Loading...
22708 95TH PL W.PDFiiiiii iiiii . 1 9304 22708 95TH PL W ADDRESS TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL BUILDING PERMIT (NEW S COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver F1 Study Required F] Waiver DISCRETIONARY PER -MIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) R-ECOR-DED FOR: PERMITS (OTH PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:— GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DS'Ps\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 11 STREET=FI'LE I Name: Kv�e, Kr-,��" Site Addrels: W Date: 9 /A () h)-T Plan Check #: Project Description: 14e.,z C-eG-,dee\ce—, Reduced Site Plan Provided: (0 NO) I Zoning: Map Page: koq I Corner Lot: (YES /0 Flag Lot:(D/ NO) Critical Areas Determination #: C.QN-Qcx--G- CCQO Study Required -> re �Je, (7/ly/bp� 6'rIX CC---A-l4Z nez t4ec( Mlg�b; 4 %/24/0-f ) o0no-i-C waiver orcvos;�A , ep-� 4\,,e� e,�\�� t/0 4 'a-a.270 w,,d reoywg SEPA Determination: \okQQer' 6e+-6ze,\ Exempt — Q�%vjk ekwc\2, S-�� :;LGG C-YA �.,d ycqcy-o�kI. Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) El Fee 0 Checklist El APO List with notarized form Required 9 4; e F-�' E) Side: y.s I Side: (S) V, 25 " lti 77- 5 Actual Setbacks side. /* Side: Side: 751+0 11-77, +a 11 Detached Structures: None %NnocorN oc\ 0-11� Rockeries: ?re,,Pqd , e &4. Fences/Trellises. V" Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: Upper -Plau- over kcL.,e,- -0104ar CC\ X Stairs/Deck: IF a� \ v e, foM--ed ut\c-ovex-ec/ c,,, -a�&r,\ i A, .c, er J Height Datum Point: EQ> M" ce'ver 'R�Xm DatumElevation: Maximum Height Allowed: Actual Height: Other Parking Required: Parking Provided: 3 Lot Area: 2, CXDO 41 Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: 'Foa�pr,-A c,9 Vo-,se, C/e,-V� -C,.A 9or0^ Over Z3 'a, V9? oco Lot Coverage Calculations: j6waz a-,� ADU Created: (YES A�3 \J Subdivision: Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES Comments AA,\ 7. Plan Revie Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. = EE N 91 -0 ezIe6ra&y 25 Vem ofSemex July 14, 2006 Project No. KE060383A Mr. Kyle Kragseth RESUB 22706 95" Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 NOV - 2 2007 Subject: Steep Slope Evaluation BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS 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 deterriiine 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 I ' 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 According to the 1:24,000 scale COMPOSite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area, Washington (Bootb, et al., 2004), the site is mapped as being on the edge of the Vashon lodgement t ']]/Vashon advance outwash contact. It should be noted that geologic contacts at this scale are I tD ' Tn r- KukJand Office- 9) i F& _Avenue,,'iujre 100- KL�Idandl. %XIA 98033 - P 1 (425) 927-7-7o] . F� ET FILE Everett Office - 291 1: 1 L[,AirE',kVe111je� Sujte2-Evercu.\VA98201-P1( ?5)*'59-052--)-F''4-�:;l�ls?-')Ii %VW%V..1eS,geo.coj n 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: & 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: The garage on Lot I 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 Geornatic 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-lV 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 Geolo'�jst Attachments: Exploration Pit Logs SST/ld KE060383A I Projects \2006038MEW-T 0 332 -7 /1 GIST r- IEXPIBES ?J27 G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G. Associate Engineer d. Z X. z -.7 �Z. FF)VCE- A4 @APPROXIMATE LOCATION— A— ::7 N Raw Z�, OF EXPLORATION PIT TYP ZA, z - -1�1 LAW FENCF--� EP-27 .5 I--�' N, ddrr m -n a-3 V) Ep m pro 7.5' 13SBi CHAiN DW FE?V—VCE 6mmml..