22706 95TH PL W.PDFiiiiii iiiiii
9370
22706 95TH PL W
ADDRESS: Xc�? q6- J�k7 C" ZZ2
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL #:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE) #:
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: El Conditional Waiver
Xtudy Required Waiver
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: F1 Conditional Waiver
F] Study Required Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORD FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER — list permit #'s):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
LOT:
BL CK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LATEMPOST'sTormsUana's Street File Checklist 5-14-08.doc
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
=FILE I
Name:
Date:
s�
Site Addres . !D a - S?-� R\ - W
Plan Check #: 3tW-4 — (D-777CO
Project Description: NeAZ S' 'qlb-�Ay cEa�\c/enc:.e-.
Reduced Site Plan Provided:O/ NO)
Zoning-
Map Page:
0
Corner Lot: (YES (q
Flag no
Lot: (YES
Critical Areas Determination #: ",N-;10c)G=C Qq
Study Required Wa�-7- -&rd A r�� -> C-c4ec V-
COC\C&A
waiver
\1J
SEPA Determination: 0
+Ie, *cme- o--P
Exempt -�,\Nb.�
Wor. Cl/ CC� ,,Cl 11
El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
end tbacks
Require
Street: (,
Side:
Side: n -�NRear-
'6,
64) Ism.,
A ctu.31 Setback5
Street:
L
Side: (A,) 1.5,5176
Side:
r:
Detached Structures: No., e- -z�,oco,
Rockeries: a-e-
Fences/Trellises: Co / ced.&r J;eAor'
Bay windows/Projecti Modulation: Ufpec- ovev- \Imc--er- -Qlcoc- oc\ SoAeir-y\ s'�cje-,X
flcoc- c(ec. nork�ern e,,de -P ree,�clence- t4neovered -lpro'-k e4'y
Stairs/Deck:
Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation: +
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height: q. r
Other
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
LotArea: 0 11 4
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed:
Lot Coverage Calculati,04. ""L- "A-, dm�' C�01 47
4 s�r�rs over- 3� %, Vol
ADU Created: (YES
Subdivision:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
Comments
rf�r FCDc, 1G-';)L0- OVO, #Artcc,,,-,-d 4 -\e,)cAo TA,, o P, ..'y lix-o'yx� 1,6
*"\
Irz�&,e iyll
e. Ztl' e-tsk
Z0. &3
FA
Plan Revie
Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doC
#P20
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: 64yV
.Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetation)
1.. Site Address/Location: - Z2704 tY5+4 3>L W054 )5-bm 0AIAS %,A/.4 9180 Zo
2 Pr operty TaxAccount Number: .47et�� IDID 54450000quo-0
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 182. scg. -F"4.
/7,
4. Is this site currently developed? _Zyes; — no.
If yes; how, is -site developed? 5 im 5 �FA*mjly' Resi DEWCE
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
site.'
..Flit 4ess than, elevation ch�nge over entire
es giv.site i.generally Jess than. 15 % -(a. vertical. -of.:10 ,over a horizontal'
nse� - -f eet
dist4o6e.of ��feet).,
f 'more than 15% and less than 30 . % (a vertical of 1. -feet
._$Ppes pr
rise 0
over, a, of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades.of greater than 30% present on site (a verticatrise of .10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less thari 334eei)*.'
Other (pleaseZescribe):,. .
6. Site contains areas of fox�
year-round standing App
water;
7. �Siie contai:n§ git '"'A Deji&,
; + ppr=
- - ------- For City Staff Use 0�ly P o
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? KI 0 vie, V-r_ VI
2. SiteisZoned?. F-6—,6
3. . SCS mapped soil type(s)? (0`A1c1e*wo04-Lhn06LV1 land COmQlf& �'s Is "lop
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site?. LA 9A-?— M ap_-- i n ct I. C-0
fjlro,�im Ina-7-ay'd ar:S__a, w viovtyi-24 j?Qy110Y1 Df �Y_VP-f'_�J2� kf?XH�
5. Site within designated earth. subsidence landslide hazard area� MD.
C-5 to &, C4-D ei oyl h 01
/qoo-j- 6wpc, -2-'bETERMINATION yl
co VC., —STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
01t-T * --\ I /
/, - : 'A /I r --n f
,4C. J%91
*#P20
City. of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425..771.0210
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical'Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any perton. preparing a'Development,
Permit Application.for the City of Edmonds prior to
..his/her subinittal of the applicati *on to the City.:_
The purpose of the Checklist is to - efiable. City, itafflo
determine whether any potential C riocal Areas -ore,
or
may -be, present on Ithe'subject property. ne jri��:
needed .16 complete . the Checklist should -'be - easily
a*1akkp fromobservatioris of the site, or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas kiverN
pl:n r
surveys),
FEB 2 4 2006
DateReceived:
City Receipt #:- Q 'R �;? qk
Critical Areas File #: ;,D Oto - 0 Q'Z- 0
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or Ins/her authorized representative,
must'fill out the checklist. sip and date it; and subntit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
pre�ursory . site visit, and make: -a determination of the
subgdquent steps necessary to complete a development
permit, application.
Please submi a vicinit
t vi -y.ma --alon COPY
__p- qg with*
r 77 #14 signed
of this form to assist City- staiT in finding and loixting ihe.
specific piecc-,of prbptrty.de4ch1)ed,�hdii orm...
s f In
addition, Jhe ;Appli shall, �..include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topo 111W , *etC.) or
grap4y, 1 , I
"staff
stqdie�sin'.Oqj��tion 6 Assistant
in compl6&jti6ir�i , miiWy '. asessment of the site.
-he undersigned applicari� and his&erlits heirs, and assigns, 'in cons"ideration on me processing of idie application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from. and �al . Lidarna, reasonable
''.Any ges,A incidding
;ttorney's fees, aiiimg`.'fi6K infrad-iii'on based in or_par upon 'false, misleading, inaccurate or
any. acti Ft
y the applicaq—t'si's, /fiedit's" age,-n,,ts'
incomplete info�mitidfi-fiAHN4 V or employees.
iul 4
By my signature, I certify -th7at d ex hbifs"herewith are true and,correct to the best
an . I I r .4 --1, -
-knowledge and *-00tion-bri the-beWt6f ",&h*t6N
S GNATURE OF APPUCANT/AGENt CL, DAM
t . i,
V
Pro!perty.own'er's Authoriza on
�'By-mY sigog�mci�l.cerfify,that,!Uve.authofi . zed -theiabove.Applicant/Agent to apply -for-theso
Jed land use 'application
and grant mypermission for the pubIiq,,Qfficii1s.,A;i thee �stafr of the Citv:of Edmonds to'enter.the subject or the
property f
of in.
s
purposes 'pection an postm
,g attendant to �#,�pplication.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
Owner/Applicsintia,
_44—EE" A
Narn�
4 _9 5-+,+; 1 PL Wes r
Street Add=
App.Hcant Rep,resentative:
Name
Street Address
Ebmcwbs 96o2to
lity State Zip City State Zip.
Telephone:C2=� _IX90D Telephone:
Enidil address (optional): Email Address (optional):.
CITY OF EDMONDS 0
CRITICAL AREAS'RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 22706 95 th Place West Tax Acct. Number: 00544300009100
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CA-2006-0020
Applicant: Kyle A. Kragseth Owner: Kyle A. Kragseth
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-2006-0020)
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain or be
adjacent to critical areas, including Erosion Hazard Areas and a Landslide Hazard Area
pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
GENERAL CRITIcAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject
property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any
potential impacts resulting from your specific, development proposal. If a specific development
proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a
mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and
delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to
complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific
development application.
• Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are
listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of
critical areas (see below).
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined
in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an
approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning
Division for more information.
General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110
through 23.40.140.
-STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area.
Erosion Hazard areas include Ald erwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or
greater. among others.
Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A.
In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the
Geologically Hazardous Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the
director's discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in
compliance with the requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required.
0
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area.
Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer or other qualified professional.
Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. Please review
attached map — it appears that a slope of approximately 60% is on/adjacent to the property.
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).
0 . Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
In additionto the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC
23.80.050.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer.
The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
The buffer can be reduced to a minimum often (10) feet (with an additional 15' building
setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in
ECDC 23.80.050).. The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060.
In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the
design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If
you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed
activity, please contact a Planner for more infor mation.
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.
Name, Title U Signature Date
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on
the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
2
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
I
I
I
Serving the Pacific -Vorthwest Since 1981
May 20, 2013
Project No. KE130134A
Maston Properties
2020 Maltby Road, Suite 7
PMB 116
Bothell, Washington 98021
Attention: Mr. Rick Bynum
Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Geotechnical Engineering Report
22706 95" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Bynum:
We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above -referenced report. This report
summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical
engineering studies and offers recommendations for the.preliminary design and development of
the proposed project. Our recommendations are preliminary in that construction details have
not been finalized at the time of this report.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations
presented in this report will aid in the successful -completion of your project. If you should
have any questions or if w e can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
BUM
KE130134A2
Projects\20130134\KE\WP
RESUB
MAY 2 4 2013
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
Kirkland
425-827-7701
Everett.
425-259-0522
WWW.aesgeo.coni
Tacoma
253-722-2992
i�eotechn icaCEngineei-ing
'Water Resources
Env iron men ta C-Assessmen ts
. andRe-rne&ation
SustainabCe Devecoyment Services
i�eoCqgic -Assessments
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Serving the Pac�fic -Vorthwest Since i0i
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Geotechnical Engineering Report
MASTON PROPERTIES
EDMONDSLOT
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for
Maston Properties
Project No. KE130134A
May 20, 2013
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION9 GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
MASTON PROPERTIES
EDMONDS LOT
Edmonds, Washington
Preparedfor:
Maston Properties
2020 Maltby Road, Suite 7
PMB 116
Bothell, Washington 98021
Prepared by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
911 5t' Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
425-827-7701
Fax: 425-827-5424
May 20, 2013
Project No. KE130134A
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
1. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) subsurface
exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for Maston Properties'
Edmonds Lot, located at 22706 9511 Place West in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The site
boundaries, topographic contours, the proposed building area, and the approximate locations of
the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Exploration Plan,"
Figure 2.
Previous work conducted by AESI at the site included a steep slope hazard evaluation
conducted for a previous owner of the property in 2006. Subsurface exploration conducted at
the time of our previous study consisted of three backhoe-excavated exploration pits in the
western and north -central portion of the site. The findings of our previous study were
documented in our report titled "Steep Slope Evaluation, Kragseth Short Plat, 22706 95" Place
West, Edmonds, Washington," prepared for Mr. Kyle Kragseth, dated July 21, 2006.
The recommendations in this report are considered to be preliminary because construction
details were not finalized at the time of this study. Once development plans are substantially
complete, the conclusions and recommendations in this report should be reviewed and
modified, or verified, as appropriate.
1. 1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the preliminary design
and development of the subject project. Our study included a review of available geologic
literature, excavating a series of exploration pits, and performing geologic studies to assess the
type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow
ground water conditions. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to assess the
type of suitable foundations, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, temporary cut slope
recommendations, anticipated settlements, basement/retaining wall lateral pressures, floor
support recommendations, and drainage recommendations. This report summarizes our
current fieldwork and offers development recommendations based on our present
understanding of the project.
1.2 Authorization
Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Rick Bynum of Maston
Properties. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated March
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page I
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
22, 2013. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Maston Properties, and their
agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and
budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was
prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site and Project Descriptio
The 'subject site consists of a rectangular -shaped parcel located at 22706 95 1h Place West in
Edmonds, Washington. Review of Snohomish County Tax Assessor records indicates that the
area of the site is 0.4 acres. The location of the subject site is shown on the "Vicinity Map,"
Figure 1. At the time of our previous, July 2006 study, a single-family home was located on
the parcel. The home and associated concrete flatwork has since been demolished and the site
is currently vacant. The area of the former home consists of a shallow depression and is
currently vegetated by field grasses. The remainder of the site is vegetated by field grasses
with scattered, large coniferous trees and some areas of brush. The topography of the property
is generally flat to gently sloping, except along its northwestern part and north -central margin
where the toe of a moderately steep to steep slope extends onto the site from the adjoining
property to the north. As depicted on Figure 2, the inclination of this slope ranges from
approximately 20 to 60 percent over a maximum height of approximately 22 feet. The
majority of this slope is located off -site.
Our understanding of current plans is based on our conversations with Mr. Rick Bynum of
Maston Properties. It is our understanding that project plans include construction of a new
single-family home in the eastern portion of the site, in approximately the same area as the
former home. The project plans also include subdividing the existing parcel into two separate
lots. The new home would be located in the eastern lot. The project does not include any
immediate plans for development of the western lot. The approximate locations of the
proposed lot boundaries and building footprint are shown on Figure 2.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Three exploration pits were excavated at the time of our 2006 study as part of our previous
slope hazard evaluation. The approximate locations of these exploration pits, identified as
exploration pits EP-1 through EP-3, are depicted on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2.
Three additional exploration pits were excavated in the area of the proposed home as part of
our current study. The locations of these explorations, identified as exploration pits EP-IA
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 2
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions.
through EP-3A, are also depicted on Figure 2. The various types of sediments, as well as the
depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs
presented in Appendix A. Copies of the logs generated for the explorations conducted for both
our current and previous studies have been included in Appendix A. The depths indicated on
the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types
in the field.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the
exploration pits completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of the
explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of
exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field
explorations is necessary. Due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of
topography by past grading and/or filling, subsurface conditions may vary outside of the areas
of the explorations. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may
not become fully evident until construction. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed
at the time of construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this
report and make appropriate changes.
3.1 Exploration Pits
The exploration pits were excavated with a small, track -mounted excavator. The pits permitted
direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration
pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineering geologist from our firm.
Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and
testing, as necessary.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the explorations completed for this
study, our visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature. As
shown on the exploration logs, the exploration pits generally encountered granular glacial
sediments with variable density and variable quantities of silt. The following section presents
more detailed subsurface information organized from the youngest to the oldest sediment types.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Fill
Although no fill soils were encountered in any of our explorations, it is likely that some areas
of fill underlie portions of the site. Areas likely to contain fill include utility trenches and the
area immediately surrounding the former building.
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 3
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
Topsoil
A surficial, organic sod/topsoil layer was encountered at the locations of exploration pits
EP-lA and EP-2A. The sod/topsoil layer was approximately 6 inches thick. Because of its
relatively loose condition and high organic content, the topsoil layer is not considered suitable
for foundation support or for use in a structural fill.
Vashon Lodgement Till
Sediments encountered in exploration pits EP-1 through EP-3, excavated at the time of our
2006 study, generally consisted of medium dense sand with moderate to high silt content,
variable quantities of gravel, and scattered cobbles and boulders. These sediments became
dense below depths of' approximately 5 to 6 feet. We interpret these sediments to be
representative of Vashon lodgement till. Vashon lodgement till consists of sediments that were
deposited directly from basal, debris -laden glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
Glaciation, approximately 12,500 to 15,000 years ago. The high relative density characteristic
of the Vashon lodgement till is due to its consolidation by the massive weight of the glacial ice
from which it was deposited. The reduced density observed within approximately 5 to 6 feet
of the ground surface is interpreted to be due to weathering. At the locations of exploration
pits EP-1 through EP-3, the lodgement till extended beyond the maximum depths explored of
approximately 9 to 11.5 feet. Exploration pits EP-1 through EP-3 were excavated in
moderately steep to steeply sloping areas in the north -central and western portions of the site.
Vashon Advance Outwash
Sediments encountered below the sod/topsoil layer at the locations of exploration pits EP-lA
and EP-2A, and directly below the ground surface in exploration pit EP-3A, generally
consisted of loose to medium dense, tan, silty sand with gravel. These sediments were
underlain at depths ranging from approximately 2 to 3.5 feet by dense, gray sand with gravel
and scattered cobbles and boulders. We interpret these sediments to be representative of
Vashon advance outwash. The Vashon advance outwash was deposited by meltwater streams
that emanated from the advancing glacial ice during Vashon time. The high relative density of
the lower portion of the advance outwash sediments is due to their consolidation by the massive
weight of the glacial ice that overran these sediments subsequent to their deposition. The
reduced density observed in the upper portion of the advance outwash is interpreted to be due
to weathering. At the locations of exploration pits EMA through EP-3A, the advance
outwash extended beyond the maximum depths explored of approximately 2.5 to 8.0 feet.
Exploration pits EMA through EP-3A are all located in the area of the proposed house.
Exploration pit EP-3A was located inside the footprint of the former home.
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 4
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
Review of the regional geologic map titled Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area,
Central Puget Lowland, Washington prepared by Booth, Cox, Troost, and Shimel for the
Seattle -Area Geologic Mapping Program, University of Washington (2004) indicates that the
site is located at the mapped location of the boundary between the Vashon lodgement till and
the underlying Vashon advance outwash. Our interpretation of the sediments encountered in
our explorations is in general agreement with the regional geologic map.
4.2 Hydrology
Ground water seepage was not encountered in any of the exploration pits excavated for our
study. It should be noted that the occurrence and level of ground water seepage at the site may
vary in response to such factors as changes in season, precipitation, and site use.
k"
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEIWP Page 5
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and
II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
IThe following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and
shallow ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein.
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these
events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as
evidenced by the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event; the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; and the 1965,
6.5-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region
during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake
return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within
a given 20-year period.
Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed
project is discussed below.
5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture
The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the South Whidbey Island Fault Zone
(SWIFZ), located approximately 4 to 5 miles northeast of the site. A 2005 study by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) (Sherrod et al., 2005, Holocene Fault Scarps and Shallow
Magnetic Anomalies Along the Southern Whidbey Island Fault Zone near Woodinville,
Washington, Open -File Report 2005-1136, March 2005) reported that "strong" evidence of
prehistoric earthquake activity has been observed along two fault strands thought to be part of
the southeastward extension of the SWIFZ. The study suggests as many as nine earthquake
events along the SWIFZ may have occurred within the last 16,400 years. The recognition of
this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited with the studies still
ongoing. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown,
although it is hypothesized to be in excess of one thousand years. Due to the suspected long
recurrence interval for this fault zone, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to
be low during the expected life of the proposed structure.
5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides
It is our opinion that the risk of damage to the proposed structure by seismically induced
landslides is low, provided the recommendations in this report are properly followed.
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEi WP Page 6
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and E��
Landslide hazards are further discussed in the "Landslide Hazards and Mitigations" section of
this report.
5.3 Liquefaction
It is our opinion that the risk of damage to the proposed structure by liquefaction is low due to
the high relative density of the underlying sediments, and the lack of adverse ground water
conditions. No mitigation of liquefaction hazards is recommended for the project.
5.4 Ground Motion
Structural design of the proposed building should follow 2009 International Building Code
(IBC) standards using Site Class "D" as defined in Table 1613.5.2. The 2009 IBC seismic
design parameters for short period (Ss) and I -second period (Si) spectral acceleration values
were determined from the latitude and longitude of the project site using the USGS National
Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website'. These values are based on Site Class "B". Based
on the more current 2002 data, the USGS website interpolated ground motions at the project
site to be 1. 198g and 0.419g for building periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds, respectively, with a 2
percent chance of exceedance in 50 years. These values correspond to site coefficients
Fa = 1.021 and F,, = 1.581, and a peak horizontal acceleration of 0.33g. The F., F,, and peak
horizontal acceleration values have been corrected for Site Class "D" in accordance with the
IBC.
6..0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
As previously discussed, the toe of a steep slope located on the adjoining property to the north
extends into the north -central portion of the site. The maximum inclination of this slope is
approximately 60 percent over a maximum height of approximately 22 feet. Chapter 23.80 of
the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) defines "Landslide Hazard Area" as "any area with a
slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet." Consequently, the
steep slope that extends into the north -central portion of the site classifies as a Landslide
Hazard Area under the EMC. The portion of the slope exceeding 40 percent is indicated as the
hatched area on the topographic site plan prepared by Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc.
(Figure 2). The EMC indicates that a minimum buffer "equal to the height of the slope
existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater" shall be established from all
edges of Landslide Hazard Areas. However, the code allows the buffer to be reduced to a
minimum of 10 feet when a qualified professional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City
director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent
developments and uses, and the subject critical area.
' http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 120130134WE1 WP Page 7
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and ���
Based on our field reconnaissance during our visit to the site, the subsurface conditions
observed in our explorations, and review of the regional geologic map, the following site
characteristics were identified:
• The height and inclination of the steep (>40 percent) slope that extends into the north -
central portion of the site classifies it as a Landslide Hazard Area.
• The Vashon lodgement till and advance outwash sediments underlying the site exhibit a
dense, glacially consolidated condition.
No seeps or evidence of ground water was observed within the maximum depths
explored.
0 No indications of historical instability were observed.
At its closest point, the footprint of -the proposed house lies approximately 20 feet from the toe
of this slope. Based on the observed site characteristics and the proposed building setback, it is
our opinion that the risk of damage to the proposed structure by landsliding is low provided the
recommendations in this report are properly followed. Provided that these recommendations
are properly followed, it is also our opinion that the project will not increase the risk of
landslide -related damage to off -site structures and properties under either static or seismic
conditions. We also recommend that a minimum non -disturbance buffer of 10 feet be
maintained from the edges of the portion of the Landslide Hazard Area.
7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
The lodgement till and weathered advance outwash sediments contain a high percentage of silt
and fine'sand and are sensitive to erosion, particularly in the more steeply sloping portions of
the site. The underlying unweathered advance outwash sediments are not considered sensitive
to erosion from sheet flow, but are highly sensitive to erosion if exposed to concentrated
runoff. Review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey of Snohomish County, indicates that soils mapped
for the subject site consist of Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 15 percent. The NRCS
erosion hazard for this soil type is considered slight and therefore the site is not considered to
lie within an Erosion Hazard Area under the EMC.
In order to control erosion and reduce the amount of sediment transport off the site during
construction, the following recommendations should be followed.
I
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and ���
1. Properly embedded silt fencing should be placed around the lower perimeter of the
cleared area(s). The fencing should be periodically inspected and maintained, as
necessary, to ensure proper function.
