C. B.
TOP=65.42
INV=64.14 2
EX. 4' WOOD RAIL
FENCE APPROX. ±2.4' EX MH
SOUTHWESTERLY TOP=65.48
INV=59.22
FRUITDALE ON THE SOUND
U N R E C 0 R D E D +\
EX. PIPE W12Y2" ALUM. CAP
MARKED WWW GEO-DATUM-
NO'D 38964 & 31976
F,A'
BENCH MARK
"0" IN OPEN ON FIRE HYDRANT ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE
APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSEC11ON OF WHARF STREET
ELEVATION : 93.74 (PER EDMONDS BENCH MARK MAP)
DATUM : M.L.L.W.
PROJECT BENCH MARK : TOP OF PK NAIL AT THE CENTERLINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE
ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
ELEVA TION : 64.93
1\1 r) TPq
EX. CASED CONCRETE
MONUMENTWITH
TACK IN LEAD PLUG
VISITED : 1-9-06—
THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE OWNER
SHOULD CONTACT THE PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILTIES IN THE AREA TO DETERMIONE THE LOCATION AND
DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES ON AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
TREE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.
T.
22969
Lp3;D
EXPIRES 10-15-
-b
BASIS OF BEARINGS
N 39*28'00" E AS MEASURED ALONG THE MONUMENTED CENTER
LINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE PER PLAT OF SURVEY FILED UNDER
VOL. 13 OF SURVEYS, PG. 174, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WA.
I FGFND
0 SET 1/2- X 24- REBAR & CAP
STAMPED "LSA 22969"
m 2" X 2" X 24" WOOD STAKE WITH TACK AND BRASS
WASHER STAMPED "22969"
(M) COURSE AND/OR DISTANCE MEASURED PER THIS
SURVEY
NOTE —
THIS MAP DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF ALL
EASEMENTS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROPERTY.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
SNOHOMISH, CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A TRACT OF LAND COMPRISING LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10,
ALL IN BLOCK -A", EDMONDS SEA MEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE(S)
76,.RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
TOGETHER WITH, A POR11ON OF GOMERNMENT_-LOT 3, SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. (BEING A PORTION OF
TRACT 1, BLOCK 5 OF THE UNRECORDED PLAT OF FRUITDALE ON
THE SOUND), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 6. AND SAID LINE PRODUCED 280 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SOUND VIEW PLACE EXTENDED SOUTHWESTERLY;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID EXTENDED SOUND MEW PLACE
LINE 50 FEET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EXTENDED SOUTHWESTERLY
LINE OF LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 TO
THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 6
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED STREET ADJOINING
WHICH ATTACHED THERETO BY OPERATION OF LAW.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON
BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY
FOR
DANA. KNU TSON
IN SW1/4 OF NE1/4 AND NW1/4 OF SEI/4
SECTION 13, T.27 N.) R.3 E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 2007
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
6-n
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
l7b-o Sm�vlewTL
0
n-
I I
m
Z
z
0
F-
0
U
Ld
0
z
x
0
CORY
01
.p �
00
C/)
z
m
C 0
0-
0c)
NORTH
EX. HOUSE
GARAGE ADDITION
OWNER: DENNIS & LORNA LOWENTHAL
ADDRESS: 18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA 98020
PARCEL #: 004346001006-00
LOT AREA = 15,500 SQ FT
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE = 3S37 SQ FT (22
GARAGE/SHOP = 877 SO FT
310.00'
HEIGHT CALCULATION GARAGE
F=54'
G=53.5'
H=50.5'
AVERAGE GRADE =S2.19'
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED GARAGE (15')= 67.19'
ACTUAL GARAGE HEIGHT = 66'
I
DATUM POINT +100'(ACTUAL=65.48')
TOP OF STORM SEWER GRATE
-n�
Ld
Ld
m
n,
z
03
<
cn
-
Q0
(0
00
1--
-lift, 0
10 20
cj 0c) I
Lc)
ER=63.0'
20'
m
m
0 U
In
3:
0
u�
0
\N�
PROPERTY INFORMATION
OWNERS: LORNA & DENNIS LOWENTHAL
18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA 98020
TAX ID #: 00434600100600
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
LOT SIZE/AREA : 15,500 SQ FT
ACTUAL NEW LOT COVERAGE: 3537 sq ft (22%)
NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE
PROPOSED NEW SO FT : 70 SO FT UNHEATED GARAGE SO FT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
NO CHANCE TO EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFA
NEW HOUSE/GARAGE ROOF FOOTPRINT: �-�155 SO FT
DRIVEWAY: 2017 SO FT
TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 6172 SO FT
CONTACT 1,,il'�-FORMATION
DESIGNER:
MARCI BRYANT
BRYANT & COMPANY
P.O. BOX 99042
SEATTLE, WA 98139
206.954.0712
ENGINEER:
DAN SAY
SWENSON SAY FAGET
2124 3RD AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98121
206.956.3711
Zone K�—))- Corner �J FlagjJ
S�tbacks Reallired Actual
Front L/0
Sides I cc> 0 0
Rear
Other
Height
APP OVED BY. P1 - ANNING
APPROVED'UY ENGINEERING
Data I Ih Lf ho
46 "FM TO fv9P"vZ0 etA%VDlKN-
PMHI-r at-02'w-k 0,7qs F00- Pa�t-
BRYANT & COMPANY
3221 39TH AVENUE WEST
P.O. BOX 99042
SEATTLE, WA
98199
P. 206.954.0712
F. 206.352.2427
vmcrcibryont@)msn.com
LOWENTHAL RESIDENCE
NEW RESIDENCE
18720 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA
98020
P. 425.672.9640
JOB NUMBER: 0908
DATE DRAWN: 10-20-10
DATE REVISED:
DATE REVISED:
DATE REVISED:
DATE REVISED:
DRAWN BY: M. BRYANT
SHEET DRAWINGS:
COVER SHEET
SITE PLAN
CT FY c' E I, -
SHEET NUMBER:
j