-- �imw K100D fFMCE z -­7 V ib-t-Ma 5g ). �-'% 1, 1 —�-f z IN EP-1 7.5 BS9L 03 w CONCRETE IZI RESJDLNCE FF-714.87 1351 SQ. FT T LIN 6 @MR = ffa 7.5'. SSSIL mm-PlAmm ELECTRIC bffTjER — 5D RJAd=721.42 YE(M)=716.42(12- PVC) IE(�F)=716-32(12- PIC) COUCRETE 5..V WOOD FOCE J' CHA IN L INK FEWE 2i Z� U5 U3 0 !ffil 5�MH RhV=712.59 lE=704,14-(CENT, OF CJ4ANNa) BOTH 8' CONC pff�F 6 JEW jw - 'I 1 !11 111 I N cam SD 0:00"F '09a m'u=710.B7 M IE(S)-706.22(124 PLAM) 0 20 dam 1 2 Reference: Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc. SCALE IN FE7 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE I KRAGSETH SHORT PLAT DATE 6106 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJ. NO. KE060383A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1 z :E 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 CL time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location wit 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 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. -)gged by. SST Project No. KE060383A 1bhJ Aoproved by. M" 5/30/06 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2 �2 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named pF oject and should be :S read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary gplies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions 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, 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 8 9 10 11 — Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seeps or sloughing. 12 — 13 — 14 — 15 — 16 17 18 19 20 Kragseth Short Plat Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No- KE060383A Logged by SST 5130/06 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be Zi read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time. The data (D time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location wit the passage of presented are 0 a simpification 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 1 to few cobbles, occasional boulders. 2 3 4 5 Vashon Lodgement Till Dense, moist, gray, fine to medium SAND, little sift, 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 IMT.7 or-M Kragseth Short Plat Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. -)gged by SS—i Project No- KE060383A APproved by 5i30106 0 , TM A 6 (�� PL UJ STRUT FILF EARTH CONSULTING 7a67 - INCORPORATED RECEIVED APR 18 2007 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS 0 Environmental Services 0 GeotechniGal Engineering Q Construction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections ApriI17,2007 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 STREET FILE 1805 1361h Place Northeast #201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 * (425) 643-3780 * Fax (425) 746-0860 eci@eci-mti.com - www.eci-mti.Gom GunCAL AREAS RGMEW 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. 11CORIPMATED Robert A. Blomquist, LG Project Geologist FZAMMW/Skp Kristina M. Weller, PE Principal EARTH CONSULTIING INCORPORATED Page 2 EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED U Environmental Services Ll Geotechnical Engineering LJ Construction Materials Testing Ll 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 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 recomm e*ndations provided by the referenced report by Associated Earth Sciences (AESI). The City's comment appears in bold; our response follows. 1//*//,V 6"TREET FILE" 1805 1�6 th Place Northeast #201 e Bellevue, WA 98005 a (425) 643-3780 - Fax (425) 746-0860 eci@eci-mti.com * www.eci-mti.com keSPONSG 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 AESI 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 AESPONSE 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 hESPONse 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 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. 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 I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 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 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 h6SPONSC- TO COMMENTS E-12891 September 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. 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 itESPONSE 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 r 331,R2: 4'/0 7 Kristina M. Weller, PE Principal KMW/skp Attachment: Lot 1 and 2 Site Plans EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 7 ,10009. 