2. The construction entrance should be stabilized with gravel pads to reduce tracking
sediment off -site.
3. If possible, construction should proceed during the drier periods of the year.
4. Areas stripped of vegetation during construction should be mulched and hydroseeded,
replanted as soon as possible, or otherwise protected. During winter construction,
hydroseeded areas should be covered with clear plastic to facilitate grass growth.
5. If excavated soils are to be stockpiled on the site for reuse, measures should be taken to
reduce the potential for erosion from the stockpile. These could include, but are not
limited to, limiting stockpiled soil to the flatter areas of the site, covering stockpiles
with plastic sheeting, and the use of straw bales/silt fences around pile perimeters.
In our opinion, with the use of properly implemented erosion control best management
practices, such as those described above, the erosion hazards at the site can be successfully
mitigated.
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0 INTRODUCTION
Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the
proposed development provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed.
The foundation bearing stratum is relatively shallow and conventional spread footing
foundations may be utilized. Consequently, foundations bearing on either the medium dense to
dense, natural glacial sediments or on structural fill placed over these sediments are capable of
providing suitable building support.
9.0 SITE PREPARATION
9.1 Clearing and Stripping
Site preparation of the planned building area should include removal of all trees, brush, debris,
and any other deleterious materials. These unsuitable materials should be properly disposed of
off -site. Additionally, all organic topsoil within the proposed building area, or areas to receive
structural fill should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial
soils exist due to grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance
and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Any existing fill soils
below footing areas should be stripped down to the underlying, medium dense to dense natural
sediments. These sediments were encountered in our explorations at depths of approximately
2 to 3.5 feet but can vary locally, particularly in the vicinity of the former residence and
associated buried utilities.
9.2 Temporary and Permanent Slopes
In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and
should be determined during construction based on the local conditions encountered at that
time. For planning purposes, we anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in areas of
existing fill or in the loose to medium dense natural glacial sediments can be made at a
maximum slope of 1.5H:lV (Horizontal: Vertical). Temporary cut slopes within the dense
advance outwash or lodgement till sediments can be planned up to a 1 H: 1 V inclination. Flatter
inclinations may be recommended in areas of seepage. As is typical with earthwork
operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in
the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times.
L�
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 10
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
Permanent cut and structural fill slopes should not exceed an inclination of 2H: lV. Permanent
non-structural landscape fill should not exceed a 311: 1 V inclination.
9.3 Site Disturbance
The lodgement till and weathered advance outwash sediments contain a high percentage of
fine-grained material, which makes them moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when
wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the
underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed
and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If crushed rock is considered for the access
and staging areas, it should be underlain by stabilization fabric (such as Mirafi 50OX or
approved equivalent) to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the
rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction
equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least
10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near -
surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the
contractor in the field. Crushed rock used for access and staging areas should be of at least
2-inch size.
10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
Placement of structural fill may be necessary to establish desired grades in some areas. All
references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, and placement
and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is
specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used.
10.1 Subgrade Compaction
After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted
to a firm and unyielding condition. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, suitable
recompaction may be difficult or impossible to attain and should probably not be attempted. In
lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry
spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the
exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an
engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining
layer by silt migration from below.
After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free -draining rock
course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades.
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects1201301341KEMP Page 11
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
10.2 Structural Fill Compaction
Structural fill is defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in
maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to at least 95 percent of the
modified Proctor maximum dry density using American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM):D 1557 as the standard. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted in
accordance with applicable municipal codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill
should extend horizontally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond footings or pavement edges
before sloping down at an angle no steeper than 211: 1V. Fill slopes should either be overbuilt
and trimmed back to final grade or surface -compacted to the specified density.
10.3 Moisture -Sensitive Fill
Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than No. 200 sieve) is greater than
approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered
moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to
favorable dry weather conditions. The on -site sediments below the root zone are suitable for
use as structural fill; however, the lodgement till and weathered advance outwash sediments
contain significant amounts of silt and are considered highly moisture -sensitive. If the
moisture content of these sediments is elevated at the time of construction,
moisture -conditioning would be recommended prior to their use as structural fill. Such
moisture -conditioning could consist of spreading out and aerating the soil out during periods of
warm, dry weather. The unweathered advance outwash sediments generally contain trace
quantities of fine-grained materials and are not considered moisture -sensitive.
Construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are very moist or wet can cause
considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot
be attained, a select import or on -site material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or
sand should be used. Free -draining fill consists of non -organic soil with the amount of fine-
grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve
fraction. The on -site, unweathered advance outwash sediments likely meet these criteria.
10.4 Structural Fill Testing
The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their
use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material at least 3 business days
in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard.
A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in -
place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects t201301341KD WP Page 12
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
progresses and any problem' areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand
that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or
acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a
suitable monitoring and testing frequency.
I11.0 FOUNDATIONS
1 11. 1 Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure
I
I
Spread footings may be used for building support when founded either directly on the medium
dense to dense, natural glacial sediments, or on structural fill placed over these materials.
Medium dense to dense natural sediments suitable for foundation support were encountered in
our explorations at depths of approximately 2 to 3.5 feet but may be locally deeper,
particularly in the vicinity of the former residence and buried utilities. For footings founded
either directly upon the medium dense to dense glacial sediments, or on structural fill as
described above, we recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square
foot (pso be used for design purposes, including both dead and live loads. We recommend
that the footing subgrade be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition prior to footing
placement. An increase in the allowable bearing pressure of one-third may be used for short-
term wind or seismic loading. If structural fill is placed below footing areas, the structural fill
should extend horizontally beyond the footing edges a distance equal to or greater than the
thickness of the fill.
11.2 Footing Depths
Perimeter footings for the proposed building should be buried a minimum of 18 inches into the
surrounding soil for frost protection. No minimum burial depth is required for interior
footings; however, all footings must penetrate to the prescribed stratum, and no footings
should be founded in or above loose, o.rganic, or existing fill soils.
11.3 Footings Adjacent to Cuts
The area bounded by I ines extending downward at 1 H: 1 V from any footing must not intersect
another footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of
ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.511:1V line extending down from any footing must not
daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus footings
should not be placed near the edges of steps or cuts in the bearing soils.
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE]30134A2 - Projects1201301341KEMP Page 13
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
11.4 Footing Settlement
Anticipated settlement of footings founded as described above should be on the order of 1 inch
or less. However, disturbed soil not removed from footing excavations prior to footing
placement could result in increased settlements.
11.5 Footing Subgrade Bearing Verification
All footing areas should be observed by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the
exposed soils can support the design foundation bearing capacity and that construction
conforms with the recommendations in this report. Foundation bearing verification may also
be, required by the governing municipality.
11.6 Foundation Drainage
Perimeter footing drains should be provided as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations"
section of this report.
1 12.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES
All backfill behind walls or around foundations should be placed following our
recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally
backfilled walls, which are free to yield laterally at least 0. 1 percent of their height, may be
designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained,
horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid
of 55 pcf. Walls that retain sloping backfill at a maximum angle of 50 percent should be
designed for 45 pcf for yielding conditions and 65 pcf for restrained conditions. If parking
areas or driveways are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be
added to the wall height in determining lateral design forces.
12.1 Wall Backfill
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill
consisting of either the on -site glacial sediments or imported sand and gravel compacted to
90 to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended, as
this will increase the pressure acting on the walls. A lower compaction may result in
unacceptable settlement behind the walls. Thus, the compaction level is critical and must be
Itested by our firm during placement.
I
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects1201301341KEMP Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
12.2 Wall Drainage
It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop
against the walls. This would involve installation of a minimum 1-foot-wide blanket drain for
the full wall height using imported, washed gravel against the walls.
12.3 Passive Resistance and Friction Factor
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the natural, medium dense
to dense glacial sediments or supporting structural fill soils, or by "passive" earth pressure
acting on the buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with
compacted structural fill to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the
following design parameters:
• Passive equivalent fluid = 250 pcf
• Coefficient of friction = 0.30
The above values are allowable.
12.4 Seismic Surcharge
As required by the 2009 IBC, retaining wall design should include a seismic surcharge
pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. Considering the site
soils and the, calculated peak horizontal acceleration of 0.33g, we recommend a seismic
surcharge pressure of 1 1H and 14H psf where H is the wall height in feet for the active and
at -rest loading conditions, respectively. The seismic surcharge should be modeled as a
rectangular distribution with the resultant applied at the midpoint of the wall.
13.0 FLOOR SUPPORT
Slab -on -grade floors may be constructed either directly on the medium dense to dense natural
sediments, or on structural fill placed over these materials. Areas of the slab subgrade that are
disturbed (loosened) during construction should be recompacted to an unyielding condition
prior to placing the pea gravel, as described below. We recommend that structural fill be
placed below slab -on -grade floors where necessary to raise floor subgrades above the seasonal
high water table.
If moisture intrusion through slab -on -grade floors is to be limited, the floors should be
constructed atop a capillary break consisting of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of washed pea
I
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
gravel or washed crushed rock. The pea gravel/crushed rock should be overlain by a 10-mil
(minimum thickness) plastic vapor retarder.
14.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Portions of the natural glacial sediments encountered in our explorations contained significant
amounts of silt and are considered to be highly moisture -sensitive. Traffic from vehicles,
construction equipment, and even foot traffic across these sediments when they are very moist
or wet will result in disturbance of the otherwise firm stratum. Therefore, prior to site work
and construction, the contractor should be prepared to provide drainage and subgrade
protection, as necessary..
1 14.1 Wall/Foundation Drains
All retaining and perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing
elevation. The drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVQ pipe
surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set
approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the footing, and the drains should be constructed
with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. All retaining walls
should be lined with a minimum, 12-inch-thick, washed gravel blanket provided to within
1 foot of finish grade, and which ties into the footing drain. Roof and surface runoff should
not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid,
tightline drain.
Exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to
achieve surface drainage. Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage
away from the building at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent
to the foundation or within the immediate building area. It is recommended that a gradient of
at least 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter be provided,
except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of 1 percent should be
provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to
the structure. Additionally, pavement subgrades should be crowned to provide drainage
toward catch basins and pavement edges.
1 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops
and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. If significant changes in
grading are made, we recommend that AESI perform a geotectmical review of the plans prior
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 16
I
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Maston Properties Edmonds Lot Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations
to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may
be properly interpreted and implemented in the design.
We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the foundations depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field
in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring
services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us
know, and we will prepare a proposal.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations
will aid in the successful completion of your project.
If you should have any questions, or
require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
4tvAet
moihY Y� P(�t r, E. L. Hg.
PGeologist
Senior Pro�j
G/ST
0'9/��NAU - ?, 03
G. Aaron McMichael, P.E.
Bruce L. Blyton, P.E.
Associate Engineer
Senior Principal Engineer
Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan
Appendix A: Exploration Logs
I
I
May 20, 2013 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
TJP11d - KE130134A2 - Projects 1201301341KEI WP Page 17
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. MT-
.- M-I
471"T
.2
> NOTE BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORIGINAL MAY FEET
REFERENCE: USGS TOPOI REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETATION.
S2
FIGURE 1
2 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. VICINITY MAP
DATE 5/13
w7m MASTON PROPERTIES - EDMONDS LOT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJ. NO. KE130134A
FENCE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXPLORATION PIT
2006 STUDY - TYP
/ A, IEP ; -2
-8 B
J� CHAN,
LM FENOt
Ar Ar
EP-3
_j -
V)
ow -31112 07*
7.5 13SBL
cHiIN im FEWCE
-------------
7,
"28
720
2
WOOD FENCE
P-1
EP
FOR A
VC
so
�OR�ER '_
A EP-3A
R�m= 1.42
CON-4-7E r-oRmER IE(JNV) 716.42(12- PVC)
qE
lE(S)_j716_32(12- PV,)
APPROXIMATE
FF=714.87
135 1
FOOTPRINT OF 1351 . SQ. F7
PROPOSED Tr
--HOME
00
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
A
OF EXPLORATION PIT AL
CURRENT STUDY - TYP EP 2A
J40t1SE
OEMO ARFA
CONCRETE
TRIC
ML7ER
NCE
__6!_wG'Gb FENCE 5' WOOD
raw V49 Am xw�
Aw A� OP AWA W
ON
5.5' WOOD FENCE
E
fir We'AV=
Aw fin"
J' CHAIN LINK FENCE
J—
z
SSW
RhV�712,59
IE�704,14(C&VT
OF CNANNEL)
BOTH 8* CONC
PtPE
jw�mw
-14-
N
P Vd-F
-
SD
� Do
m
-
--
U
A
x
IE(;V)�706.27(12' PLASI?C)
z
mn
Z(S)=706.22(12' PLAS77C)
0 10 20
FEET
REFERENCE: PACIFIC GEOMATIC SERVICES, INC., 2006
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
FIGURE 2
v
MASTON PROPERTIES - EDMONDS LOT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
DATE 5/13
PROJ. NO. KE130134A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
Exploration Logs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
0
':'
Well -graded gravel and
Terms Describing'Relative Density and Consistency
U
[2
LL
2
—
'0
0 -
;0;
GW
gravel with sand, little to
Density S�Pf)blows/foot
U�)
ur-
no fiqes
Very Loose 0 to 4
Coarse-
000,30
0,000
GP
Poorly -graded gravel
>
Co
M >
0 a)
5 U)
Ln
MI
Loose 4 to 10
Grained Soils Medium Dense 10 to 30 Test Symbols
co
—
0 �*
00000
0,000
and gravel vVith sand,
Dense 30 to 50
0
1�
;-
0 C) 0 0 0
little to no fines
Very Dense >50 G = Grain Size
z
0
a 0
2,2,?
C2 M = Moisture Content
)blows/foot
"
Silty gravel and silty
0
Z
c:
LO 0
-0
Consistency SPT A = Atterberg Limits
'cal
C
C
�i
GM
gravel with sand
Very Soft 0 to 2 C = Che
Fine- ml
Q)
0
LL
Soft 2 to 4 DD = Dry Density
Grained Soils Medium Stiff 4 to 8 K Permeability
Q)
-.*
stiff 8 to 15
D
U,
In
Clayey gravel and
Very Stiff 15 to 30
J1
G C
clayey gravel with sand
Hard >30
!2
Component Definitions
r_
sand and
ca
Desc0ptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number
SWIWell-graded
sand with gravel, little
Boulaers Larger than 12"
0
u-
to no fines
Cobbles 3'to 12"
!2 0
.
Ln
Gravel 3" to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
Poorly -graded sand
U)
0 >
C_) D
'A
SP
and sand with gravel,
Coarse Gravel 3" to 3/4"
Fine Gravel 3/4'to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
little to no fines
Sand Na. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
0
2 z
Coarse Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10.(2.00 mm)
E2
Silty sand and
Medium Sand No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm)
C13
Ca
cn
silty sand with
Fine Sand No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
0
0
C
gravel
Silt and Clay Smalldr than No. 200 (0.075 mm)
- EM
SC
Clayey sand and
(3) Estimated Percentage Moisture Content
clayey sand with gravel
Percentage by Dry - Absence of moisture,
Component Weigh dusty, dry to the touch
Trace <5 Slightly Moist - Perceptible
Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt,
ML
silt with sand or gravel
Few 5 to 10 moisture
>
.0
Little 15 to 25 Moist - Damp but no Visible
co
With Non -primary coarse water
Clay of low to medium
constituents: > 15% Very Moist - Water visible but
6
C
ICL
plasticity; silty, sandy, or
Fines content between not free draining
z
U)
M
S E
gravelly clay, lean clay
5% and 15% Wet - Visible free water, usually
vi
rA
= _j
from below water table
En
a-
W -o
cr
Organic clay or silt of low
Symbols
_j
OL
plasticity
Blows/6� or
Sampler portion of 6"
Cement grout
Type
surface seat
Elastic silt, clayey silt, silt
MH
with micaceous or
2.0'00 Sampler TYP-8
10
Split -Spoon Is Description
oon
Bentonile
2
0
:2
diatomaceous fine.sand or
?D
Sampler 3.0"OD Spht-Spoon Sampler
seal
12
silt
(SPT)
Rlterpackwith
Clay of high plasticity,
0
U)
Co 0
C5 0
3.25" CD Split -Spoon Ring Sampler (4)
blank casing
'C3
Ln
CH
sandy or gravelly clay, fat
Bulk samInple
I
3.0'OD Thin -Wall Tube Sampler
z
section
Screened casing
E
:3
clay with sand or gravel
Cincluding Shelby tube)
':::.
or Hydrotip
(9
-1
Grab Sample
'p
With filter pack
11
I / 11
Organic clay or silt of
6
.S;
5
a'
Portion not recovered
End cap
U_
_j
OH
medium to high
I
( )
plasticity
Percentage by dry weight (4) Depth of ground water
(2) Standard
(SPT) PenetrationTest
(ASTM D-1586) Y_ ATD = At time of drilling
a M
Peat, muck and other
(3) a Static water level (date)
In General Accordance with
M —
0
U)
IPT
highly organic soils
Standard Practice for Description Combined USCS symbols used for
0
and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) fines between 5% and 15%
Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and
plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory t6sting'unless presented herein. Visual -manual andlor laboratory classiflicallon
methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide fo� the Unified Soil Classification System.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE Al
I
I
I
I
I']
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1
por 0 a ompleytA§stociated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
This a the e e, red b
'o g i St hpe r' oit'h t h a r rep 'E
read r I e in erpretation. This summary aj�lies only to the location of this trench at the
toge r w t 0 f
"5-
ic locatlo n wit he passage of time. The data presented are
time of excavation . S'b"rf e condi ions may change at this
(D
0
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, dry to moist, light brown to brownish light gray, fine to medium SAND with silt, little
fine to coarse gravel, trace roots.
2
3
4
5
6
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, light brownish gray, partially consolidated, fine to medium SAND with fine gravel and
7
silt.
8
9
10
11
12 -
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11.5 feet
No seeps or sloughing.
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 1
8 2
C,
N Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
< Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
M
co Project No. KE060383A
M Logged by: SST r-_---i r ------ I
(D
0
M Approved by: 5/30106
IL Ld
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2
This lo a he re
t Xrfepared A ipaetd Earth ciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
read tc" is r " t r ' ", or com " t sto te S'
�gethe w9ith' ha e0po elin ecr ation. This summary applies only to the locafiorf of this trench at the
15.
�le
ic
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ions maydchange at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encounte re
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, little
1
silt, trace roots.
2
3
4
5
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, light brownish gray, fine to coarse SAND with fine to coarse gravel, little silt,
6
occasional cobble, partially consolidated.
7
8
9
10
11 —
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet
No seeps or sloughing.
12 —
13 —
14 —
15 —
16 —
17 —
18 —
19 —
ZY
0
N
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Logged by: SST Project No. KE060383A
o
co Approved by:
EL 5/30/06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L 17
I
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3
iR
T�islois arw1q11thheareortXrepaed " A so iated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
t for Tntecr This
:S
CL
.ad ogeth,
H e, 'th repo 'o' �Iete summary gplies only to the location of this trench at the
ic pretation.
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ions may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, dry to moist, light brown, silty fine to medium SAND, few fine to coarse gravel, trace
to few cobbles, occasional boulders.
2
3
4
5
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, gray, fine to medium SAND, little silt, little fine to coarse gravel, consolidated.
6
7
8
9
10
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet
No seeps or sloughing..
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
0
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
co Project No. KE060383A
m
Logged by: SST
Approved by: 5130/06
a.
I
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1 A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
r
This a he e epared by A iated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
log p por
rt 0ith t tE
eist h e tha rep or com� lete7nsiocpretation. This summary agpIles only to the location of this trench at the
read to r' t 0 1
gexcavation
time of i c
S ubsurf e condi ions maydchange at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
0
a simplfication of actual conditions encountere .
DESCRIPTION
Sod / Topsoil
Weathered Vashon Advance Outwash
Loose to medium dense, moist, tan, silty SAND, with gravel, moderately abundant roots (SM).
2
3
Vashon Advance Outwash
4
Dense, moist, gray, SAND, with gravel, trace silt (SW).
5
6
7
8
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8 feet
9 —
No seepage. No caving.
10 —
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Maston Properties - Edmonds Lot
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Project No. KE130134A
Logged by: TJP
Approved by:
5/15/13
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2A
co
F
por
This a the e epared by A iated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) f r the n:med roject and should be
P
Ilog is rt of r
tE
i0th f letelistoecrpretation. This locafion
15L
read r w 1 0 or comF sumTary agplies oinly to th
f getche r of this trench at the
tha eupr i,
time 0 ex aati , S ubs f e condi ions may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
0
a simpification of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Sod / Topsoil
Weathered Vashon Advance Outwash
Loos6 to medium dense, moist, tan to reddish tan, silty SAND, with gravel (SM).
2
Vashon Advance Outwash
3
4
Dense, moist, gray, SAND, with gravel, trace silt; contains scattered cobbles and boulders above -5
feet (SW).
5
6
7
8
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8 feet
9
No seepage. No caving.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Maston Properties - Edmonds Lot
Edmonds, WA
Logged by: TJP Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Approved by:
Project No. KE1 30134A
5/15/13
I
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This a h e epared b
,,ytAsstociated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
por or comf e in erpretation. This summary
r' 0it1h t t hea ' ep only to the location of this trench at the
h tE
d 'too'g t 0 1
7E
eist
r e a e r gplies
ic
time a at n b I e condi ions maydchange at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
of exc r 1Z 0 . Su Sur
0
a simplfication of actual conditions encountere .
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Advance Outwash
Medium dense, moist, tan, silty SAND, with gravel; contains scattered roots (SM).
1
Vashon Advance Outwash
2
Rense, moist, tan, silty SAND, with gravel (SM) - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
�De6i-e,rfi&�st—, gr—ay—, SA—N—D—,w—it—hgravel, trace silt (SW).
3
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 2.5 feet
No seepage. No caving.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15. —
16 —
17
18
19
Maston Properties - Edmonds Lot
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Logged by: TJP Project No. KE130134A
Approved b 5/15/13
Y:
UN H1
PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SEC. 25, T. 27 N.9 R. 3 E.9 W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EX-SSMH
RIM=J76.04
IE=J6744
(CENTER OF CHANNEL)
--- - - - - - - - - - -
6ic
!3p . .......
ELEV:a-J67.8
18
. ........ PRWXM
_�a9al N88 22 3'BEW- 208. ROCIVY -364
x
14"
4768'
x
JO"/- 24' -
r 7.- 7 �-7 7 .2 x
12"
r 7L
UX 24"
/x Qo;;" I -
!��JO"
10" 14
362
2a" . ......... >
12 8. TOR
.......... ...
10 101,
BSBL
/ / 114, � --360--
14
J)
16 2110-
/0" 18"
C) - *.JO
z -3f,�
LOrl 2
4 -354- Cz CD
P.
9,212ISF (GROS�)
L"2 8��Ojl SF (NET)'
CLEARING
8,000 SF
LIMITS
(Tip) TEMA WAR
NST UC71ON
------------ 3515-
7 5' BSBL CONS7RUC7101V
ENTRANCE
PER DETAIL
F
E1.2
14 7 BI
Z
Dr
D�
uu.ju -354-
_T09.27'
N882241"W
7EMPORAR
SIL T TRAP
x TEMPORAR
SWALE
_356 st=ak
SITE TESC & GRAD17VG PLAN
SCALE. 1" 20'
CONS TR UC TION SEQ UENC E`
1. ARRANGE AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. CALL THE ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE (425) 771-0220
EXT.1326) TO ARRANGE FOR MEETING.
2. REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENTA77ON CONTROL.
J. FLAG PROPERTY LINES AND CLEARING LIMITS. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES.
4. INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IF NEEDED BASED UPON EXPOSED SOIL.
5. INSTALL SITE SEDIMENT CONTROL WITH SILT FENCE ALONG THE EDGE OF ANY POINT
WHICH SLOPES TO OFFSITE PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION. DETERMINE IN FIELD.
6. RLTER SOCKS TO BE INSTALLED IN EACH CATCH BASINS DOWNSTREAM AND Wf7HlN THE
CONSTRC77ON AREA PER EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL El.l.
7. ONCE TESC IS IN PLACE, CLEAR AND GRUB DRIVE R1W. CLEAR & GRUB LOT.
8. INSTALL STORM PIPES AND DETENTION SYSTEM.
9. INSTALL FOOTINGS, FOUNDATION & UTILITIES: POWER, WATER SERVICES, SEWER, ETC.
10. COMPLETE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
11. HYDROSEED, MULCH AND PLANT LANDSCAPE AS NEEDED.
12. REMOVE REMAINING TES.C. IMPROVEMENTS AFTER THE SITE HAS PEEN STABILIZED AND
APPROVED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR.
CB1 CID
Ll
lUr
EX-SOC6 sn 51K
q
RIM�=352_06
CID
1E(N)=J4746(I2- PLASTIC)
1E(S)=J4741(12- PLASTIC)
LA-,')ULXF
RIM=J44- 19
IE(N)=JJ9.89(12" PLASTIC)
lE(S)W=JJ9.99(12- PLASTIC)
EX-SSMH
RIM=J42.98
IE=JJZ20 (CENTER OF CHANNEL)
8- CONC PIPES N, S, E, W
CBI
11"A
EX-SDO3
RIM=J261
1E(N)=3)Z6I(12- PVC)
1E(S)=JW51(I2- PVC)
EXC8
GE=354.4'
IE=J50.80(12' NIS)
T.E.S.C. LEGEND
. ENGM EER S GR A D) 7 VG SPECR-YCA -7 YONS
I. S17E SOILS ARE CONSIDERED MOISTURE SENS171VE AND ARE SUSCEP71BLE
TO DISTURBANCE BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, PARTICULARLY DURING
WET WEA IHER THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY
PRECAUTIONS TO LIMIT SURFACE DISTURBANCE AND TO PR07ECT THE S17E
GRADING AREA FROM EXCESSIVE EROSION.
2 AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL VEGETA71ON AND
DELETERIOUS MA IERIAL.
J. AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED. ALL LOOSE OR SOFT
AREAS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED NTH S7RUCTURAL FILL.
4. ALL FILL MATERIALS SHALL BE -FREE OF VEGETA71ON AND DELETERIOUS
MATERIAL AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN ROCKS GREATEI? THAN SIX INCHES IN
5. STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE PLACED IN 6�-8" THICK LOOSE HORIZONTAL
LIFTS AND SPREAD UNIFORMLY AFTER EACH LIFT HAS BEEN PLACED AND
SPREAD EVENLY STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF
95Z OF MAXIMUM DENSITY BY momm PROCTOR TEST (ASTY D-1557-70).
6. NON-SIRUCIURAL FILL MAY BE COMPACTED TO 85-907. PROCTOR.
Z THE SURFACE OF ALL SLOPES SHALL BE COMPACIE9. THIS MAY BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY OVER -BUILDING THE SLOPES, THEN CUT17NG BACK To
FINAL GRADES, OR BY RUNNING THE COMPACTOR OVER THE SLOPE AS EACH
FILL LIFT IS BEING PLACED. ALL SLOPES SHALL BE COMPACTED BY THE END
OF EACH WORKING DAY
8. RELD DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE MADE BY A QUALIFED SOILS ENGINEER.
DEROWAUTS SHALL BE 7AKEN A T OR JUSTBELOW 1YE SURFACE OF -THE
FILL A T A LOCA 17ON AND FREQUENC Y DETERMINED BY IHE SOILS ENGINEER.
WHEN THE SOIL TESTS INDICATE THAT THE DENSITY OF ANY LAYER OF FILL
OR ANY POR17ON THEREOF IS BELOW THE SPECIFIED DEYSITY THE
PAR71CULAR SECTION SHALL BE REWORKED UN71L THE REQUIRED DENSITY
UAC OCrAl nf)TAIArCn
OWNER/CONT'RAC,1-OR IS RESPONSIBLE 9. PUBLIC SIREEIS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING
FOR EROSION CONTRO! AND DRAINAG._F GRADING OPERA 17ONS
Ex-ssmHe
PIM=J5J. 78
1[=J45.JJ(CENhSR
(F CHANNEL)
tO7H 8" CONC
flPE
OCBI CATCH BASIN INSERT
CLEARING LIMITS
MULCH &IOR STRAW MATTING
_CD 00 INTERCEPTOR TRENCH W1 ROCK CHECK DAM &
HAYBALES
PRESERVE NATIVE VEGETATION
IDS INTERCEPTOR DIKE SWALE
PLAS17C COVER
_SF SILT FENCE
TEMPORARY CONSTRVCTION ENTRANCE
20 0 20
f 40
1 inch = 20 ft.
BASIS OF BEAP"G.-
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS
NO'OO'32"E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE
CENTERLINE OF 95TH PL. W. AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT
OF PINECREST PAGE 55, VOLUME 13 OF PLATS,
RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
VER 7YC,4L DA TUM.-
VER71CAL DA77JM IS NAM 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED
ELEVA 77ON FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT ID SC31.
ELEVATION. J67972 FEET
APPLAGfwr -rW�rt
5-raU(_jltAYVAt, r-l%A_ INILA. MaT GG
ecmweeo poyz. -rois Paowazr. &
rjv��-..Ojv,-o P� iu?tr0T6-C4j spjccAjv_ It-4sqr_C;natS
WILA- ae v_vaAlvAm-
UTILJTY CONFLICT NOTE:
CAUTION.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIF)7NG THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND
DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY
POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE @ 1-800-424-5555 AND
THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS
TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES
AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND
ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
CONSULTd.C. MCDONNELL ENGINEERING, PC TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCRON.
10. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR To VERIFY
EARTHWORK QUAN1771ES PRIOR TO BID SUBM17TAL NO REPRESENTATION
IS MADE IN THESE PLANS REGARDING THE CONSTRUC710V SUITABIL17Y OF
ON-Sl7E SOILS OR THE FINAL CUTITILL BALANCE.
GEOTECHNICAL REFERENCE NOTES
1. GEO-TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS HAVE;BEEN PROVIDED BY
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.. IN THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENTS:
A., GEO-TECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT - MAY 20, 2013
B. STEEP SLOPE EVALUATION KRAGSETH SHORT PLAT -
JULY 21, 2005
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE GEO-TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
PROVIDED IN THESE REPORTS. I
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULAR
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF -THE TESC MEASURES
EMPLOYED ON THE CLEARED SITE. �
4. THE GEO-TECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHEDULED INSPECTION & REPORTING ON
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TESC MEASURES AS IMPLEMENTED
BY THE CONTRACTOR ON THIS SITE.
APPRO E GINEERING
Date:
CALL 48 HO URS
BrEFORRE" YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
VICVVTTYMAP
CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY
FOR EROSIONISILTATION COATROL:
IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS TEMPORARY EROSION AND SILTA71ON CONTROL PLAN THAT STORY WATER
RUNOFF BE CONTROLLED AT ALL 17YES TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION AND TO MAINTAIN WA TER QUALITY.
,ANY AND ALL MEASURES NECESSARY TO DO SO SHALL BE EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
I- REGARDLESS OF SITE WEATHER, SOIL OR OTHER CONDIRONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT EROSION DOES NOT OCCUR ON IHE SITE AND THAT
POLLUTED OR SILT -LADEN RUNOFF DOES NOT LEAVE THE S17E OR ENTER INTO ANY CREEK,
STREAM, WEILAND OR WATER BODY ON THE Sff.
2 BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR SELECTING AND IMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE METHODS, "BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES- PIPS), FOR STORM WA TER 7REA WENT AND CONTROL THAT MEET5 THE
REQUIREMENTS OF B07H THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CITY OF
EDMONDS,
3 THE OVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING WATER QUALITY ON THE JOBSITE. PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMEN T OF St TE WORK, THE 0 WNER SHA L L PRO WDE PDS DOCUMEN TA 77ON THA T A
QUALIFIED WATER QUALITY SPECIALIST HAD BEEN RETAINED FOR 771E PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
WA TER QUALITY MONITORING DURING CONSTRUCTION. A CONTACT PERSON, ON CALL 24 HOURS
A DAY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED -FOR RAPID RESPONSE TO WA TER QUALITY EMERGENCIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
4 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING WEATHER FORECASTS AND STORY
AC77WTY AND SHALL SCHEDULE ALL PROJECT AC77VITIES IN AN77CIPA 77ON OF THE WEA 7HER.
5. ALL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR IMPLEMEN77NG BMPs SHALL BE STORED ON S17E
AND SHALL BE IMMEDIA TEL Y AVAILABLE FOR USE. SUCH SUPPLIES AND MA 7ERIALS SHALL
INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, STRA W BALES OR 0 THER MULCHING MA 7ERIAL, SIL T FENCING
AND STAKES, RL 7ER' FABRIC, ETC.
6. DURING AND AFTER RUNOFF PRODUCING STORY EVENTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR ALL
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND SHALL PRIOR177ZE IMPLEMENTA77ON AND MAINTENANCE OF
EROSION AND SILTA77ON CONTROL MEASURES ABOVE ALL OTHERS.
Z CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ASSIGNED STOCKPILE AREAS NTHIN THE DEVELOPEMENT FOR
STORAGE AND HANDLING EXCA VA TED SOILS.
CONIRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO HAW AN ON -CALL CER71RED EROSION SEDIMENT LEAD
(CECSL) IMMEDIA TEL Y AVAILABLE ON-SlIE TO ASSESS COND177ONS IN MAJOR STORY EVENIS
AND WIEN REQUES7ED BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR.
(HMR0S99NG, GM&A NOTES)-
1. CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE. WILL BE SUBJECT TO A WELL ESTABLISHED GROUND COVER THAT
FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE APPROVED CONS7RUCITON PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS.
2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SUCH AS DETENTION FACIL177ES ROADWAY BACK- SLOPES, ETC. SHALL BE
SEEDED KITH A PERENNIAL GROUND COVER GRASS TO MINIMIZE EROSION. GRASS SEEDING WLL BE
DONE USING AN APPROVED HYDROSEEDER OR AS OTHERNSE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
3 PREPARATION OF SURFACE: ALL AREAS TO BE SEEDED SHALL BE CUL71VAIED TO THE
SA71SFAC77ON OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DISKING, PARKING,
HARROWING OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS.
4. IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWNG FINISH GRADING PERMANENT WGEIA 77ON (CONSIS77N& OF RAPID
ERSISTENT AND LEGUME) VOLL BE APPLIED. (MINIMUM 809 PER ACRE). 7711S IS TO INCLUDE THE
FOLLONNG.- 20% ANNUAL, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYE GRASS, 40% CREEPING RED FESCUE, 40% WH17E
CLOVER. H)DROSEED REQUIRED.
5 FERTILIZER.- SHALL BE APPLIED AT 4001 PER ACRE OF 10-20-20 00I.B. PER 1, 100 SQUARE
FEET) OR EQUIVALENT
6. 77ME OF PLAN71NG - PLANNING SHOULD PREFERABLY BE DONE BETWEEN APRIL 1 AND JUNE 30
AND SEPTEMBER I 7HROUGH OC70BER JI. IF PLAN71NG IS DONE IN THE MONTHS OF JULY AND
AUGUST IRRIGA 71ON MAY BE REQUIRED. IF PLAN17NG IS DONE BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 1,
MULCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING.
Z ALL DISTURBED SOILS THAT WILL NOT BECOME IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SHALL BE COMPOST
AMDVDED IN ACCORDANCE NTH CITY OF EDMONDS HANDOUT E72 C.
SHEETINDEX:
SHEET Cl ofJ TES.C. & GRADING PLAN #2 CITY OF EDMONDS 1ST REV JCM 052213
SHEET C2 of 3 CETAILED DRAINAGE PLAN
SHEET C3 of 3 (RADING & TESC DETAILS #1 1 ISSUED JCM
SHEET Sl of I STE PLAN I -
REV. NO. DESCRIPRON INITIALS DA TE
GRADING Q UANTITIES: CONTRACTOR MASTON PROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION, LLC
ATTN, RICK BYNUM - PH. 425-299-8877
2020 MALTBY RD, BOTHELL, WA 98021
CUT = 111 CY
FILL = 225 CY
APPLICANTIOWNER
(GRADING QUANTITIES ARE ROUGH CALCULATIONS WHICH I
DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SOIL SWELLING & SHRINKAGE.) I LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
1.) EXCESS EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED
FROM THE SITE.
2) ANY SOIL REMOVED FROM THE SITE MUST BE
HAULED TO A CITY APPROVED SITE.
J.) SWED VOLUME DOES NOT INCLUDED FOUNDA71ON VOLUME.
MENEM MMMMMMMMMMm
MMMMMllmm MMMMMMMMMMm
MENEM
sLem, W,
IMEMMEEMMEMMEMEMEM
MENNEEMEN ------- MENEM
KYLE A. KRAGSETH
22706 95th PL W
EDMONDS, WA. 98020
PINE CREST BLOCK 000 D-00 - TR 91
RESUB
JUN 13 2013
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
TAX ACCOUNT NO.(S): SITE ADDRESS:
00544300009100 22706 95th PL W
BID PE"IT# EDMONDS, WA. 98020
TESC & GRADING PLAN
MA S TON PR OPER TIES & CONS TR UCTION, LL C
PORTION OF SE 114, SE 114 SEC. 25, T. 2 7 N., R. 3 E., W.M.
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
DRAWN BY DA TE REV. BY DATE PROJECT MANAGER SCALE
Gil? 01251201S JCM J.C.McDONNELL 1"=20�-O"
DRAWING FILE NAME CHK. BY F.B. NO. JOB NO. SH T. NO.
058,71-EDMDS SFR ENG.dwq 05871 Cl of 3
STREET FILE,
ACCEPTABLE- TIGHRINE
MATERIPI EX-SSMH
SDR 35 RIV=376.04
IE�=.367.44
O'CH 40 (CENTER OF CHANNEL)
N- 12
_F840 HAMM-
-- - - - - - - - - - - --- - -
'A"
0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D -
7 FLEVz�J6ZB,
N8822J4:M_ RoadRy V
5&�'
X
6p-90
20 14 - X X X
X
--------- io 2 12" 1 . "I X
X - - - 208.
�r20"__-
t
24" 2Q
I— - - -
0
10
10--
0- '9
<
BSBL
10 10"
PROPOSED STR
14 FT = 355.5
LU 12" VW 4' F0077NG
_C14 DRAIN (TYP) ROOF PEAK EL J77.21 ROOF
X UVLK ...... _C14
CS 63 0
16"
LU
_*
PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SEC. 25, T. 27 N, R. 3 E, W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTYf WASHINGTON
-5c"g-
-66iC-
0
CO
364-'
0
Z
3604-
0 LPT 1 24 _354- 0
9,2121SF (GROSS) NEW 1 WE
, pq
LOT2 GARAGE PR
8�11 _SVF D
:4- DS (T)p)
8,000 SF 41FAHING DRAltj
V,
------------
L: ** ........... ........ .......... -Ai-
Z 7.5' BSBL N-Ew
8" 56.5' . : . _..
0
---------------
------------ CUP 0 OOZ 3..5,
_-�7�4LF
14"
- ---------
nn.� T 354-
209.27'
2 LF 8 PVC
SDC6 11 0 08
wIlRES7RICTOR CD
SOM 12 TWE-IL
GE=J54.2 GE=354.0
OE=J52.55
-- ---- �56 IE=J52.0 (4 IN)
IE=J51.05 (18
IE=J505 (18' OUT)
IE=J51.05 (8- OUT) DRIVEWAY R
T TRENCH UNDERGROUND U 8 CUT
M
JOIN OR CITY WED ONDS
PORR, VERIZON AND COMCAST
DETAIL E2_26
14, - -
LOW SPOT IN DRIVENA Y
FOR DRAINAGE INTO 00 /1
HSE SA= ZJ18 SF EX-SDCR
DWY SA = 979 SF
RIM=J52.06
A= J55.J6 PA 770 SA= 146 SF 1E`N)=J4746(12" PLAS71C)
B= 355.5 1E(S)=J4Z41(12" PLASTIC)
IOTAL= 3,445 SF
C-- 35121
D= J52-3 AN
70TAL= 14[6.3714--J54.09 AVERAGE EVS71NG GRADE 17RY UNIMS0,
J54.09 + 25' = 379.09 MAMMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
(RIM CM& POO
ACIUAL BUILDING HEIGHT 0 J7Z21' (SW UNff NM
EX-SDC6
MZ4VeWAY 12poPS MIAS-T Rlkf=J44.19
M r;..ET A S -TO "A- 1E(N)=JJ9.89(12- PLAST(C)
A 14NIAIMIAIM
1E(S)W=-3J9.99(12" PLAS77C)
SITE DRAEVA G.-PE., PLANOFr I.->'. EX-SSMH
SCALE. 1" 20' ALL Iqa%-4eWA\J.S RIU=J42.93
"T0905I 5"LL IE=JJZ20 (CENTER OF CHANNEL)
8" CONC PIPES N, S, E, W
eep_peNViLkALA11- TO
cmms WNE. ANO 1PA'SS)"'
pi5a-ry tomQe0-
-rrnWV(nn Tim 10"
-lite pwjeers Ciassificatton serves to identity the specitic htormwater Management requirements applicable
to your site. comptete ft woMheet below to dewmine whether your project falls into the classifladon of
a Laime Small Site (Category I or Category 2), or a B11mr-5ft
Stm 1 Determine the Exempt impervious Surface Area for your project and enter it on line I of the
table (yellow box).
Stm 2 Determine the Replaced Impervious Surface Axes for your project and enter it on line 2 of the table
below dividing the total between Exempt and Non -Exempt (orange and blue boxes); either or both may be zero.
SteD 3: Determine the New bnpervious Surface Am for your project N a portion of the new impervious surface
am is also Non-Exm
pt ReplacM Impervious SarfaceArea subtract this from the total of the new impervious
surface am. Enter die final value on line 3 of the table below (blua box).
fiftA7 Add the values in the Non-exempt column for lines 2 and 3 and enter it into line 4 (green box).
Where the existing site 0 DirectDischarge
runoff discharge? Supplement
(C*ecka90Wwp&) Chapter 2.3 0 Edmonds Way Flasin
See Watershed Map
Fim=:B Creek or Lake Basin
.A,Handout PA 4.
I�Jhftwe TYPO Area (squm Feet)
bripervious surface: Supplement Exempt
How much and what type? Chapter 2.2 lUempt NnqE,=*
#111 in colomd bmw) &
See Definitions, Handout pg 9
Ffgm*C 2- Replaced
Figure-C, Handout pg 7
Examples, Handout pg 10 & New
Total Re&cW +New (Non-ExenW)
W#mbm1WMwb=w)
Land-diaturbing activity am Supplement
See Definition% Chapter a
Graffing, Fill or Excavation
g4 -5,F sf
Arm
WM project convert % we or
more of native vegetation to YES NO
lawn or AM?
Proceed to the Protect Classification Ch (Figum D, pg 8) and we the collected above to follow
the flow chart and determine the dassification ofyour project.
13 Large Site (Handout E72a) &I'Aniall Site Mandeut E72b) 0 Minor Site Mandout E72c)
LOCKING SOLID LID
TYPE X SDC8 - MINO PER TABLE
SDCB #J
TYPE- X
GE=352.9
IE=348.40 (18- OUT)
C1q
Ca
acv
3i
77.5'
FG SURFACE
(3' 0 VER)
DETEN710N PIPE
74 LF- 1870 CUP
S 0.005 FTIFT
-----EX-SDCB
Rlk(=J62.61
PVC)
1E(N)=J5Z61(12
1E(S)=J5Z51(I2- PVC)
WAIM 14orm AT,_V &tkMOIAT TO
-rt�D As io i a mT4w r3y
Ge: LccA
OLA/mAG -0e)N/ wp[Tm sc"M
NEW GAS
1.
SMME
DIRECT F007ING DRAINS TO
STORM SYSTEM DOWS7REAM
OF SDCB it
pd0-npC,
EXCB
GE=J54.4' -ro ctA-rr-AA,#_ wW�- Or- Tim
IE=350.80(12- NIS)
ocre*-PoN sysTeM
-Ir
wcktAe ON.) pa%\IAI pacpa-1-
1E=J50.80'(8* IN)
1E=J50.8(4' IN)
-
0,
L
TAL EX-SSMA)
ND UL 1)
RIAI=,353.78
OF CHANNEL)
PIPE
BOTH 8" CONC
Applicant shall repair/replace all darniage to
utilities or fronlage improvements In Ck
right-of-way Per Cfty standards that Is caused
or Occurs during the permitted project.
4' RF DRN
(PFJ? PLAN)
WATER 7IGHT-
REA40VAL CAP
DETENTION STRUCTURE
NO SCALE
CONTRACTORS NOTE:
DE7EN71ON PIPE SHALL BE 16 GAUGE ALUMINUM OR BETTD? OR ALUMIN12ED
S7EEL TYPE 2 MEE71MG AASTO DESIGNATION M274 NO M36. ASPHALT
COA77MG TREATMENT (NO 1 OR BETTER) IS RECOMMENDED FOR CORROSION
LOCKIAG LID
(CMP OR EQUAL)
81 CMp TO SOC13 11
SDC8 12
TYPE- IL
wIRESTRICTOR
6E=352.5
OE=350. 00
IE=M.00 (18" IN)
IE=J48.00 (8- OUT)
20 0 20
40
6� ponal mmmoommaj I
1 irtch 20 ft.
TRENCH EDGES MUST BE SAW CUT
AND TACKED PRIOR TO FINAL
TRENCH PATCH
21" of
4" MI
SEE PIPE BEDDING
DETAIL
NIS"
I
IN Mil
. . . . . . . M
W
BASIS OFBEARMG.-
ASSUMED
'VER TIC4L DA TUM:
VER77CAL DAIUM IS NAW 86, BASED ON A PU&ISHED
MA710AI FOR SNOVOMISH COUNTY POINT ID SC31.
EI.EVA 770N. 36Z972 ITET
SE
E E2.3
BACKFILL MATERIAL
(SEF NOTE BELOW)
-WRAP FOUNDATION ZONE
ENTIRELY WITH FILTER FABRIC
-1-1/4" WASHED GRAVEL
TRENCH PATCH PAY WlDi:�]
MAX.
N 0 T E:
TRENCH DEPTH PAY WIDTH
V-4' 40"
REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS MODIFICATION TO
DMSION 9 WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR
4'- 10' 60" TION.
ROAD, BRIDGE & MUNICIPAL CONSTRUC
10'-20' 72"
REVISIONS
TANDARD DETA L
S
D. GEBERT 10/6/03
D. GEBERT TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION - FOUNDATION STABILIZATION
4/2/07
- DATE SCAIE DWG NO.
1.690-100 7/24/01 NTS E4.3
Emffff Y N07TS
1. TRACER WIRE WILL BE ADDED TO THE WATER SERWCE LINE.
.2. IF RIM TO INVERT EXCEEDS.5',.A TYPE It CATCHBASIN IS
REQUIRED
3. ALL U77LI77ES MUST BE UNDERGROUND.
4. J.C. MCDONNELL ENGINEERING, PC SHALL NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN OR PLACEMENT OF DRY UTIL171ES
(LE PUD, PSE, COMICASE, VERIZON).
5. DRY UTIU77ES SHALL HAVE A 3' SEPARATION FROM WATER�
SEWER AND STORM U71LI7IES.
NO-
1. IF FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, CURBIGUTTER,
ETC.) ARE DAMAGED OR DO NOT MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS
THEY WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED.
CONTRACTOR'S NOTE
U1
LOT COVERAGES:
I.
PROPERTY 70TAL AREA
= 17,218.5J SF
2
FU7URE LOT I AREA
= 8,011 SF (46.46%)
J.
FU71JRE LOT 2 AREA
= 9,207 53 .7
4.
PROP LOT I IMPERWOUS
= J.533 SF
5.
PERCENT IMP (ALL)
= 20.529
6.
PERCENT IMP LOT I
= 44. 1%
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL INCLUDE THE REPLACEMENT
OF 7HE D(IS77NG ASPHALT APRON W17H A CURB CUT MEE77NG EDMONDS STANDARD
DEFAIL E2 26 IF DUSING FROMIAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DAM4GED DURING
CONSMUC71ON OR DO NOT MEET ADA REQUIREMENM REPLACEMENT WILL BE
REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
A
Table 1
Detention Pipe Look -Up Table
Category 1 small site projects
ContributhigNewinus
Replacedhapervions
Surface Area
Lea ath of Plue (ft) For
hiside Diameter
is-luch
24-inch
30-hich
364nch
2.000
41
22
15
11
2XO
49
30
18
12
3,000
61
33
23
16
3.5W
74
38
24
17
4,UUU
91
U_
9
20
4. 5W
95
49
32
23
1 5.000
-.112
56
35
25
Orifice SiW.
1-=] - 0.5 (1/2) inch diameter 0.75 (314) inch
- �__M
F =0.625 (5/8) inch diameter U.973TINTM cumma
- Outlet p4m ClechdWg In the flour contrul structure) must be 8 In ffisacter ft 2,OW to 4�M square feet of new plus replawd InTervious surfim am
- outlet pipes(indufts In ft flow control structure) mun 10 in dhoeterforgmterthan 4.0100square fed of now plasreplacad IrVervious sudeoesseA.
Note: Mold* p4m In pamIld connected together (awaffbided) can be and to med length raqufrernen% if site has conshWats.
Table 2
Approved Detention Pipe Material and Catch BasinAManhole Structure Sizing
Detention Pipe
luddeDinmetw WDCVr
DetentionnaMaterial thfanhole
WWI Catch Bashy
18
__in lia below lable
_a
Ali type
Type IL Catch badu
24
Ali lyp__ in listbelow table
T$W 2,48-incli diameter manhole
30
Ali Metal & RPP
Type .494wh diameter manhole
All Concrete & CPEP
Type 2, 54-inch diameter manhole
PVCP
Type.?, 60-bich diameter manhole
36
Metal & RPP
Type 2,54-inchdiamew manhole
All nael CPEP. & PVCP
Typo 2,60-inchdiameter manhole
WDO`r- Washington Departmt of Transportation
ACSP - Almninized Corrugated Steel Pipe M" 2 PVCP - Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (SDR 35 or better)
Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe (amooffi
meets AA9r0 desipabons M274 and M36)
ASRP - Aluminum Spiral Ribbed Pipe (16 gauge or interior wall, or N-1 r pipe)
betta) RPP. Rittired Polyvinylelilotide Pi
CAP -Corrugated Aluminurn Pipe (16 gauge or
bona)
DIP - Ductile Iron Pipe (Class 50 or better)
PCP - Plain Concrete pipe
ROUND MANHOLECOVER MARKED
"DRAIN" WITH LOCKING BOLTS----�
RIM EL=354
6" MIN.
4" INLET PIPE F-r-
IE= 352.2 (IN) 0
LIFT HANDLE---
c====
WATER77GHT CLEANOUTISHEAR GATE--�,
." 8" OUTLET PIPE.
IE= 351.05 (OUT)
OFFSET FRAME GRATE SO THAT
RESTRICTORIIPOLLU77ON DEVICE
IS VISIBLE AT EDGE OF OPENING
AND DIRECTLY OVER THE LADDER
-1 k8' MAX
OVERFLOW TO C8 WALL (TYP.)
POLYPROPYLENE SAFETY
&7 STEPS AND LADDER
RESTRICTOR PLATE APPROPRIATELY CM
SIZED ORIFICE CUT IN PLATE. AOTE:
MACHINE DRILLED, SHARP EDGED ALL STEEL PARTS AND
SURFACES MUST BE GALVANIZED
ORIFICE DIA=0.75- (314-) AND ASPHALT COATED (TREATMENT
EL=350.05 1 OR BETTER). COMPLETE
fORROSION PROTECTION MUST
BE ASSURED.
OnfND W WT OTAT REST
TYP 1-L 0J./Lei-i .11 J-0 rr RICTOR
CALL 48 HO URS
BEFORE YOU DIG
1 -800-424.-5555
NOT TO SCALE
RMsed on 719110 972 - Srommier Managment RAW10n COnhW-PVUU Page 5 of 11
IS TORA/IWA TER POLL UTION PRE VENTION PLAN
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS EVALUATED PER THE CITY OF EDMONDS DRAINAGE MANUAL TO DETERMINE THE
EROSION RISK CATEGORY AND THE CORRESPONDING SWPPP- THE SOIL ON THE PROPOSED SITE IS AT LEAST
TWO FEET OF A GRAVELLY SAND. GRAVELLY SAND HAS AN EROSION HAZARD RISK CATEGORIZATION OF LOW TO
MEDIUM, MAKING THE SITE A LOW RISK CATEGORY. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS
WEST OF DOWNTOWN EDMONDS. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC STORM DRAINS AVAILABLE TO THE PROPERTY. THE
PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT REQUEST A WINTER GRADING PERMIT. THEREFORE A LEVEL 1 CONSTRUCTION
SWPPP IS PROPOSED.
THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS THAT THIS SWPPP IS INTENDED To ADDRESS.
1. HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS? 2. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
J. SEDIMENT.
REASONABLE CARE AND DISCRETION SHALL BE EXERCISED TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH
A RELEASE OF ANY OF THE THREE TYPES OF POLLUTANTS. THIS SWPPP IS TO BE CONSIDERED A GUIDE AND
REPRESENTS ONLY A MINIMUM STANDARD OF CARE TO BE PRACTICED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF
THE PROJECT. AN EROSION CONTROL OFFICER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING THE CONDITIONS AND
POLLUTION POTENTIAL ON THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TIMES AND FOR DETERMINING WHAT ADDITIONAL ME4SURES
NEED TO BE ENACTED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS MAY INCLUDE STOPPING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL
CONDITIONS CHANCE SUCH THAT THE DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT HAS PASSED.
HA2ARDOUS CHEMICALS SUCH AS CLE4NING AGENTS AND SOLVENTS SHALL BE STORED IN AN APPROVED
CHEMICAL FACILITY (IES) LOCATED IN THE EQUIPMENT STAGING AREA. WHEN CHEMICALS ARE USED DURING
CONSTRUCTION ACTIWTY, CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO GUARD AGAINST SPILLAGE. IN THE EVENT OF A CHEMICAL
RELEASE, THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ARE TO BE NOT1F7ED AND THE SPILL IS TO BE CLEANED UP
IMMEDIATELY.
THE CONSTRUCTION SITE IS TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST EXCESSIVE PETROLEUM POLLUTION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES SHALL HAVE A REGULAR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PRODUCT MANUFACTURER. PARTICULAR CARE SHALL BE PAID TO LOCATIONS THAT ARE COMMOMLY KNOWN TO
T SHALL NOT BE
LE4K LUBRICANTS. UPON DISCOVERY OF AN UNSATISFACTORY PART, THAT VEHICLE OR EQUIPMEN
OPERATED UNTIL IT HAS BEEN FIXED. ADDITIONALLY, ALL OIL AND REFUELING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED
IN A DESIGNATED AREA THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF SPILLED OILIFUEL TO THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE USE OF A LINER, SPILL TRAP OR OTHER MEANS.
THE RELEASE OF SEDIMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT SHALL BE PREVENTED AT ALL TIMES. THE FOLLOWING BMPS
ARE CONSIDERED MINIMUM PROTECTION MEASURES:
I- THE DISTRIBUTIONITRACKING OF MUD ONTO ROADS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTIVEHICLES SHALL BE
PREVENTED. THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE ACCESSED VIA A ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, UNDERLAIN
BY GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE EXTENDED IF NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS
TO THE EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT AND EQUIPMENT STAGING AREAS. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE,
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IVEHICLES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR MUDI SEDIMENT. ALL WHEELS AND SURFACES
ARE TO BE BRUSHESIWASHEDICLEANED AS NECESSARY PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PUBLIC ROW. IN ADDI-RON,
THE EXISTING PAVEMENT SHALL BE SWEPT ALONG THE SITE FRONTAGES ON A DAILY BASIS AS DIRECTED BY THE
ENGINEER ANDIOR THE CITY INSPECTOR.
2. COVER MATERIALS (I.E. STRAW OR PLASTIC SHEETING) SHALL BE STORED ON SITE IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES
SUCH THAT ALL POR71ONS OF EXPOSED EARTH CAN BE COMPLETELY COVERED TO PREVENT EROSION.
3. T14E PLANNED CONS7RUCTION ACIIVITIES SHALL BE'EVALUATED ON A DAILY BASIS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
THE LATEST WEATHER FORECAST. THE WEATHER FORECAST SHALL DICTATE WHETHER EARTH MOVING OPERATIONS
SHALL COMMENCE OR CONTINUE. IF RAIN OCCURS DURING CONSTRUCTION INTENSE ENOUGH TO PRODUCE
RUNOFF, ALL EARTH MOVING ACTIWTIES SHALL CE4SE AND EXPOSED EARTH SHALL BE COVERED TO PREVENT
EROSION. WHILE PRECIPITATION PERSISTS, THE ONLY ACTIV17Y ALLOWED SHALL BE THE EFFORTS REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INSTALL NEW EROSION CONTROL BMPS AND NON-EROSIONISEDIMENT
GENERAMG ACTIVITIES.
4. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PHASED TO MINIMIZE THE SURFACE AREA OF EXPOSED FARTH.
CLE4RINGIGRADING LIMITS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE TESC & GRADING PLAN SHEET.
5. PRIOR TO ANT SITE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE CONTRACTOR,
OWNER, ENGINEER (J.C.MCDONNELL ENGINEERING, PC.), EROSION CONTROL OFFICER AND COUNTY INSPECTOR
SHALL BE HELD. IF REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE
EROSION CONTROL OFFICER, AFTER EVERY RAINSTORM OR AT A MINIMUM, WEEKLY, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
SWPPP` GUIDELINESIOBJECTIVES. THE OWNER SHALL DESIGNATE THE EROSION CONTROL OFFICER FOR THE
PROJECT (ECO). THE ECO MUST HAVE RECEIVED TRAINING (I.E. EROSION CONTROL SEMIMAR ETC.) OR HAVE HAD
SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE WITH EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES TO IMPLEMENT THE SWPPP.
THE ECO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT ALL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES OF THE SWPPP ARE
ACHIEVED AND FOR INSPECTING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE TO ENSURE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION SWPPP
MEASURES ARE FUNC770NING AS INTENDED. THE TCO SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO
REPAIR ALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE ADDITIONALLY HE SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED SWPPP.
IF, DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORKDAY, A RAIN EVENT OCCURS, THE TCO SHALL EVALUATE THE INTENSITY
OF R41NFALL AND THE POTEN77AL TO GENERATE EROSION. SHOULD HE DETERMINE THAT EROSION IS
OCCURRING, HE SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REDIRECT CONS7RUCTION ACTIVITY TO COVER EXPOSED SOILS,
TO MAINTAIN EXISTING SWPPP ELEMENTS (I.E. BMPS) AND TO ORDER CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL POLLUTION
PREVENTION SYSTEMS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE TCO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MONITOR WATER QUALITY. DURING PRECIPITATION EVENTS
THAT GENERATE RUNOFF, WATER QUALITY MEASURES SHALL BE TAKEN. FOR RUNOFF GENERATING EVENTS THAT
OCCUR DURING EVENING HOURS, WATER QUALITY SHALL BE MONITORED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE
FOLLOWING DAY. IF THERE HAS BEEN NO MEASURABLE DEGRADATION IN WATER QUALITY, CONSTRUCTION MAY
RESUME AS SCHEDULED. IF A MEASURMLE DEGRADATION IS IDENTIFIED SUCH AS AN INCREASE OF TURBIDITY
IN EXCESS OF 5 NTUS ABOVE BACKGROUND. THE ONLY ALLOWED ACTIV177ES WILL BE REPAIR OF EROSION
CONTROL STRUCTURES, INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL BMPS, MINIMIZATION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OR
ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT DISTURB EXPOSED EARTH AND THAT HAVE NO POTENTIAL TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL
SEDIMENT.
THE TWELVE
(12) ELEMEKS OF CONS7RUC77ON SWPPP
1. CLEARING LIMITS. THE CLEARING LIMITS ARE INDICATED ON THE TESC PLAN
SHEET. FURTHERMORE, CLEARING AND GRADING WILL BE LIMITED TO ONLY AREAS THAT
NEED TO BE DISTURBED FOR GRADINGICONSTRUCTION. nELD MARKING THE CLEARING
LIMITS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES.
PRESERVE NATURAL VEGITATION
BMP'S. FIELD MARKINGr CLEARING LIMITS (CL)
2. ACCESS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE LIMITED TO ROCK CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO PROVIDE ACCESS
E AGING AND EMPLOYEE PARKING AREAS IF
TO CONSTRUCTION VEHICL 1EQUIPMENT ST
NECESSARY.
BMP'S: STABLIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (CE)
J. STORMWATER DETENTION: ADDITIONAL DETENTION OF STORM RUNOFF WILL NOT BE PROVIDED
FOR THIS PROJECT.
4. SEDIMENT CONTROL WILL BE PROVIDED WITH ORANGE FILTER FENCE ANDIOR COMPOST
BERMS LOCATED ALONG THE DOWN SLOPE OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. A TEMPORARY
SILT TRAP MAY BE USED IF NEEDED UTILIZED TO SETTLE SILTY RUNOFF PRIOR TO DISCHARGE
OR A MOUNT BAKER TANK MAY BE MORE PRACTICAL FOR THESE TIGHT CONDITIONS. FILTERED
ANCE LINES.
RUNOFF MAY TEN BE RELEASED INTO THE EXISTING CONVEY
IN EXTREME CONDITIONS, CHITOSON SOCKS WILL BE USED AT THE DISCHARGE OF THE PUMP
LINE PRIOR TO DISCHARGE TO THE DOWNSTREAM DRAINLINE
BMP'S. ORANGE FILTER FENCE (OFF)
COMPOST FILTER BERM (CF[3)
ROCK CHECK DAMS (RCL))
CHITOSAN SOCK
STRAW BALES.
5. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. TEMPORARY
STABILIZATION WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF STRAW, HOG FUEL OR
PLASTIC SHEETING TO EXPOSED WORKED EARTH. STABILIZE EXPOSED SOIL WITHIN THE
TIME FRAMES INDICATED IN THE WET WEATHER NOTES ON THIS SHEET. PERMANENT SOIL
BMP'S. STRAW MULCHING
STABILIZATION CONSISTS OF ESTABLISHING VEGITATION BY SEEDING OR PLANTING.
PLASTIC SHEETING
HOG FUEL PLACEMENT
HYDROSEEDING OR SODDING
6. SLOPES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION THROUGH COVER AND PREVENTION OF
CONCENTRATED SURFACE RUNOFF FLOWS:
BMP'S. STRAW MULCHING
PLASTIC SHEETING
INTERCEPTOR SWALES
DISPERSION TRENCHES
7. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL CATCH BASINS AND SHALL REMAIN UNTIL
CONSTRUCTION OF ALL RESIDENCES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
NO UNFILTERED STORMWATER SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE CLOSED CONVEYANCE
SYSTEM. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY AND FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE CLEANEDIREPLACED AS NECESSARY. WHEN"PROVIDING MAINTENANCE TO INLET
PROTECTION, FABRIC SHALL BE REMOVED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PREVENT RETAINED
SEDIMENT FROM FALLING INTO THE CATCH BASIN.
BMP'S. INLET PROTECTION (1P)
8. ALL CHANNEL SLOPES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND PROTECTED AGAINST
EROSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF MUKILTEO STANDARDS.
BMP'S.- RIPRAP (QUARRY SPALLS
STRAW 13ALES
9. POLLUTANTS SHALL BE CONTROLLED AS DESCRIBED IN THE POTENTIAL
POLLUTANTS SECTION OF THIS SWPPP.
THE TWELVE (12) ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION SWPPP
10. DE -WATERING: INTERCEPTION OF THE WATER TABLE IS NOT EXPECTED TO
OCCUR. HOWEVER, SHOULD GROUND WATER FLOWS BE ENCOUNTERED, THESE
FLOWS CAN BE DIRECTED TO THE INTERCEPTOR SWALES AND CONVEYED TO
THE TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION FACILITIES OR TO SILT FILTRATION BAGS.
BMP'S. INTERCEPTOR SWALES
DISPERSION TRENCH
14. ALL BMPS AND SWPP ELEMENTS SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED AS
REQUIRED.
12. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. THE PROJECT SHALL- BE MANAGED IN A COOPERATIVE
EFFORT BY THE PROJECT MANAGER, CONTRACTOR, PROJECT ENGINEER
AND COUNTY INSPECTOR. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS,
IF UNFORSEEN ISSUES ARISE THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED ON SITE, CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY (OTHER THAN SWPPP MAINTENANCE) SHALL BE HALTED AND THE
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR AND THE PROJECT ENGINEER ARE TO BE CONTACTED AND
INFORMED OT THE SITUATION.
MAINTENWCE OF SILTATION BARRIERS:
SILTATION BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING
PROLONGED RAINFALL. CLOSE ATTEN17ON SHALL BE PAID TO THE REPAIR OF DAMAGED BALES, END RUNS AND
UNDERCUTTING BENEATH BALES. NECESSARY REPAIRS TO BARRIERS OR REPLACEMENT OF BALES SHALL BE
ACCOMPLISHED PROMPTLY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. THEY MUST BE
REMOVED WHEN THE LEVEL OF DEPOSITION REACHES APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER.
ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE STRAW BALE BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED SHALL
BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXIS17NG GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED.
HANDLING OF SILT LADEN WATER:
1. DURING MAITER GRADING OPERATIONS, EXTRA CARE SHALL BE EXERCISED TO AVOID RELEASE
OF SILTY WATER FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. RELEASES SHALL NOT INCREASE THE
TURBIDITY OF SITE RUNOFF MORE THAN 5 NTUS ABOVE BACKGROUND.
2. THE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT POND SHALL BE SAMPLED FOR TURBIDITY PRIOR TO DISCHARGE TO
THE DOWNSTREAM CORRIDOR. PONDS WITH PERSISTENT TURBIDITY LEVELS EXCEEDING THE
BACKGROUND BY MORE THAN 5 NTUS SHALL BE PUMPED OUT AND SPRAYED INTO THICK
NA71VE VEGETATION MTHIN THE PROPERTY OR TRUCKED OFF SITE FOR APPROVED DISPOSAL.
ALL DISCHARGES. MUST MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TURBIDITY.
J. DISCHARGES NEAR SENSITIVE AREAS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. IF SILTY WATER CANNOT BE
SETTLED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE IT MUST BE TRUCKED TO A SAFE DISPOSAL AREA.
BINDING WIRE OR
n
TWINE EXCAVATE TRENCH 8' DEEP
WHERE STRAV BALES WILL
fill BE PLACED AND STAKE BALES.
COMPACTE
PREVENT PI�i��
CROSS SECTION OF A PROPERLY
INSTALLED STRAW BALE BARRIER
TWO STAKES PER BALE TO
MAINTAIN POSITION
It
STRAW BALES AS
REQUIRED.
PROPER PLACEMENT OF STRAW
BALE BARRIER IN A DRAINAGE WAY
CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE
STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON AL L
EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE
OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN.
_t -F--E
REVISIONS
I STANDARD DETAIL
APPROVED BY
DATE
STRAW BALE DAM FILTRATIN SYSTM
DATE 7/24/01
SCALE NTS
1'" No' E1.1.1
STAN DAR D D ETAI L
STRAW BALE DAM
E1.1.1
OA
%_1.c_x-LL 48 HOURS
Br_i -70RE YO U DIG
EFF
1 -800-424-5555
PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SEC. 25, T. 27 N, R. 3 E, W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FILTER FABRIC
X 2,
SECURED TO 2'
14 GA. WIRE FABRIC
EQUAL
2' X 2' WOOD DR c
Q
E UIVALENT
a,- 12,
81
FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN
CONTINOUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES
PLACE 3/4'-1.5' WASHED GRAVEL IN OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH
THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF
FABRIC TO WIRE.
FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE
H
:fl-- WIRE MESH SUPPORT FE14�E
TO SUPPORT FILTER FA Ic.
R
ru BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER
MATERIAL S' TO 12'
ZD
6' MAX, ......................
2' X 2' WOOD POSTS OR
EQUIVALENT
LL
CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE
STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL.
CIrY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL
EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE
OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN.
E.1D. M 0
REVISIONS I TANDARD DETAIL,
APPROVED BY DATE I
_1_1 RLTER FABRIC FENCE RLTRA71M SYSM
18,9 _1 go DATE 7/24/11 1 SCALE NTS IDwG No' E1.1
STAN DAR D D ETAI L
FILTER FRA BRIC FENCE RLTRATION SYSTEMS
2
k
-4
TE
CB
OVER FLOW HOLES
FILTER SOCK WITH
CATCH BASIN
STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE
DETAIL E1.1.1). THIS APPLICAITON
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON
PERIOD.
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
APPROVED By ja/DATE
D. GEBERT 06/03 T8F0RARY SEMENT TW FOR CATCH BASINS
D. GEBERT 05/19/05
1890-100 11 GEBERT 1 05/05/06 "TE 7J24/01 SCALE NTS 10" NO. E1.3
STAN DAR D DETAIL
SEDIMENT TRAP
E1.3
MIN. RADIUS
QUARRY SPALLS
2-4' MIN DIA
8'-12' MIN. DEPTH
"A
PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/
EGRESS AREA
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
ZPR IDE
OV
'RESS
ICITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTRUI
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
-E
-TY -0-F
REVISIONS - STANDARD DETAIL
D. GEBERT 10/6/03 STABILIZED CONMUCTIN ENTRANCE
DATE 7/24/01 SCALE NTS
NO- E1.2
STAN DAR D D ETAI L
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
E1.2
...................... ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2�
J,n,
e4l
�PCAlr
le-c .1k
ra 4,� 7
cco
0,4
c
NOTEf
I �F DRIVEWAY WIDTH EXCEEDS
1� I STALL A FULL DEPTH EXPANSION
JOiNITN
2. DRIVEWAY APRON SHALL BE A MINIMUM
OF 6' THICK AND SHALL BE PLACED ON
2' OF 5/8' CSTC AND COMPACTED GRADE.
3. A MINIMUM 2' SAW CUT IS REQUIRED IN
THE ASPHALT WHERE NEW CURB / GUTTER
IS PLACED (SEE DETAIL ABOVE).
CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3- 300OPSI
0
Ar
f%p
y Z)?ry
suy,
py Acc
c1r), 7a
y y �Iq)l
JOINT
SEE NOTE S'
---PANSION JOINT
TYPE -A- CURB AND GUTTER
OR
16' VERTICAL CURB
(TO MATCH EXIST. ONLY)
EXPANSION JOINT
6' CURB
DRIVEWAY CURB TRANSITIONAL DETAIL FOR
CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BEPOURED CURB AND GUTTER OR VERTICAL CURBS.
SEPARATELY FRDM THE SIDEWALK.
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FORM WDRK
PRI17R TLI PDUR.
.:.0
-T
C.1 y
REVISIONS
APPRavm By STANDARD DETAIL
D. GEBERT 10/6/03 STANDARD DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE
BERT - 01/15/08 DATE 7/24/01 SCALE NTS DWG NO. E2.26
mm"Newwww"m I-.-- I
REVISED:8/17/06-CHANGED TEXT FOR CLARITY
REVISED: 01/15/08-CLARIFIED REOT FOR SAW CUT,
DC
ET
A
A
L
'L
C
F
UR
0
B
R
S
j S
*Est _ D .. -
_TAI L
TRANCE
.wC NO.j
isgia U.26
STANDARD DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE E2.26
RIU=376.04
IE=36744
(aWIrR OF alAvNLq)
-- - - - - - -
2238'
7)c_� _'90�_ A R 2238'
12- X
ct -
y
10
20�-
>ikLr
0 1 1
151 Bs8L
2' 4'
0
/0
24
16 LOT2 9,2121.7 (MM)'
apyw("
4&V SF 4* DS
LUIS I w ARM
(rip) L's'-
Z5BS&
AtWe
18-
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
14' �4zl 128. - 74
L_ �j
":
'4 209.2
som P TYK-f
S%E T
_1L w1RMWTGR-
0 W-354.0
-356- 015-M255
st-a E=M1.05 (Ir N)
imr Rm .05 (18, wo r-ims (e OU0 I Aww Y cawn wwT
re aTr CF a&OW
FM MW AM CWW
LowswNawwwy VEME E2-T
FvR aw"m im SDO 11 )52,
ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND. A EX-SM
RIM=352.06
MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 3 FEET SHALL 1E(N)-J47.46(12- IUSRC)
PLAVK15 Or-,F&_R- 1E(5)=J47.41(12- PUSnC)
BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN POWER UTILITIES
-ro ww &&Baum
uruww�
AND DRAINAGE, SS & WATER UTILTIIES. mm M& FOWJ
(gruwmm
S ITE UTI LITY P LAN
DESIGN BY OTHERS
THIS IS A SKETCH. NOTHING IN THIS VIEW RELATING TO VERIZON, PUD POWER LINES OR
OTHER POWERED UTILITIES SHAIJ BE CONSTRUES AS A DESIGN OF SAID UTILITIES BY
J.C. =WNELLENGINEERING, PC. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL CONSULT 7HE APPROPRI47E U77LfTY OR 7HE EDMOIVDS INSPECTOR To RESOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
FX-5=
JAV=J4419
1E(N)=M9.89(12 PLAS77C)
PLAS77C)
IE(S)W=339,99(12
IX-SSAW
RN=342.98
z
6
CE-Zf.0
98 Or_j5=
05 (Ir IV)
E=M1.05 (a- ouv
64
SOCS
RIM=J62.61
2 1E(N)=J5Z61(12- PVC)
IE(S)=357.51(12- PVC)
-3b
Maw awd 10
smw svm Dowslim
or sox 0
WAM
EX07
GE=J54.4'
1E=350.80(12'N1S)
RD At
W VfIT
RIM=J51 78
IE=345 gaWlIR
OF CHANNa)
BOTH 8' COW
PIPE
RESUB
JUN 13 2013
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SEC. 25, T. 27 N.9 R. 3 E.5 W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EX-SSMH
RIM=J76.04
0 1E=J67.44(CEN OF CHANNEL)
EX-SSUH
RIM=376.04
IE=J6744
(CEN7ER OF CHANNEL)
.. . . ....................
.. . .........
. ... . .....
........ ... ...
-- - - ------
............. ..............
.... .... ....
I . . .. . ...............
.............
. ...........
...... ........... .. .............
.......... . .... .. ......................
. . . . ..........................
.. ..... ........
............. ............ . ......... ..
.... . ............................ ....
. ..............
-- -- ------- *
.......... ... ... .. ...... ...
...... ............................
...... ......
... ..... ....... . .................... .......... ... ...
......... ....... .......
......... .........
........... ..... ....... .. ......... ........ .
: - -\- '
...... ...... ........... ......
* .... � - ....... :_�. . . . . .
...... ... .. ......... ........................ . ........
- - --------- - -------------- -- ------------ ...... . ...........
........................................ ---- ......... ...... ..... .....
..... .....
............. ....... ........ : ........
...................... i-�� ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1� . . . . . . . . . ..... . .
. .........................
tv -x; J. 7. g, FRav=
............
...... N88:22J8!Y- 208.58!,- ROCAM
-'A
11-7.-68'
V/z
7t7 x
........... ---
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I r�Zn
-11 ...... - 24"
7 5' BS81
........... ........... ... 0.
............... ..............
Ci ........... ...... .....
10"
"';51 14 ......
....... ............
0 ........... . A. .1
20-" ...........
12-f
<
CL
10 10"
BSBL
PROPOSEDsm . . .
IF= 355.5
3:
ROOF
0
ROOF PEAK EL 37721 VERHANG
16" 20 Z 0
18" (L F4- -1- 11 * ..'
' I
-*JO
24"
--�54
le
GARAGE
J52 3
4 ------
Z 5' BSBL . ..............
18 NEW 6' Cd'
56.5'
-- - A�
----------
14" 128 97'---'
80. JO
N8822 i"w
209.27' p x
--356-
...... ...
CALL 48 HO URS
BEFORE YO U DIG
1-800-424-5555
HSE SA= 2,JI8 -7
A= 355.36 DWY SA = 979 SF
PATIO SA= 146 SF
B-- 355.5 TOTAL= J,445 SF
C-- 353.21
D-- 352.3
TOTAL= 1416.3714--J54.09 AVERAGE EVS77NG GRADE
354.09 + 25' = 379.09 MAMMUM BUILDING HOGHT
ACTUAL BUILDING HE7GHT 0 37721'
Zone
Corner Flag-.
Setbacks Regui AdMal
- ired
nt 6' -7-5r
Sides/V/5 q 1. 7-2.
Rear tj 15- 17 q
Other '
7o (3 0 3'TD
DRIVENAY CUPB CUT
PER CITY OF ERM&M
DEIAX E226
EX-SDCB
RIM=352.06
JE(N)=J4746(12- PLAS77C)
1E(S)=J4Z41(12- PLASHC)
EX-SDCB
RIM=J44. 19
1E(N)=J39.89(12" PLAS17C)
1E(S)W=JJ9.99(12- PLAS17C)
EX-SSMH
RIAI=J42.98
0
E)
Z
z;;
as
-1 -3�4-1
z
352
52-
t
Q
SITEPLAN
SCALE. I" = 20'
RIM=J62.61
PVC)
1E(N)=J5Z61(12
1E(S)=J5Z51(12- PVC)
NEW GAS
SERVICE
EXC8
GE=J54.4'
IE=J50.80(12- NIS)
EX-SSMHED
RIM=J5J. 78
-1E=J45.JJ(CEN7ER
OF CHANNEL)
BOTH 8" CONC
PIPE
pA CIFIC GEOMA TIC SER VICES, LVC
UTI= CONFLJCT NOTE:
LAND SURVEYING& MAPPING SERVICES
QUALITY SERVICE - CREATIVE SOLUTIONS
CAUMAt
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIF)ING THE LOC47TON, DIMENSION, AND
DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UlIU71ES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY
P07HOLING THE U77LIlIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCA77ON PRIOR
6608 216TH STREET.SW,. STE. �304
TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCTE 0 1-600-424-5555 AND
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043
THEN POTHOUNG ALL OF THE D(MMG U71LMES AT LOCA71ONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS
PHONE:(425) 778-5620 FAX:(425) 775-2849
TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EAST LOCA71ONS OF SAID U17UTIES
WEB: www.PacGeolne.com
AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE WED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMA71ON AND
ARE SUalECT TO VAR1417ON IF CONRLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
PGS INC
CONSULT la UMMM SW
99ft PC TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
.P�C- mc
WA
17
21
STRUCTURAL
LOT COVERAGE:
1. PROPERTY 70TAL AREA= 17,21R0 SF
1. ROOr7OP IMPERVIOUS = 2,J18 SF
2. PERCENT COARAGE = 1J.46X
rpy.11fARIA
DA IUM POINT IS BASED UPON GROUND MA 77ONS DEMMINED BY
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY RUERDVCED AS STATED ABOE THE LOCAL
DATUM POINT IS THE SANITARY SDER MANHOlf COVER IN MONT
OF THE PROECT SITE AS INDICA IED. SSUH RIM J51 78
� L9,40%,
BASIS OFBEAREVG.-
ASSUMED
VER 7YCAL DA 7UM.-
U77CAL DA711M 5 NAW 88, BASED ON A PUBUMED
ELEVARON FOR SN0HOM1,9f COUNTY POINT ID SC31.
ELEVARON: 36Z972 FEET
SITE AREA
17,212 SF (0.4 AC)
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AREA
8,400 SF
EXIS77NG IMPERVIOUS
0.0 AC
EXIS71NG PERWOUS
0.4 AC
PROPOSED PERVIOUS X
80.0%
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
3,445 SF (0.078 AC)
MEE LEGEATD
EX TREES TO BE REMOVED
VVITH THIS DEVELOPMEN T
EX TREES TO BE RETAINED
K17H THIS DEVELOPMENT
�RESUBI
JUN 112013
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
MENOMONEE
INEMENOMEN
NONE
NONE,
111immomm
mmmmmmmmm
Z:-,
-VICINITYM"
SCALE. 1=500'+I-
=ELI
ate: 4P11 -7 /13
D
PLGfte S(6�7 0 V) L S ftU_
#2 CITY OF EDMONDS 1ST REV
dcu 1052213
#1 ISSUED JCM
DESCRIP71ON LS
COA7RACTOR MASTON PROPER71ES & CONSTRUCTION, LLC
AT7k* RICK BYNUM - PH: 425-299-8877
2020 MALTBY RD, BOTHELL, WA 98021
APPLICANTIOWNER.
MASION PROPER71ES & CONSTRUCTION, LLC
ATTN, RICK BMUM - PH. 425-299-8877
2020 WLIBY RD, BOTH" WA 98021
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PINE CREST BLOCK 000 D-00 - TR 91
LAND USEIZONMG:
910 UNDEVELOPED (VACANT) LAND
TAX ACCOUNT NO.(S):
00544300009100
BLD PERM[T#
SITE PLAN
SITE ADDRESS:
22706 95th PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
MASTONPROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION, LLC
PORTION OF SE 114, SE 114 SEC. 25, T. 27 N., R. 3 E., W.M.
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORA WN BY DA7E REV BY DA7E PROJECT MANAGER SCALE
GIR JCM J.C.McDONNELL 1�=20�-O"
DRAMNG FILE NAME CHK. BY I F.B. NO. JOB NO, SHT NO.
05871-EDMDS SfR ENGdwq 05871 spi Of
Name of Proposed Project:
Owner/Applicant
M1q5;T-3,i P/*2,0PeJ?,r7eS
Name
-7 0 7-4) A L0311 4,q 0
Street/Mailing Address
)K?A e 1/ 0 WA
city State Zip
Telephone: (4zs) 2"7q-
1 -.1
Applicant Contact Person:
/�K &
Name
Street/Mailing Address
&0 a, IM
city State Zip
Telephone: 2199 — 919� 7 7
Traffic ngineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable):
�rio Aq ne A7111-
Finn Name i I- I Contact Name
Telephone:
THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
�w
E-mail: lr&e-4623 Z-
Project Traffic Levels Sections to Complete
1. Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated 1 and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist)
11. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated All sections
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Location - Street address: ZZ -706 76 r
6 /Ud5 &A (Attach a vicinity ma�, and site plan.)
b. Specify existing land use: '*V4 STR tp,�- 700
c. Specify proposed type and size of development: Z,6kote. I o4p. Y—
(# of residentid units andlor squarefootage of building)
RESUB
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet MAY 2 4 2013 Page " of
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
d. Date construction will begin and be completer] -A- #),At, End 17F-P ZW3
0 J
e. Define proposed access locations: 1""hrlz
0
f Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: 30-1A la&kl
5i&<o_ _SP hw,, '0 ) (" ea0e(_J 1AI-5 cu"d
' 10-4.^ 6P �bj(_r\ d I I Al CC&-, F1 h
2. TRIP GENERATION
Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer)
a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour Trips
IN
OUT
b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour Trips
IN
OUT
5 F
c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour
Trips
IN
OUT
d. State assumplions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips:
Revised on 6124110 E82 7 Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 2 of 5
3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. For
developments that generate over 75 peak -hour trips, the City Engineer reserves the right to require
trip distribution to be determined through use of the City traffic model. 1
4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY
a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements?
b. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis:
Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City ofldmonds Traffic Engineer
Existing Conditions
LOS
Delays
Year of Opening
LOS
Delays
Five Years Beyond Change of
LOS
I
Delays
E
Land Use
c. Describe channelization warrants:
(Attach stripingplan.)
' ' Y
d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculatel 0 o and 95 % queuing lengths):
50%
95%
Existing Conditions
Year of Opening
Five Years Beyond Change of
Land Use
e. If appropriate, state traffic conyfol warrants (e.g. stop sign warrants, signal warrants):
f. Summarize local acc nt history2 (only required for access to principal and minor arterials):
Available upon request a ity of Edmonds Development Services Department
S/C
2 t tC
Available upon request t City of Edmonds Police Department
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Inipact Analysis Worksheet Page 3 of5
5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Provide the following and other planned development traffic within the Y-1
cit/
a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts (less than two years old), including turning
movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the projec�.
b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including tu/ming movements, the year the
project is fully open (with and without project traffic).
c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, incl�ding turning movements, five years
after the project has been fully open (with and without Project traffic).
d. State annual b ackground traffic growth fac ource:
I'S
6. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS /
a. Summarize Level of Service Analysis befow and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation.
Provide the following documentation f9r each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by
ten or more peak -hour trips. Other Cit
,�-planned developments' must also be factored into the
LOS calculations.
LOS
r
LOS
Exis ting Conditions
Existing
Delays
Year of Opening
With Project
Without Project
Five Years Beyond Cha �e of
With Project
Without Project
I
Land Use
I
b. Note any assurnptions/�ariations to standard analysis default values and justifications:
1 A list of planned devele(pments are available at the City upon request for public records
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 4 of 5
7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic
impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached)
and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations
in ECDC 18.82.130.
CHANGE IN USE
Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the
previous use was permitted prior to theadoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04),
the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used.
ITE Land Use Category
Per Unit
Fee Rate
New Use
Prior Use
Units in
square feet,
# of dwelling,
vfp, etc.
X
X
New Use Fee: $ Prior Use Fee: $
T/NEW DEVELOPMENT
ITE Land Use Category
Per Unit
Fee Rate
I New Use I -Z ( c> SiFk I $ (t I q6.331 x
0 OTHER
Units in
square feet,
# of dwelling,
vfp, etc.
I U/.' IT -
Fee
Fee
MITIGATION FEE RECOMMENDATION: $ 33
INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 (+ consultant fee) $
TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $ &
monds, Engineering Division Approval Date
1 No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative.
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 5 of 5
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
I =STREET iii]
Name:
Site Address: 2,2_-W6 - � A.\ A 01
Date:
Plan Check 90 2,0 13 0
Project Description:
Reduced Site Plan Provided- (401 NO) —1
Zoning: / J 4
Map Page.'
Corner Lot: (YES
Flag Lot: (YES
Critical Areas Determination ff:
L-LA/ V - CO CX
04'�Study Required 6� ,—/I s s k J -t�
waiver /vim -2o, 2-01-5
SEPA Determination:
caxempt
El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
ReXired tbacks
Street:
Side-.
7,S7 ",
Sid
1 —7.
Rear-
ActtlalSeffiacks
Street:
Side: Iq
Side.-
Rear:
Detached Structures: cm 1),ar
Q-.Rockeries: rv/rtce;�,
El Fences[Trellises:
El Bay Windows/Projecting Mod lation-
0--Stairs/Deck: �0�tca
Hetght
Datum Point:
atum Elevation:
Maximum Height Allowed:ZS—( -3 -7 q 9
Actual Height: Z-3 -1 C___3 -7 —7,
Oth4er
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Area:
1771-2 (?-
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed:
Lot Coverage Calculations: 00!�e_--r exr_k -r qeo7� c 2- L*
L
ADU Created: (YES �00
Subdivision:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
a h T CA- tc-,� comments
3 5-5 36 1 P&P VC fyasle
al 6'. 9 (01 /L ? t- yc
355-� 14- 37/y _36ul 5 �0,vw
C: 353,7 bj huwf
-t fr\e
3!�2_ - 3 iq ac., � e- (1 � Im re
, I tutL 'J" .41 <
Plan Review By:4 77
U — . _j —
YAW da4_14�
eb-0
3) 4�
, I. 7V"!-x
/"J pa r
11
( V ��- co
M
I
City of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:
A 5 �OA
Property Owner:
Ikla 5 �Oj-�
Critical Area File #:
CPA- Z066 00ZO
Permit Number:
2-01:3 0:-3 q0
Site Location:
Parcel Number:
005� yq3 o 0 (o cD q (o o
Project Descriptio n:
Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above.
I . There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer.
2. The proposal is an �Ilowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or
-1 23.80.040.
I The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.
Erosion Hazard. Pro . ect is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
9
sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
Critical Area Report Required.* The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
I The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40-.120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordancewith ECDC
23.40. 110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
F-I Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1.60 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
U�Xlavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria ih ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. . Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
Fj Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
dMA:. � 1'7 It
t
Reviewer Signature Daie
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
OV RD&
0
SIK
"0
EETFILE
Certificate of Occ'upanc
Building Division
e
This certificate is issued in accordance with the requirements of Section 111 of the 09 Internati ' onal Building Code cerffying
that at the time of issuance this single family residence. was in compliance with the applicable provisions of the -codes and
ordinances of the city regulating construction and use of buildings.
Description: 64 - Single Family Residence New
Site Address: 22706 95TH PL W, EDMONDS Permit No: BLD20130390
Construction Type: VB Parcel No: 00544300009100
Owner: LENG KO &CHAN ANNA QUACH Occupancy Group: R-3/U
22706 95TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
BuipinOfficial Date Issued
POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE
CoEARTH
CONSULTING
INCORPORATED
CI Environmental Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering Q Construction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections
September 18, 2007
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
KRAGSETHSFR
22706 95TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Project No. E-12891
References:
Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006.
Earth Consulting Incorporated, Critical Areas Review, April 17, 2007.
Erich 0. Tiettze and Associates, Inc, Two Lot Short Plat 22706 95th Place West, Sheets
S-1 and C-1—C-5, September 9, 2007.
Nash, Jones, & Anderson, The Rutledge VI Plan 2582, Sheets A-1—A-6 and G-1
September 18, 2007.
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is responding to the geotechnical
comments from the City of Edmonds dated September 10, 2007. The cities comment
appears below in bold, our response follows.
Comment 6. Geotechnical Report: Since the subject property is located adjacent to
a steep slope, a report by a geotechnical engineer is required. Please have a
qualified geotechnicall engineer review the proposed building plans and write a
report that meets the requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. Please note that the
geotechnical report must address all proposed improvements on the site, including
the proposed residence, deck, patio, fence, rockery, and any tree removal outside
the footprint of development.
RESUB.
SEP 212007
BU169 NG DEPARTMEN!
1805 1361h Place Northeast #201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 643-3780 Fax (425) 746-0860 CITY OF EDMONDS
eci@eci-mti.com - www.eci-mti.com
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007
E-12891
The critical areas considerations were addressed by the referenced letters from
Associated Earth Sciences (AESI) and ECI. The AESI report included explorations and a
plot plan. The following sections provide the additional recommendations for foundations,
retaining walls, structural fill, and seismic design.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed building may be supported on
a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent
native soil, structural fill or competent fill. If unsuitable material such as buried topsoil,
organic material, or debris is encountered in the foundation excavation, the unsuitable
material should be removed and replaced with structural fill.
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final
exterior grade for frost protection. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas where interior foundation
elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively.
With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity
of 2500 pounds per square feet may be used for medium dense native soils or structural fill.
Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of
3 1 0 against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a 1/3 increase in the
above allowable bearing capacity can* be used.
With structural loading as expected and provided the above design criteria are followed, total
settlement of less than approximately 1 inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of
approximately 0.5 inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction
as dead loads are applied.
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. Resistance due to
passive earth pressure may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) for footings backfilled with structural fill. These values are allowable
values; a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element
is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if
such movement is not acceptable. Unless covered by pavements or slabs, the passive
resistance in the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected.
ECI should be retained to observe the foundation subgrade prior to placement of structural
fill, forms, or rebar.
EARTH coNsuunmG INCORPORATED Page 2
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007
Retaining Walls
E- 12891
Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils
and applicable surcharge loads. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist
the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35 pcf. If walls
are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be
increased to 50 pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges
due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads
are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to
the above design lateral pressure.
The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously provided
in the "Foundations" section are applicable to the retaining wall design.
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the walls, retaining walls
should be backfilled with a free -draining material extending at least 18 inches behind the
wall. The free -draining backfill should consist of either pea gravel or washed rock. A rigid, 4-
inch-diameter, schedule 40, perforated PVC drain pipe should be placed at the base of the
wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of I cubic foot per lineal foot with pea gravel or
washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations down. The remainder of the
backfill should consist of structural fill.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Loose or
disturbed subgrade soil must either be compacted to the requirements of structural fill or
replaced with structural fill.
Slabs should be provided with a capillary break comprised of a minimum of 4 inches of free -
draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as
a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab.
Structural Fill
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its
laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation,
D1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum
moisture content.
In our opinion, the native soils that will be encountered on site can be considered for use as
structural fill provided the soil is near its optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007
E-12891
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well -graded granular
soil with a moisture content that is at or near its optimum moisture content and has a
maximum aggregate size of 4 inches. During wet weather conditions or where groundwater
seepage is encountered, structural fill should consist of a faidy well -graded granular material
having a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the
U.S. No. 200 sieve.
Seismic Design Considerations
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland With regularity; however, the majority of these
events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large
earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia
area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8
magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area.
There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at
this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been
documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site
during a strong motion seismic event is negligible.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -
grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a
fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain -size
distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), it must be loose, it must be below
the groundwater table, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of
groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement
for structures founded in the liquefying soils.
In our opinion, the liquefaction potential at this site is low to negligible. This conclusion is
based on the medium dense to dense soils encountered at the test pit locations and the lack
of a shallow groundwater table.
GroundM.otion Response
The International Building Code (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a
dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the encountered
soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, "Very dense soil and soft rock," as defined in
Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC, should be used to characterize the site soils. In accordance with
Section 1615.1.2 of the IBC, Seismic Values, S .. s =1.423 and Sm, = 0.639 should be used
for design.
EWM CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 4
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18. 2007
Site Drainage
E- 12891
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is collected and
tightlined to an appropriate drainage facility. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas
where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose soil surfaces should be
sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration. Final site
grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundation. The ground should be
sloped at a gradient of 2 percent in paved areas and 3 percent in landscaped areas for a
distance of at least 10 feet from the buildings.
Footing drains may be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the
invert of the footing, as shown on the "Typical Footing Subdrain Detail," Plate 1. Under no
circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system.
Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed
at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout
tightline systems.
Plan Review
ECI reviewed the referenced plans for the project and. based on that review the plans
incorporate the above recommendations for foundation design.
We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED
11/ 4 7
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Principal
KMWiskp
Attachment: Plate I —Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 5
SLOPE TO
DRAIN
Q,
kw 1 61.1
115A
0A
4 INCH MIN. DIAMETER
PERFORATED PIPE —
2 INCH MIN.
2 INCH MIN..
4 INCH MAX 12 INCH MIN.
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soil or other
low permeability material
Washed rock or pea gravel
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted
0 rigid Schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35
pipe laid with perforations or slots
facing down; tight jointed; with a
positive gradient. Do not use
flexible corrugated plastic pipe.
Do not tie building downspout
drains into footing lines.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
4=-arth
Consil
Incorporated
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
KRAGSETH SFR
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
DRWN.DNM
I
I PROJ. NO. 12891
CHKD. KMW
I DATE 9/18/07
1 PLATE 1
Associated Earth, Sciences, Inc.
N9 Ed NJ W1 0
afekrabn
'y 2-5 Veam of Safflee
July 14, 2006
Project No. KE060383A
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95h Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Steep Slope Evaluation
Kragseth Short Plat
22706 95' Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has performed a geotechnical review of
the above -referenced project to determine if it complies with Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) 23.80.060 for alterations of Geologically Hazardous Areas or
associated buffers. This letter is based on a site reconnaissance and the excavation of three
exploration pits on May 30, 2006, a review of applicable geologic maps and appropriate City
.of Edmonds code, and conversations with you regarding potential construction plans.
Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan, attached, shows the approximate locations of the
exploration pits, existing site features, site topography, and building setback lines. The Site
and Exploration Plan is based on a site plan generated by Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc., and
provided by you. Geologic logs of the exploration pits completed for this study are included as
attachments to this letter.
The proposed project involves subdividing the existing lot into two lots, a remodel of the
existing house on Lot 1, the addition of a garage to the existing house, and the construction of
a second house on Lot 2. The construction of the garage on Lot I will necessitate a temporary
cut, approximately 7 feet high, into or immediately adjacent to a 40-percent slope. The
construction of the house on Lot 2 will necessitate a temporary cut of 10 to 11 feet into or
immediately adjacent to a 40-percent slope.- Figure I includes 2-foot topographic contours; the
map was provided to AESI with the areas exhibiting 40-percent slopes or greater identified
with a diagonal hatch pattern.
Geological Characteristics
NOV — 2 2007
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
According to the 1:24,000 scale Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King 4rea, Washington CITY OF EDMONDS
(Booth, et al., 2004), the site is rnapped as being on the edge of the Vashon lodgement
till/Vashon advance outwash contact. It should he noted that geologic contacts at this sccale are
11"'irldwid Office -911 Fifi I i Aven tic. SLike 10(1- Kiik I. md. WA "N'03; - PI 'M. 1-):, 1" 1 2-i
Evcrett Office -!I) I I 1 ;2 f 1cwinAvoi tie, SUI CC? - F%Cll-tt� A'A 9X201 -P I ,,i2S) .1151)-0522 - 1-1
STREET FILE
often approximately placed and should be viewed accordingly. The site generally slopes down
from northwest to southeast, with a maximum elevation change of approximately 22 feet. The
steepest slopes (approximately 60 percent) occur along the north -central side of the property.
Based on the explorations conducted for this study, the geology of the slopes can be
characterized in the following units:
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Immediately below the forest duff/topsoil layer, approximately 5 to 6 feet of medium dense,
dry to moist, light brown to brownish gray, fine to medium sand with silt, little gravel, and
trace roots was observed.
Vashon Lodgement Till
Below 5 to 6 feet in depth in our explorations, sediments included dense, moist, light brownish
gray to gray, partially consolidated, fine to medium sand with fine gravel and silt, and were
interpreted as Vashon lodgement till.
No seepage or sloughing was observed in the exploration pits. Our site reconnaissance
indicated relatively stable slopes, with no signs of slope instability observed, such as bowl -
shaped landforms, bowed coniferous tree trunks, seeps, or obvious headscarps. A review of
the City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Draft Inventory Maps (Figure 6.0-1,
Potential Geologically Hazardous Areas) did not indicate the presence of Erosion, Landslide,
Steep Slope, or Seismic Hazard Areas; however, an area to the west of the site is mapped as an
Erosion Hazard Area.
Findings
Based on our field reconnaissance and exploration pits, and review of the' available geologic
information, the following site characteristics were identified:
0 The site includes slopes of 40 percent or greater.
0 The soils were found in a medium dense or dense condition.
No seeps or evidence of ground water was observed within 9 to 11.5 feet of ground
surface in our explorations.
0 No indications of slope instability were observed.
It is AESI's opinion that the proposed construction may be completed using the following
recommendations:
The garage on Lot 1 and the house on Lot 2 should utilize a building setback of at least
7.5 feet and a buffer of at least 7.5 feet from the toe of the Steep Slope/Landslide
Hazard Area. The Steep Slope/Landslide Hazard Area is located along the north and
northwestern portions of the property, as indicated by the hatched contours, provided
by Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc. on Figure 1.
The proposed, temporary cuts should be constructed at a lH: IV (Horizontal: Vertical)
slope angle in the dense, unweathered glacial till (encountered approximately 5 to 6 feet
below ground surface), and at a 1.5H: IV slope angle in the upper, weathered, medium
dense sediments.
0 We recommend extending all foundation elements to the underlying lodgement till.
It is our opinion that the potential for slope -related failures due to deep-seated landsliding and
shallow debris flows at the site should be low after construction if the general
recommendations in this letter are followed.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions
regarding this letter or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please call us at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
Stanley S. Thompson, P.G., P.Hg.
Senior Project Geologist
Attachments: Exploration Pit Logs
SST/ld
KE060383A I
Projects\20060383\K
J
0 33222
GIST -r-
1EXPIRES 2J277'7— �_7-
G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G.
Associate Engineer
k
LD
.......... . ....... z
FF;VCE'
. ..... --------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION Ii, -',r6
OF EXPLORATION PIT
TYP
ji
clllwlumx�p 1-7 WOOD FENCE .1., 1
E
2
7 -9 !�s
Vi FENPE
Z
oil I I
VEP-3
M,
m
M En
uwz
V)
an
7,kj�,3�cpbjjN IJIl FE)qCE
RA
km"-, - - - I- - X
�6'
EP-1
ar
SA;Nc
WAQ
S'o
fliAd=72Y.42
V, CONCRL7E MG iE(N)=716.42(T2- PVC)
m EXiS - PIC
RESWENCE 1E(!F)=716.,32(12
IT=714,117
1351 SQ� Ff
W
06WERY—
,pUii'; . . . . . . . . . .
" � ,
RAU
M
ull
z
0
5�hfh!
RIM=712.61
IE= 704,14(CENT
DF CNANIVEL)
BOTH 8' Cl
P921E
-ca
N
SD
CRUM 03
PLAS77C) V z
:C A
IE(S)=706.22(12" PLAS7C) m
13; 0 20
SCALE IN FEET
Reference: Pacific Geornatic Services, Inc.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. FIGURE I
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
KRAGSETH SHORT PLAT DATE 6/06
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJI. NO. KE060383A
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1
This I 'is art 9 he epotXepaelb' Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
t t repo for , only to the location of this trench at the
read togthp th' ha lete interpretation. This summary
'6.
gplies
location w t
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ions m hange at this it he passage of time. The data presented are
a simpification of actual conditions encounteaydc
e
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, dry to moist, light brown to brownish light gray, fine to medium SAND with silt, little
1
fine to coarse gravel, trace roots.
2
3
4
5
6
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, light brownish gray, partially consolidated, fine to medium SAND with fine gravel and
7
silt.
8
9
10
11
12 —
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11.5 feet
No seeps or sloughing.
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Project No. KE060383A
I ogged by. SST
Approved by. 5/3=6
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2
This log' is , , 0 at , p ' fpaelby tA�sociated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
art e e Xe
read toget4 ith'th e0po , ", le e , nterpretation.. This summary %plies only to the location of this trench at the
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ion may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
ic s
a simpffication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, little
1
silt, trace roots.
2
3
4
5
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, light brownish gray, fine to coarse SAND with fine to coarse gravel, little silt,
6
occasional cobble, partially consolidated.
7
8
9
10
11 —
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet
No seeps or sloughing.
12 —
13 —
14 —
15 —
16
17
18
19
Logged by SST
Aporoved by
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
90.1
I ? : 01 .4
No illf,
Project No. KE060383A
5/30/06
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3
Z�
:S
This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary only to the location of this trench at the
CL
gplies
time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
a)
0
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, dry to moist, light brown, silty fine to medium SAND, few fine to coarse gravel, trace
to few cobbles, occasional boulders.
2
3
4
5
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, gray, fine to medium SAND, little silt, little fine to coarse gravel, consolidated.
6
7
8
9
10
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet
No seeps or sloughing.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
�T.'
wrlw%
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Project No. KE060383A
I ogged by SST
Approved by LM 0 ;� 11% b 5/30106
EARTH STREET FILE RECEIVED
CONSULTING 7,16 - V 5-" A� APR 18 2007
INCORPORATED BUILDING DEEDPARTMENT
CITY OF MONDS
0 Environmental Services El GeotechniGal Engineering El Construction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections
April 17, 2007
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW
KRAGSETH SHORT PLAT
22706 95TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Project No. E-12891
Reference:
APPROVED BY PLANNING
Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006.
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is pleased to present this letter
providing a review of current construction concerning the steep slope/landslide hazard
area. In preparing this letter, we reviewed the above -referenced letter by Associated
Earth Sciences.
Introduction
We understand that the above -referenced property is a rectangular parcel with its length
in a general east —west direction. Along the north property boundary, a steep slope of
approximately 22 feet in height and greater than 40 percent slope parallels the lot line
descending onto the Kragseth property from the north. No failures or signs of slope
instability were found in the slope.
We understand that it is proposed remove the entire existing structure and that two new
residences will be constructed on Lot 1 and Lot 2
1805 136t" Place Northeast #201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 * (425) 643-3780 s Fax (425) 746-0860
eci@eci-mti.com * www.eci-mti.com
CRMCAL AREAS REVIEW
April 17, 2007
Conclusions
E-12891
It is our opinion that the proposed demolition will not adversely affect the stability of the
slope, alter stormwater discharge and sedimentation, or impact other critical areas,
provided that the work on site is limited to the demolition of the existing house. The
proposed demolition conforms to the Edmonds City Code:
23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards
2. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer may only
occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that:
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and
c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas
No excavation or tree removal should be performed on the slope.
When the proposed demolition is completed, ECI should be provided site plans to
recommend appropriate buffers and potential slope modification.
Limitations
Our scope of work for this project was limited to a review of the above -referenced letter
and a site plan for the subdivision. Our work did not include exploration of actual
subsurface conditions. Our engineering analyses and conclusions are based on the
reviewed information.
Our services have been performed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in the area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call.
Respe mitted,
70t,�ta
m it
INCORPORATED
CO
1611
I FJOBERT A. BLOMOUISTt
Robert A. Blomquist, LG
Project Geologist
RABIKMW/Skp
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Principal
Page 2
Associat'ed Earth Sciences, Inc.
M [11
afekra6n
,y.25 Vean of Septdx
July 14, 2006
Project No. KE060383A
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95' Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Steep Slope Evaluation
Kragseth Short Plat
22706 95" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has performed a geotechnical review of
the above -referenced project to determine if it complies with Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) 23.80.060 for alterations of Geologically Hazardous Areas or
associated buffers. This letter is based on a site reconnaissance and the excavation of three
exploration pits on May 30, 2006, a review of applicable geologic maps and appropriate City
of Edmonds code, and conversations with you regarding potential construction plans.
Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan, attached, shows the approximate locations of the
exploration pits, existing site features, site topography, and building setback lines. The Site
and Exploration Plan is based on a site plan generated by Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc., and
provided by you. Geologic logs of the exploration pits completed for this study are included as
attachments to this letter.
The proposed project involves subdividing the existing lot into two lots, a remodel of the
existing house on Lot 1, the addition of a garage to the existing house, and the construction of
a second house on Lot 2. The construction of the garage on Lot I will necessitate a temporary
cut, approximately 7 feet high, into or immediately adjacent to a 40-percent slope. The
construction of the house on Lot 2 will necessitate a temporary cut of 10 to 11 feet into or
immediately adjacent to a 40-percent slope. Figure I includes 2-foot topographic contours; the
map was provided to AESI with the areas exhibiting 40-percent slopes or greater identified
with a diagonal hatch pattern.
Geological Characteristics
UILDING DEPARTIME
According to the 1:24,000 scale Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King III -ea, Washingt0l? .,CJ.TY
OF EDMONDS
(Booth, et al., 2004), the site is mapped as being on the edge of the Vashon lodgement
till/Vashon advance oulwash contact It should be noted that geologic contacts ai this scale ai-e
Killd:1100(ficc- 911 Viff I I A%mitic, �Ljiie 100 - Kirkland,VIA 98033 -P 1 (4251S2_7 -'7`0 1 -1 �! 1—) 21
�vureii Officc - 191 i I i �' 11, witt Avome, Sui it: 2 - Fvcioi- A'A 9820 1 , 111 '1425) ..',';9-0:;2_1 � I` 1 44(18
16 2013
I SERVICES CTR,
�JF EIA40NDS
STREET 'FILE
often approximately placed and should be viewed accordingly. The site generally slopes down
from northwest to southeast, with a maximum elevation change of approximately 22 feet. The
steepest slopes (approximately 60 percent) occur along the north -central side of the property.
Based on the explorations conducted for this study, the geology of the slopes can be
characterized in the following units:
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Immediately below the forest duff/topsoil layer, approximately 5 to 6 feet of medium dense,
dry to moist, light brown to brownish gray, fine to medium sand with silt, little gravel, and
trace roots was observed.
Vashon Lodgement Till
Below 5 to 6 feet in depth in our explorations, sediments included dense, moist, light brownish
gray to gray, partially consolidated, fine to medium sand with fine gravel and silt, and were
interpreted as Vashon lodgement till.
No seepage or sloughing was observed in the exploration pits. Our site reconnaissance
indicated relatively stable slopes, with no signs of slope instability observed, such as bowl -
shaped landforms, bowed coniferous tree trunks, seeps, or obvious headscarps. A review of
the City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Draft Inventory Maps (Figure 6.0-1,
Potential Geologically Hazardous Areas) did not indicate the presence of Erosion, Landslide,
Steep Slope, or Seismic Hazard Areas; however, an area to the west of the site is mapped as an
Erosion Hazard Area.
Findings
Based on our field reconnaissance and exploration pits, and review of the available geologic
information, the following site characteristics were identified:
a The site includes slopes of 40 percent or greater.
a The soils were found in a medium dense or dense condition.
No seeps or evidence of ground water was observed within 9 to 11.5 feet of ground
surface in our explorations.
0 No indications of slope instability were observed.
It is AESI's opinion that the proposed construction may be completed using the following
recommendations:
N
The garage on Lot I and the house on Lot 2 should utilize a building setback of at least
T5 feet and a buffer of at least 7.5 feet from the toe of the Steep Slope/Landslide
Hazard Area. The Steep Slope/Landslide Hazard Area is located along the north and
northwestern portions of the property, as indicated by the hatched contours, provided
by Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc. on Figure 1.
The proposed, temporary cuts should be constructed at a IHAV (Horizontal: Vertical)
slope angle in the dense, unweathered glacial till (encountered approximately 5 to 6 feet
below ground surface), and at a 1. 5H: IV slope angle in the upper, weathered, medium
dense sediments.
0 We recommend extending all foundation elements to the underlying lodgement till.
It is our opinion that the potential for slope -related failures due to deep-seated landsliding and
shallow debris flows at the site should be low after construction if the general
recommendations in this letter are followed.
We appreciate the Opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions
regarding this letter or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please call us at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
I(irkland, Washington
Stanley S. Thompson, P.G., P.Hg.
Senior Project Geologist
Attachments: Exploration Pit Logs
SST/ld
KE060383A I
0 33222
Q1STf
VAL
1EXPIRES 2/27 Zi=
G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G.
Associate Engineer
FENCE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXPLORATION PIT
TYP
VNk, FEW wl
A,
7.5- FiSSL
N uw FEWE
I
FENCE
yam
r4m
@
mr
Reference: Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc.
7
Wlw FENCE
EP-1 x
asix
ar
IVILL J'
SD
RW=721,42
V) CONrRETE Exismo M(N)=718.42(12- P�V)
Lori lE(�r)=7f&J2(J2- PVC)
Fr-714 ' 87 1
1351 SQ.. FT. 00
"w 9
7.5' BSBL
L
OEMO ARFA
EEECMC
A&MR
5')"M FENCE 5.5' WOOD
%mi um a=
3' CHAIN LINK FENCE
SD
R141=710.87
IE(N)= - PIAS17C)
tE(S)_;:.27(f2
22(12" PLASM)
U?
VZ
N
pg
SShfH
RhV-712Z9
lE=7"1#(tE,VT,
OF CHANNEL)
BM 8" CONC
PIPE
a
N
A
0 20
SCALE IN FEET
lated Earth Sciences, Inc. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE I
KRAGSETH SHORT PLAT DATE 6108
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJ. NO. KE060383A
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1
This log is pa,'t,91 the report repared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
r 9...r it, X
tpad thatrepo for complete interpretation, This summary a lies only to the location of this trench at the
n vAtgp
ime of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this locatio the passage of time. The data presented are
a simpification of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, dry to moist, light brown to brownish light gray, fine to medium SAND with silt, little
fine to coarse gravel, trace roots.
2
3
4
5
6 Vashon Lodgement Till
7 Dense, moist, light brownish gray, partially consolidated, fine to medium SAND with fine gravel and
silt.
8
9
10
12 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11.5 feet
No seeps or sloughing.
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
-20-
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences. Inc
I f)gged by SST
:-proved 0
. % . y I IN -
Project No. �'E060383A
5130106
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2
This log is art 91 the'report Pared by,A%ociated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the,na ed prolect and should be
qgg
" 'th th I ggle
read or ..Ple e 'n erpretation. This summary %plies only to hemlocafion" of this trench at the
I
time of excavation. Subsurface condi ions m
raeydchange at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
a simplfication of actual conditions encounte
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, little
silt, trace roots.
2
3
4
5 Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, light brownish gray, fine to coarse SAND with fine to coarse gravel, little silt,
6 occasional cobble, partially consolidated.
7
10 -
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet
11 — No seeps or sloughing.
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16
17
18
19
Kragseth Short Plat
P Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Logged t)y SST
Project No. KE060383A
5/30/06
LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3
This log is part of the report repared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be
read together with that repoxfor complete interpretation. This summary agplies only to the location of this trench at the
C1
4)
time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location wit the passage of time. The data presented are
0
a simplfication of actual conditions encountered.
DESCRIPTION
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
Medium dense, dry to moist, light brown, silty fine to medium SAND, few fine to coarse gravel, trace
to few cobbles, occasional boulders.
2
3
4
5
Vashon Lodgement Till
Dense, moist, gray, fine to medium SAND, little silt, little fine to coarse gravel, consolidated.
6
7
8
9
Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet
10
No seeps or sloughing.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
I ngged by SST
Approved by
Kragseth Short Plat
Edmonds, WA
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc
LEM
IJMY'�J
Project No. KE060383A
511,30106
EARTH STREET FILE RIECEUVED
CONSULTING AN i P� 2007
INCORPORATED WILDING DEPARTMEW
CITY OF EDMONDS
U Environmental Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering 0 Construction materials Testing 0 Special Inspections
ApNI17,2007
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW
KRAGSETH SHORT PLAT
22706 95TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Project No. E-12891
Reference:
APPROVED BY PLANNING
Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006.
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is pleased to present this letter
providing a review of current construction concerning the steep slope/landslide hazard
area. In preparing this letter, we reviewed the above -referenced letter by Associated
Earth Sciences.
Introduction
We understand that the above -referenced property is a rectangular parcel with its length
in a general east —west direction. Along the north property boundary, a steep slope of
approximately 22 feet In height and greater than 40 percent slope parallels the lot line
descending onto the Kragseth property from the north. No failures or signs of slope
instability were found in the slope.
We understand that it is proposed remove the entire existing structure and that two new
residences will be constructed on Lot I and Lot 2
1805 11361h Place Northeast #201 * Bellevue, WA 98005 & (425) 643-3780 * Fax (425) 746-0860
eci@eci-mti.com e www.eci-mti.com
CRITICAL AMEAS R6MGW
April 17, 2007
Conclusions
E-12891
It is our opinion that the proposed demolition will not adversely affect the stability of the
slope, alter stormwater discharge and sedimentation, or impact other critical areas,
provided that the work on site is limited to the demolition of the existing house. The
proposed demolition conforms to the Edmonds City Code:
23.80.070 Development standards — Specific hazards
2. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer may only
occur for activities for which a hazards analysis Is submitted and certifies that:
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and
c. Such alterations will not adversely Impact other critical areas
No excavation or tree removal should be performed on the slope.
When the proposed demolition is completed, ECI should be provided site plans to
recommend appropriate buffers and potential slope modification.
Limitations
Our scope of work for this project was limited to a review of the above -referenced letter
and a site plan for the subdivision. Our work did not include exploration of actual
subsurface conditions. Our engineering analyses and conclusions are based on the
reviewed information.
Our services have been performed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in the area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call.
ICORPORATeD
Robert A. Blomquist, LG
Project Geologist
PABIKMW/skp
eARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED
V
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Principal
F,
I w/6 -7
Page 2
EARTH
CONSULTING
INCORPORATED
0 Environmental Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering 0 Construction Materials Testing O_Special Inspections
September 18, 2007
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
KRAGSETHSFR
22706 95TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Project No. E-12891
References:
Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006.
Earth Consulting Incorporated, Critical Areas Review, April 17, 2007,
Erich 0. Tiettze and Associates, Inc, Two Lot Short Plat 22706 95th Place West, Sheets
S-1 and C-1 —C-5, September 9, 2007.
Nash, Jones, & Anderson, The Rutledge V1 Plan 258Z Sheets A-1—A-6 and G-1
September 18, 2007.
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is responding to the geotechnical
comments from the City of Edmonds dated September 10, 2007. The cities comment
appears below in bold, our response follows.
Comment 6. Geotechnical Report; Since the subject property Is located adjacent to
a steep slope, a report by a geotechnical engineer is required. Please have a
qualified geotechnicall engineer review the proposed building plans and write a
report that meets the requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. Please note that the
geotechnicall report must address all proposed improvements on the site, including
the proposed residence, deck, patio, fence, rockery, and any tree removal outside
the footprint of development. RESUB
SEP 2 12007
1411;9 NG DEPARTMENT
1805 1361h Place Northea�t 0201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 - (425) 643-3780 - Fax (425) 746-0860 CITY OF EDMONDS
eci@eci-mti.com - www.eci-mti.com
."NTRUT C11 C
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007
E-12891
The critical areas considerations were addressed by the referenced letters from
Associated Earth Sciences (AESI) and ECI. The AESI report included explorations and a
plot plan. The following sections provide the additional recommendations for foundations,
retaining walls, structural fill, and seismic design.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed building may be supported on
a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent
native soil, structural fill or competent fill. If unsuitable material such as buried topsoil,
organic material, or debris is encountered in the foundation excavation, the unsuitable
material should be removed and replaced with structural fill.
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final
exterior grade for frost protection. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas where interior foundation
elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively.
With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity
of 2500 pounds per square feet may be used for medium dense native soils or structural fill.
Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of
3 1 0 against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a 1/3 increase in the
above allowable bearing capacity can be used.
With structural loading as expected and provided the above design criteria are followed, total
settlement of less than approximately 1 inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of
approximately 0.5 inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction
as dead loads are applied.
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. Resistance due to
passive earth pressure may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) for footings backfilled with structural fill. These values are allowable
values; a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element
is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if
such movement is not acceptable. Unless covered by pavements or slabs, the passive
resistance in the upper I foot of soil should be neglected.
ECI should be retained to observe the foundation subgrade prior to placement of structural
fill, forms, or rebar.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 2
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007
Retaining Walls
E- 12891
Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained soils
and applicable surcharge loads. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist
the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35 pcf. If walls
are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be
increased to 50 pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges
due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads
are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to
the above design lateral pressure.
The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously provided
in the "Foundations" section are applicable to the retaining wall design.
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the walls, retaining walls
should be backfilled with a free -draining material extending at least 18 inches behind the
wall. The free -draining backfill should consist of either pea gravel or washed rock. A rigid, 4-
inch-diameter, schedule 40, perforated PVC drain pipe should be placed at the base of the
wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of I cubic foot per lineal foot with pea gravel or
washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations down. The remainder of the
backfill should consist of structural fill.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Loose or
disturbed subgrade soil must either be compacted to the requirements of structural fill or
replaced with structural fill.
Slabs should be provided with a capillary break comprised of a minimum of 4 inches of free -
draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier,such as
a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab.
Structural Fill
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its
laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation.
D1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum
moisture content.
In our opinion, the native soils that will be encountered on site can be considered for use as
structural fill provided the soil is near its optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007
E-12891
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well -graded granular
soil with a moisture content that is at or near its optimum moisture content and has a
maximum aggregate size of 4 inches. During wet weather conditions or where groundwater
seepage is encountered, structural fill should consist of a fairly well -graded granular material
having a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the
U.S. No. 200 sieve.
Seismic Design Considerations
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity; however, the majority of these
events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large
earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia
area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8
magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area.
There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at
this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthqua ' Res in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles, Surface faulting from these deep events has not been
documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site
during a strong motion seismic event is negligible.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -
grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a
fluid. To have a potential for liquefacUon, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain -size
distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), it must be loose, it must be below
the groundwater table, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of
groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement
for structures founded in the liquefying soils.
In our opinion, the liquefaction potential at this site is low to negligible. This conclusion is
based on the medium dense to dense soils encountered at the test pit locations and the lack
of a shallow groundwater table.
GroundMotion Response
The International Building Code (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a
dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the encountered
soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, 'Very dense soil and soft rock," as defined in
Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC, should be used to characterize the site soils. In accordance with
Section 1615.1.2 of the IBC, Seismic Values, S,-,,, =1.423 and Sm, = 0.639 should be used
for design.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 4
RESPONSe TO COMMENTS
September 18.2007
Site Drainage
E-12891
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is collected and
tightlined to an appropriate drainage facility. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas
where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose soil surfaces should be
sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration. Final site
grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundation. The ground should be
sloped at a gradient of 2 percent in paved areas and 3 percent in landscaped areas for a
distance of at least 10 feet from the buildings.
Footing drains may be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the
invert of the footing, as shown on the "Typical Footing Subdrain Detail," Plate 1. Under no
circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system.
Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed
at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout
tightline systems.
Plan Review
ECI reviewed the referenced plans for the project and based on that review the plans
incorporate the above r eicommendations for foundation design.
We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED
MML3 —='n - 7=�
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Principal
KMW/skp
Attachment: Plate I —Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 5
SLOPE TO
DRAIN
:01 -1i
4 INCH MIN. DIAMETER
PERFORATED PIPE —
z
00
2 INCH MIN.
2 INCH MIN. I
4 INCH MAX. 1 12 INCH MIN.
LEGEND
Surface sea[; native soil or other
low permeability material
Washed rock or pea gravel
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted
rigid Schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35
plpe laid with perforations or slots
facing down; tight jointed; with a
positive gradient. Do not use
flexible corrugated plastic pipe.
Do not tie building downspout
drains into footing.lines.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
C=arth
Consulting
Incorporated
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
KRAGSETH SFR
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
I
I PROJ. NO. 12891
-DRWN.DNM
CHKI). KMW I
DATE 9/18/07
1 PLATE I
-6 EARTH
CONSULTING
INCORPORATED
Q Environmental Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering Q Construction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections
September 18, 2007
Revised November 23, 2007
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
KRAGSETH SFR
22706 AND 22708 95TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Project No. E-12891
References:
Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006.
Erich 0. Tiettze and Associates, Inc, Two Lot Short Plat 22706 95th Place West, Sheets
S-1 and C-1—C-5, September 9, 2007.
Nash, Jones, & Anderson, The Rutledge VI Plan 258Z Sheets A-1—A-6 and G-1
September 18, 2007.
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is responding to the geotechnical
comments from the City of Edmonds dated'September 10 and November 6, 2007. Lot 1 is
22706 95th Place West and Lot 2 is 22708 95th Place West. The comments for both lots
are similar so will be addressed with this one letter. ECI will be the geotechnical engineer
of record for the project and we agree with the previous recommendations provided by
the referenced report by Associated Earth Sciences (AESI). The City's comment appears
in bold; our response follows.
r o, t i FILE
'REN'
NOV 9
2 6 2007
BUll-I)ING IDEPARIIAEtf'
orry oF EDMONDS
1805 1361h Place Northeast #201 * Bellevue, WA 98005 * (425) 643-3780 - Fax (425) 746-0860
eci@eci-mti.com * www.eci-mti.com
RESPONSE TO COMM04TS E-12891
September 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Comment 6. Geotechnical Report: Since the subject property is located adjacent to
a steep slope, a report by a geotechnical engineer is required. Please have a
qualified geotechnical engineer review the proposed building plans and write a
report that meets the requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. Please note that the
geotechnical report must address all proposed improvements on the site, including
the proposed residence, deck, patio, fence, rockery, and any tree removal outside
the footprint of development.
The critical areas considerations were addressed in the referenced letter by AESI, and
ECI concurs with their assessment in relation to the currently proposed development. The
site conditions have not changed since these reports were prepared, and they remain
valid for the currently proposed development. The development addressed by the AES1
report included the proposed residence on Lot 2 and remodel of the residence on Lot 1. It
is now proposed to construct a new residence on Lot 1; however, the impacts to critical
areas have not increased from the description provided in the AES1 report. The AESI
report included explorations and a plot plan. No setbacks from the landslide hazard area
are recommended provided the recommendations for construction are followed.
The following sections provide the additional recommendations for foundations, retaining
walls, structural fill, seismic design, site drainage, rockery construction, tree removal, and
other improvements.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed building may be supported
on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on
competent native soil, structural fill, or competent fill. If unsuitable material such as buried
topsoil, organic material, or debris is encountered in the foundation excavation, the
unsuitable material should be removed and replaced with structural fill.
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below
final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas where
interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches.
Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of 16 and 18
inches, respectively.,
With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing
capacity of 2500 pounds per square feet (psf) may be used for medium dense native soils
or structural fill. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -
safety in excess of 3.0 against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a
1/3 increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used.
With structural loading as expected and provided the above design criteria are followed,
total settlement of less than approximately 1 inch is anticipated, with differential
settlement of approximately 0.5 inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur
during construction as dead loads are applied.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 2
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS E-12891
September 18. 2007, Revised November 23. 2007
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. Resistance due to
passive earth pressure may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for footings backfilled with structural fill. These values are
allowable values; a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the
foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance
should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Unless covered by pavements
or slabs, the passive resistance in the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected.
ECI should be retained to observe the foundation subgrade prior to placement of
structural fill, forms, or rebar.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained
soils and applicable surcharge loads. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to
resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35
pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight
should be increased to 50 pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions.
Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other
surcharge loads are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they
should be added to the above design lateral pressure.
The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously
provided in the "Foundations" section are applicable to the retaining wall design.
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the walls, retaining
walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material extending at least 18 inches
behind the wall. The free -draining backfill should consist of either pea gravel or washed
rock. A rigid, 4-inch-diameter, schedule 40, perforated PVC drain pipe should be placed
at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of 1 cubic foot per lineal
foot with pea gravel or washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations
down. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Loose or
disturbed subgrade soil must either be compacted to the requirements of structural fill or
replaced with structural fill.
Slabs should be provided with a capillary break comprised of a minimum of 4 inches of
free -draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier,
such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 3
RESPONSE TO COMMeNTS
September 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Structural Fill
E-12891
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts
not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
its labora tory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D1 557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their
optimum moisture content.
In our opinion, the native soils that will be encountered on site can be considered for use
as structural fill provided the soil is near its optimum moisture content at the time of
placement. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well -
graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near its optimum moisture
content and has a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches. During wet weather conditions or
where groundwater seepage is encountered, structural fill should consist of a fairly well -
graded granular material having a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches and no more than
5 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve.
Seismic Design Considerations
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity; however, the majority of these
events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large
earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia
area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8
magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area.
There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event
at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been
documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site
during a strong motion seismic event is negligible.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -
grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a
fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain -size
distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), it must be loose, it must be below
the groundwater table, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of
groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement
for structures founded in the liquefying soils.
EAWH CONSULTWG INCORPORATW Page 4
R.ESPONSG TO COMMeaS E-12891
September 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
In our opinion, the liquefaction potential at this site is low to negligible. This conclusion is
based on the medium dense to dense soils encountered at the test pit locations and the
lack of a shallow groundwater table.
Ground Motion Response
The Intemational Building Codea (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a
dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the encountered
soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, 'Very dense soil and soft rock," as defined in
Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC, should be used to characterize the site soils. In accordance with
Section 1615.1.2 of the IBC, Seismic Values, Sms =1.423 and Sm, = 0.639 should be used
for design.
Site Drainage
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is collected and
tightlined to an appropriate drainage facility. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas
where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose soil surfaces should
be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration. Final
site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundation. The ground should
be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent in paved areas and 3 percent in landscaped areas for
a distance of at least 10 feet from the buildings.
Footing drains may be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the
invert of the footing. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be
connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to
discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic
maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
Permanent Slopes
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V
(Horizontal:Vertical). Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify
that conditions are as anticipated. Fill slope construction should also be observed under
the full time observation of an ECI representative to test structural fill soils.
Supplementary recommendations can be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes, placing erosion control fabrics, or installation of surface or
subsurface drains.
Permanently exposed slopes should be hydroseeded with an appropriate species of
vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability for the surficial layer of soil immediately
after construction. In the summer months, it may be necessary to water the slopes to
maintain the hydroseed germination.
EAF;rrH CONSULTING INCORPORATE=D Page 5
RESPONSE To COMMENTS E-12891
�eptember 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Rockery Construction and Modular Block Wall
Rockeries are proposed for the toe of the slope on Lot I with a height of less than 2 feet and
for the northeast portion and the western edge of Lot 2 with a height of less than 5 feet. The
rockeries; are shown with drains bed into the proposed ston-n system. The block wall will
provide grade transition on the south side of Lot 2 with a maximum height of 2.5 feet. Based
on our review of the project, the construction of rockeries and block wall as proposed is
feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint.
The primary function of a rockery is to cover and protect an excavated or reinforced fill
surface that would essentially stand near vertical or vertical. Rockery construction is largely
a craft not entirely controllable by engineering methods. As such, it is imperative the
proposed rockeries be constructed in close conformance with the Associated Rockery
Contractors' (ARC) Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines and by an experienced
contractor with a proven capability in rockery construction. Rockeries should be embedded
12 inches into native soil. Fill soils or loose native soils should be removed and replaced
with structural fill or the base rock placed on the overexcavated surface. The rockery
subgrade and cut face should be observed by a representative of ECI.
Tree Removal
Several trees will be removed within the excavation for the proposed residences and
rockeries. Trees within the excavation should be cut and removed completely. Tree
removal within the steep slopes outside of the excavations necessary for the rockeries
and residences should be addressed on a case by case basis. If less than 25 percent of
the roots of a tree will be removed as part of the excavation, it is recommended to cut the
tree to within 6 inches of the ground surface and leave the remainder of the stump in
place. If more than 25 percent of the roots need to be removed, an ECI representative
should be contacted to discuss options of removal or leaving the stump in place. This
method of removal will maintain the existing stability of the slopes. Slope areas disturbed
should be at minimum seeded as recommended in the "Permanent Slopes" section of this
letter. No tree replacement is recommended.
Other Improvements
Other improvements will include patios, decks, and fences and are shown on the attached
site plans. ECI has provided input during the permitting and design phase for the
locations of the fences in relation to the rockeries, and those recommendations have
been incorporated into the plans.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 6
R FESPONSE TO COMMGNTS
September 18. 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Plan Review
E-12891
ECI reviewed the referenced plans for the proposed buildings for the project and based
on that review, the plans incorporate the above recommendations for foundation design.
In addition, the attached site plans were reviewed and the plans are consistent with the
recommendation provided in this letter and the expected disturbances to critical areas
discussed in the AESI report. The prepared site plans comply with the development
standards of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) sections 23.80.060
and 23.80.070
We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED
IF 112,W07
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Principal
KMW/skp
Attachment: Lot 1 and 2 Site Plans
CAMM CONSULMNG INCOWORATED Page 7
SS AW
A
30000,3000
�
005 l.A'ov(_6
PpS ou C
sic IA
'c
�J'
SHORT PLAT FILE
NO. S-2006-0076
MUST BE
v CL
RECORDED BEFORE
BUILDING PERMITS
CAN BE ISSUED
R 6
-low,
,rA,r ACCOZIN7 RARCa Z.- 00544JOOW.9100
VERWAL DAnim.,
VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED ELEVATION
FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT ID. SC31
ELEVATION: 367.972 LOT 1
84M OF RE4RINQ
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS NO*00'32"E BETWEEN
FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE CENTERLINE OF 95TH PL. W. AS SHOWN
ON THE PLAT OF PINECREST PAGE 55, VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, RECORDS
OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
SURVE)VES NaIM'
1. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON
OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF STRUCTURES. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO
GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL
SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN-SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE
SURVEYOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES
CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.
2. ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY
ERICH 0. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN AN ELECTRONIC DRAWING
TITLED "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAW AND DATED 06/14/07.
LOr SZE & QQW_qAGE BUILDING
TOTAL AREA: 9,212 SF A 353.92
(8,Oil SF NET W/O ACCESS EASEMENT) B 354.10
C 355.91
2ND FLR FOOT PRINT/DECK/STAJRS/PORCH D 357.5
- 2,001 SF (25.0% NET) 1,421.46 (TOTAL)
IMPERWDLIS SURFA 355.37 (AVG)
IMPERVIOUS AREA - 4,151 SF (51.0% NET) 25.00 (MAX. BLDG HEIGHT
ROOF - 2,018 SF 380.37 (MAX. ROOF ELEV)
DRIVE - 1.921 SF 379.94 (ACT. ROOF ELEV)
EXPOSED WALK/DECK/PATIOS - 174 SF
WALK _ 38 SF
w
S1 TE PLA N
'119�
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 5 10 20
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
TW = TOP OF WALL
BW = BOTTOM OF WALL
AV;r )MME.
01 MAW
A9W NrW /ZKT �Ar' S" im 41
k ww 'Ag?"
As, A.92'
xwr awl r
ON Af v
im 4a
P-& MtA
40,
co
primp 9
%.Ow
4s InZR "'XI.
-2018 R=CR
AV�W R.0PrfN/'r' MAN
(C41T "Aav ij
J'A—fAX,. AV ro�o I-,
AFMISTA F11AIRF i I -
2aW -9' AirW RVOVWr Hoil5l- j? -
N " 1. 1, /0 a" I I
cmirm? " /Z?"
@6, —ew evl.�
lk aw amw
'?w 91
"m"
lamp
B
AAO
R
lz#-np LOT 2 ----------- kM
AFW. =' I" I e
amom nAw 8000 SO. F)r —ss—
xlrxcaw~ 17' A.Wn 1: 0?
aw I X 5
clf AW rApgm
"AMTRY _L/. A-MMOV.
A"'Y' nr is o?5 LFCAW a
15' ACCalW
------- CS ou (npr it) 4ASSOMf
i ze ss�
E!
S'AMOVY allff T - 2-AEW
awam, AVV Mfflf I'CaWR a? AVPC 1w ar flAmcr NX71R
.e AFW&00r MMU (s, S" Nxm? smww %
Z5'&"#4 ffaw fnKw
L n4nM- mv Iva,
SURITMRS NQ=,
VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED ELEVATION SCALE
FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT ID. SC31 1. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON OBSERVED GRAPHIC
ELEVATION: 367.972 EVIDENCE OF'STRUCTURES. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE 0 to 20 40
THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH
BASIS OF BEARtAfG., UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN-SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE
SURVEYOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS NO'00'32"E BETWEEN SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES
FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE CENTERLINE OF 95TH PL. W. AS SHOWN CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM IN FEET NORTH
ON THE PLAT OF PINECREST PAGE 55, VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, RECORDS THE INFORMATION PROVIDED. I inch = 20 fL
OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BUILDING HDGHT 0.
LOT SIZE & COVERAGE 2. ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY A 359.75 c, Cy IVAS
TOTAL AREA. 8.000 SF SHORT PLAT FILE NO. ERICH 0. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN AN ELECTRONIC DRAWING 8 357.83
2ND FUR FOOT PRINT/DECK/STAIRS/PORCH S-2006-0076 MUST TITLED "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" AND DATED 06/14/07.
- 2.199 SF (27.5%) BE RECORDED BEFORE PROPZ-RTr OkOVERS- Xn1c KRAG-q-7H C 367.73
IMPERWOLIS SURFA BUILDING PERMITS CAN PROPERTY A,0,9Rf-'5S 22706 957H RZACE HES7 D 370.1
BE ISSUED 7Ar A =01INT FARCZ-Z e 00544-T00009100 1,455.46 (TOTAL)
IMPERVIOUS AREA - 4.122 SF (51.6%) TW = TOP OF WALL 363.87 (AVG) A 29286
ROOF - 2,018 SF BW = BOTTOM OF WALL cl
�DRIVE - 1,890 SF 25.00 (MAX, BLDG HEIGHT
-EXP DECK/PORCH/STAIRS - 179 SF 388.87 (MAX. ROOF ELEV) 0 t NIA
WALK - 35 SF LOT 2 S/ TE PLA N 386.18 (ACT. ROOF ELEV) EXPIRES: 10/02/__
EARTH
CONSULTING
INCORPORATED
LJ Environmental Services Ll Geotechnical Engineering LI Construction Materials Testing L) Special Inspections
September 18, 2007
Revised November 23, 2007
Mr. Kyle Kragseth
22706 95th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
KRAGSETH SFR
22706 AND 22708 95TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Project No. E-12891
References:
Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006.
Erich 0. Tiettze and Associates, Inc, Two Lot Short Plat 22706 95th Place West, Sheets
S-1 and C-1—C-5, September 9, 2007.
Nash, Jones, & Anderson, The Rutledge V1 Plan 258Z Sheets A-1—A-6 and G-1
I September 18, 2007.
Dear Mr. Kragseth:
As requested, Earth Consulting Incorporated (ECI) is responding to the geotechnical
comments from the City of Edmonds dated 'September 10 and November 6, 2007. Lot 1 is
22706 95th Place West and Lot 2 is 22708 95th Place West. The comments for both lots
are similar so will be addressed with this one letter. ECI will be the geotechnical engineer
of record for the project and we agree with the previous recommendations provided by
the referenced report by Associated Earth Sciences (AESI). The City's comment appears
in bold; our response follows.
QT
0 1 REET FILE
RFSUB
Nov 2 6 2007
BUILDING DEPARTMEW
CITY OF EDmONDS
1805 13611 Place Northeast #201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 * (425) 643-3780 0 Fax (425) 746-0860
eci@eci-mti.com - www.eci-mti.com
RfSPONS6 TO COMMENTS E-12891
September 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Comment 6. Geotechnical Report: Since the subject property is located adjacent to
a steep slope, a report by a geotechnical engineer is required. Please have a
qualified geotechnical engineer review the proposed building plans and write a
report that meets the requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. Please note that the
geotechnical report must address all proposed improvements on the site, including
the proposed residence, deck, patio, fence, rockery, and any tree removal outside
the footprint of development.
The critical areas considerations were addressed in the referenced letter by AESI, and
ECI concurs with their assessment in relation to the currently proposed development. The
site conditions have not changed since these reports were prepared, and they remain
valid for the currently proposed development. The development addressed by the AESI
report included the proposed residence on Lot 2 and remodel of the residence on Lot 1. It
is now proposed to construct a new residence on Lot 1; however, the impacts to critical
areas have not increased from the description provided in the AES1 report. The AESI
report included explorations and a plot plan. No setbacks from the landslide hazard area
are recommended provided the recommendations for construction are followed.
The following sections provide the additional recommendations for foundations, retaining
walls, structural fill, seismic design, site drainage, rockery construction, tree removal, and
other improvements.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed building may be supported
on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on
competent native soil, structural fill, or competent fill. If unsuitable material such as buried
topsoil, organic material, or debris is encountered in the foundation excavation, the
unsuitable material should be removed and replaced with structural fill.
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below
final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas where
interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches.
Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of 16 and 18
inches, respectively.
With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing
capacity of 2500 pounds per square feet (psf) may be used for medium dense native soils
or structural fill. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -
safety in excess of 3.0 against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a
1/3 increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used.
With structural loading as expected and provided the above design criteria are followed,
total settlement of less than approximately 1 inch is anticipated, with differential
settlement of approximately 0.5 inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur
during construction as dead loads are applied.
EARTH CONSUL71NG INCORPORATED Page 2
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
S�ptember 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
E-12891
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. Resistance due to
passive earth pressure may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for footings backfilled with structural fill. These values are
allowable values; a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the
foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance
should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Unless covered by pavements
or slabs, the passive resistance in the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected.
ECI should be retained to observe the foundation subgrade prior to placement of
structural fill, forms, or rebar.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral loads imposed by the retained
soils and applicable surcharge loads. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to
resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35
pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight
should be increased to 50 pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions.
Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other
surcharge loads are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they
should be added to the above design lateral pressure.
The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously
provided in the "Foundations" section are applicable to the retaining wall design.
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the walls, retaining
walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material extending at least 18 inches
behind the wall. The free -draining backfill should consist of either pea gravel or washed
rock. A rigid, 4-inch-diameter, schedule 40, perforated PVC drain pipe should be placed
at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of 1 cubic foot per lineal
foot with pea gravel or washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations
down. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Loose or
disturbed subgrade soil must either be compacted to the requirements of structural fill or
replaced with structural fill.
Slabs should be provided with a capillary break comprised of a minimum of 4 inches of
free -draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier,
such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 3
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
S�ptember 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Structural Fill
E-12891
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts
not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D1 557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their
optimum moisture content.
In our opinion, the native soils that will be encountered on site can be considered for use
as structural fill provided the soil is near its optimum moisture content at the time of
placement. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well -
graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near its optimum moisture
content and has a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches. During wet weather conditions or
where groundwater seepage is encountered, structural fill should consist of a fairly well -
graded granular material having a maximum aggregate size of 4 inches and no more than
5 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve.
Seismic Design Considerations
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity; however, the majority of these
events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large
earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia
area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8
magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area.
There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event
at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been
documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site
during a strong motion seismic event is negligible.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -
grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a
fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain -size
distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), it must be loose, it must be below
the groundwater table, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of
groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement
for structures founded in the liquefying soils.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 4
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS E-12891
S;ptember 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
In our opinion, the liquefaction potential at this site is low to negligible. This conclusion is
based on the medium dense to dense soils encountered at the test pit locations and the
lack of a shallow groundwater table.
Ground Motion Response
The International Building Codee (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure and a
dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the encountered
soil conditions, it is our opinion Site Class C, "Very dense soil and soft rock," as defined in
Table 1615.1.1 of the IBC, should be used to characterize the site soils. In accordance with
Section 1615.1.2 of the IBC, Seismic Values, Sms =1.423 and Sm, = 0.639 should be used
for design.
Site Drainage
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is collected and
tightlined to an appropriate drainage facility. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas
where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose soil surfaces should
be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration. Final
site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundation. The ground should
be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent in paved areas and 3 percent in landscaped areas for
a distance of at least 10 feet from the buildings.
Footing drains may be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the
invert of the footing. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be
connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to
discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic
maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
Permanent Slopes
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V
(Horizontal:Vertical). Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify
that conditions are as anticipated. Fill slope construction should also be observed under
the full time observation of an ECI representative to test structural fill soils.
Supplementary recommendations can be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes, placing erosion control fabrics, or installation of surface or
subsurface drains.
Permanently exposed slopes should be hydroseeded with an appropriate species of
vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability for the surficial layer of soil immediately
after construction. In the summer months, it may be necessary to water the slopes to
maintain the hydroseed germination.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 5
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS E-12891
5eptember 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Rockery Construction and Modular Block Wall
Rockeries are proposed for the toe of the slope on Lot 1 with a height of less than 2 feet and
for the northeast portion and the western edge of Lot 2 with a height of less than 5 feet. The
rockeries are shown with drains tied into the proposed storm system. The block wall will
provide grade transition on the south side of Lot 2 with a maximum height of 2.5 feet. Based
on our review of the project, the construction of rockeries and block wall as proposed is
feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint.
The primary function of a rockery is to cover and protect an excavated or reinforced fill
surface that would essentially stand near vertical or vertical. Rockery construction is largely
a craft not entirely controllable by engineering methods. As such, it is imperative the
proposed rockeries be constructed in close conformance with the Associated Rockery
Contractors' (ARC) Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines and by an experienced
contractor with a proven capability in rockery construction. Rockerie's should be embedded
12 inches into native soil. Fill soils or loose native soils should be removed and replaced
with structural fill or the base rock placed on the overexcavated surface. The rockery
subgrade and cut face should be observed by a representative of ECI.
Tree Removal
Several trees will be removed within the excavation for the proposed residences and
rockeries. Trees within the excavation should be cut and removed completely. Tree
removal within the steep slopes outside of the excavations necessary for the rockeries
and residences should be addressed on a case by case.basis. If less than 25 percent of
the roots of a tree will be removed as part of the excavation, it is recommended to cut the
tree to within 6 inches of the ground surface and leave the remainder of the stump in
place. If more than 25 percent of the roots need to be removed, an ECI representative
should be contacted to discuss options of removal or leaving the stump in place. This
method of removal will maintain the existing stability of the slopes. Slope areas disturbed
should be at minimum seeded as recommended in the "Permanent Slopes" section of this
letter. No tree replacement is recommended.
Other Improvements
Other improvements will include patios, decks, and fences and are shown on the attached
site plans. ECI has provided input during the permitting and design phase for the
locations of the fences in relation to the rockeries, and those recommendations have
been incorporated into the plans.
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 6
RFSPONSE TO COMMENTS
September 18, 2007, Revised November 23, 2007
Plan Review
E-12891
ECI reviewed the referenced plans for the proposed buildings for the project and based
on that review, the plans incorporate the above recommendations for foundation design.
In addition, the attached site plans were reviewed and the plans are consistent with the
recommendation provided in this letter and the expected disturbances to critical areas
discussed in the AESI report. The prepared site plans comply with the development
standards of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) sections 23.80.060
and 23.80.070
We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED
41/07
L�F ix .-2
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Principal
KMW/skp
Attachment: Lot 1 and 2 Site Plans
EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 7
k
tq
SS AW
"T,
005441vog Lol
j3j,A, -0
PpNpo�N
;7
-OSANO AO.T* A 0-.- ARZ-A
-ROPr
NO)F* IHIS fRr
j7a-- q0ekfRr Is IN, A cur sANA,
49RAIN
NCff RVZX29?r N.-W fENa-(S' SaIO BVIO 364
=AR l7WCC) iwNa,
7w Joaa
8W .5
8W2',9EW
Exp. \ ". I rX C8
'MC 11PPIR /Z R- 7)P 06-CA, 1 _.,�5?; -,-- I I ,
"ra 470, - - - - - -- 84 24. �l .., " 1� 11 \ __
252J'
!��7_-PA_D-631,F. C%pjaD- J55 91
8 1749 DR,- FrO ORAIN
ROOVERr 25'S7EFP SLOP.-
S LWAIN 07SE7, zor I A9Omv_qp6vr
BW i9212 Sr CaLECrOR _00— A—
B Cd 157,cZR EL - J55 45 off Isr NET) 4',r 8'A450
7w 1 NEW R04WER)l LINF- rW ROOF - 2018 A4 /70
A 1'/// AIAX
21.621 1
I Arw 2WO RR FOO
vIff OEMISTA
(6
2 001 SF 52'
26 09' ot
9 A _92
1177LIrl C4_qWWr rO
J54. 10._
_N
7 FAJ WFNr
F6w ROMER W VA
NEWIZECr CA&F 7FL W 7ER
PORCH
RAP WALA'
IX WA7ER _lZ.RWC4
EX MV
mey-im
12, AsPHAI r DRIpr a Lls,, O�- A,9,9R&-S$ A 4AIF 576W
sw2py.- 12/0' 1.5' NlOkTNEO f0a' IN FTO pRalasry
APPRa4CH-,�,4
CL
COLL
1.1 old CE �ss/
l)ry
'I — 4-- a1r
CB W O)F.' IL)
�ALM:.tWFR
N 8822W' ff
2M.F7
NOTE:
Cr)
SHORT PLAT FILE
N_
NO. S-2006-0076
MUST BE
RECORDED BEFORE
BUILDING PERMITS
CAN BE ISSUED
oOO9000
VrW a;a, I' COR-FR OR AORE
(5, sa/,g WA IFR SER K r
a0AR.ATNa-)
NarENED mar
2' HIM 1. 5 fT MWE
544300009200
P,PN 00 5jfzpoo
,ol-op'll
EN59 OF ITNal lo'
15'l-A-WACAT ary-mue
FCW lWFESSITWESS
ANO 0711MY 28 LF 6" M,
S - .12Ar
CX7EAV WAZA'
8Ehl1%V A01AIL
SOX.rS PER S7D At# .0. 6
(SEr SlIr C-J)
PROPERTY OWNERS- 1(nE A'R,46SE_1'H
PROIDERTY A,0,0RE_S5- 22706 95TI-I IOZACE HEST
TA,Y ACCOI-INT PARCL-L Z.- 00544JO000,9100
VER77CAL DA
VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED ELEVATION
FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT ID. SC31
ELEVATION: 367.972 LOT
I
a4SIS OF
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS NO*00'32"E BETWEEN
FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE CENTERLINE OF 95TH PL. W. AS SHOWN
ON THE PLAT OF PINECREST PAGE 55, VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, RECORDS
OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
SURVE)VRS NO
1. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON
OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF STRUCTURES. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO
GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL
SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN-SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE
SURVEYOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES
CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.
2. ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY
ERICH 0. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN AN ELECTRONIC DRAWING
TITLED "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" AND DATED 06/14/07.
COVERWE BUILDING
LOT SIZE &
TOTAL AREA: 9,212 SF A 353.92
(8,011 SF NET W/O ACCESS EASEMENT) 8 354.10
C 355.91
2ND FLR FOOT PRINT/DECK/STAIRS/PORCH
D 357.5
- 2,001 SF (25.0% NET)
1,421.46 (TOTAL)
US SURFACES 355.37 (AVG)
IMPERVIOUS AREA - 4,151 SF (51.0% NET) 25.00 (MAX. BLDG
HEIGHT
ROOF - 2,018 SF 380.37 (MAX. ROOF
ELEV)
DRIVE - 1,921 SF 379.94 (ACT. ROOF
ELEV)
EXPOSED WALK/DECK/PATIOS - 174 SF
WALK - 38 SF
WA 7ER ;ww AM 8oxfs
S,v cy
4 65
OWT T C-J)
I
ex C8
&I J4750 (wml 6. M)
S1 TE PLA N
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 5 10 20
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
TW = TOP OF WALL
BW = BOTTOM OF WALL
AV)F* 7Aff3r ROOMMAS
AW N A a�, a4kw_
J?V, 356-'
ECEV.- ARAN
AEWAvow?rfw
4 Vr rAQW0-X MAX NeW 127Val i's DIV or
T._�". T COAR ITAIX) FRvar
1.9p,
77r
J71. 707)P 75- y P a, adt
Hw 7w Ao-dw
MO 4ex* i Fr AR. -A
/10' X J12'
Arm J67 7J C19
A —366 klISW M
.19
ZwlvN
6 PRAN
A WR"Z;vr
(a17 FAaV
SF
T* AeAor N1 8w 1 nk/rrvo
WAZ
2 0-T6 SF J5 sr Aff-W ROMERr jp�
1. I'M AUX
U96 /,,b'�' 1S7,1M, NEW)TMY
Z mvwo v
/r an4R fFhMV
0 9w v
2
oFfS67 NFW,0R1
00 11 1 —
-77P 1890 S)C' Rlk
WA 7ER
Iq L OMER
Z 7?p t
7
fTa NEW EMC7
41948 RAO
NEW RR- LOT 2 low cr ;A;zR s.,R
fENCE
8000 SO. FT.
J- X J' CaW RAO ASM&T.0 s
am*? MAN Zi
Av EA710MV TINY Mr lv'V el ;Is M'wml
5' WMEAt
7w IS.4 T 0 75 2�1 I APMVAOI�
15'
ACM
15 SSl
,a,,' 7r
N1
.-36ZI'
T r sw B X _'W MY
7 ., ew 8wv eoznrl. I, AMI-X1,178'
6 ROLXZRY LWAN
MOV7LAE OR HORr
NEW& OOr WALL AFW.MNaF V-)TWE
EA9 6 ArA)TR
NAM? _2IRME AW BOXES
2.5'MAXVT 4) �ff
DA a-9AI? jTNaV
.SVRWYQRS NOZES. AMENIM fDal
VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVID 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED ELEVATION T-,wC14 1.5 WW
FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT ID. SC31 1. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON OBSERVED GRAPHIC SCALE
ELEVATION: 367.972 EVIDENCE OF'STRUCTURES. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE 0 10 20 40
THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH
BASIS OF BEARING UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN-SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE
SURVEYOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS NO*00'32"E BETWEEN SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES IN FEET NORTH
FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE CENTERLINE OF 95TH PL. W. AS SHOWN CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM
ON THE PLAT OF PINECREST PAGE 55, VOLUME .13 OF PLATS, RECORDS THE INFORMATION PROVIDED. 1 inch 20 ft.
OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LOT IZE & COVERAIGE NOTE: 2. ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY BVAMNG hErPHT D
TOTAL AREA: 8,000 SIF ERICH 0. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN AN ELECTRONIC DRAWING A 359.75 e
2ND FLR FOOT PRINT/DECK/STAIRS/PORCH SHORT PLAT FILE NO. TITLED "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" AND DATED 06/14/07. B 357.83 <1
S-2006-0076 MUST Co
- 2,199 SF (27.5%) BE RECORDED BEFORE PR0PZ-RTy 0WV0R5- A'n-r ARA65,C7H C 367.73
Luppmous SURFA BUILDING PERMITS CAN PR0RFRTy A,00RC55- 22706 95TH PZACZ- ME57 D 370.1
7AX AC001INT PARC',CZ Z.- 00544JO0009100
IMPERVIOUS AREA - 4,122 SF (51.6%) BE ISSUED 1,455.46 (TOTAL)
TW = TOP OF WALL 363.87 (AVG) 29286
--ROOF - 2,018 SIF BW = BOTTOM OF WALL
J clsrsl�
DRIVE - 1,890 SF 25.00 (MAX. BLDG HEIGHT) <eloslo
�EXP DECK/PORCH/STAIRS - 179 SF 388.87 (MAX. ROOF ELEV) L L MW3
AALK - 35 SIF LOT 2 S1 TE PLA N 386.18 (ACT. ROOF ELEV) EXPIRES: 101021