0()0 Ll -sfX SS A01 005449-L,P�,Ng LAN" K,0 PpN OCN L.Lj�c FAUANG 40X* _q ace AREA N07F- WSIROOffERY /5 IVA CVT 8AIK, Y,­ "70-- /,9RA1,V , V AVOtfRr Do a, EW W aN&%--J' WCH' �cTNal t/6' SOW 36 CVr FA M tr- r' OFOAR fENCF) 27W - _1­ - ---- ---- R428 r� 2. .980, 1550' sw .51 V EXR. EX CB 3v- x J, cme 41PPD? IZR- oi-CA, -_Ue;- __ W, 84 243 --\ -__zr aAm aIrmw - - - - - - - - - 2523' - J55 91 Awiff 9 M3 RoolrRy WIN 25'S7MP SLOR.- Z OMER IZR- 7),P FM DRAIN I ZR41N ONV. Do7mrT LOr I 190AWSPaIr CULEC 9212 Jr CULFC,'OR IST R R El - J55 46 4',r 8'PA 90 091151", NEV A_ PA /70 71 IvEwRoarzRy YN-1-71P 1. I'Ifl MAX 7w Sly 9 21.621 1 NEW /Zwl 2WO AZR FOO Ll .2 001 SF 62, r oy, sw A ..92 ZA"EN7 II&Iry 1A-qrmDvr ro jlW ROMER a WRC WW WA 7FR New &.1rer Come 7zz Ava sEww asm1cr PAP WAZ ff 8 SF + Nv Cr 0AWER _qwtfar 75'8_SW8L Z_ 12' ASPHALT DRIW PUIS AOa%-SS #Akr =RV 45' 7HIOVENED EVal Fom. Fro N WZ?W' ff Jlm.?7 NOTE: SHORT PLAT FILE Q) >.- NO. S-2006-0076 '-'zc MUST BE CL �_ :z RECORDED BEFORE BUILDING PERMITS CAN BE ISSUED Ca if at IZC 15' C8 Ay (TYPE lvz*w -- - \_ I' CaOPER OR YOPF (5, saw WAIrR SDWQF aVAR /FVa-) 7N0rSNM EUr 2 - HIGY 1. 5 f7 Mfa- 0009200 005443000 Ao L.10 slfzp, V& ®r ehV al.ATNal 101- 15'1-A&A&lNr F(7R'1VG?l' 61?r-157 .4,Vo 6,% 28 Lr S' 5D, S - .12Z F,rZEN29 WAOr 8ENIND AWL 80A27S ArR SZD PZN 86 (S,!T -wr C-J) PROPERTY OWNERS- A'dE A'RAOSE7H )0R010ERT,v AOORE-55- 22706 95TH PZACE HEST ,rAX ACCOUNT PARCEZ o#'- 00544300009100 VER7=411L DA VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED ELEVATION FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT ID. SC31 ELEVATION: 367.972 LOT I BASIS 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. SURIJEWRS 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. LOT SIZE & COVER4GE BUILDING HEIGHT TOTAL AREA: 9,212 SF A 353.92 (8,011 SF NET W/O ACCESS EASEMENT) B 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) IMP-ERMUS 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 f ix Q57 Arx zwwwr 4vr Elr ss m// �Rw 47EN PZR SMIPLN &S / (mT T C-J) rx C8 &I _74750 (WIP s.m) S1 TE PLA N D. 13Y WAS 2 286 (V S/ QISTSV� ONA L L AtA�) EXPIRES: 10/02/ NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5 10 20 ( IN FEET ) I inch = 20 ft. TW = TOP OF WALL BW = BOTTOM OF WALL AV7Z- 7)Wqr ROMER&IS _,j�.,v a�r aw-_ m__ r AEW AVQtV?r FW NrW MVal (61.5" 9.5, T Wrr4 AfAC CM4R fZW4X) 7w 10 7al 01.2 m7w �r =�_. JaA 7w rAdZ 50 V im e I FF AYA 1, /10 112p, KJORT, _W7 7 - Dr Cs "-Jj6_ ZWVN 7 "I's'r "ZR _J61. -.50 ROMERY NEWA00"VERr I SF Mw I N .JT',Aw(A"X. I FZR rOOMRIN IRSI'PORCH 9,FM157A WAZ 20J6 sr. J5 zF ArW ROMERr Hoil5E 9) A / I PoNvspayr 1. I'M MAX (B6, 4 115r,-ZRl CCUEC7w lvrw /V Val t lZOAR IDWY) 0 8w s .2 -97 .1 NCW,0R1 MW �WMER 18,90 SF L 0 7? % "2y NA OR N" RME R NEW i7rCT )IV MAN 42 40' RAO )7R- LOT 2 _29X E: NDYMWE' zr mi, ZF /8000 SO. FT. CM�R 17Na- Aoatx)rD?*lry aEANLIVT 'ASP V Z TM leff 36 XX J'CrW PAO PRAN, 12 ymi IWPLUS�, 05 6:Sr LVV-VV 1. 5' WfffAEV Lvar f70 0 4- R" PROPOWD ERr VRAII�V, 16.4 35.9 75 -U785 i CYLl-C7ZW APPROA01- Lmywmy alr 15 —0;7 Z17Y CS IJ (7Mr 14) ZASMEN7 C8 (7rPE IZ.) ELEV.-362.11 -T-" J57 8w JM sp BW BW I" SS AN 750 BW sw AYAO'-JM78' '91wv wzp"vw),- 2M.?7 -W 77W&NE NFW lar CVA)-fR AV C jTN6T WA MR AFW 8L 00( WAU (sls" t F (M.) - 25'AtAXV7 ANA 7ER -SOR 10'— aMAR jTNCV A(AoZ BarfS VERDAr.4L DARM- VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88, BASED ON A PUBLISHED ELEVATION SVAAfY'0RS N07ES.- 5 WDE 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 BEA 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 ft. OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LOT SIZE & COVERA 2. ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY BUILDING HEIGHT D. NOTE: A 359.75 V A s TOTAL AREA: 8,000 SF SHORT PLAT FILE NO. ERICH 0. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN AN ELECTRONIC DRAWING 2ND FLR FOOT PRINT/DECK/STAIRS/PORCH S-2006-0076 MUST TITLED "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" AND DATED 06/14/07. B 357.83 - 2,199 SF (27.5%) BE RECORDED BEFORE PROOZRTr 0i0ZZ-RS- IrnZ- ,lrRAG5Z_7H C 367.73 M&MWOUS SVAFA BUILDING PERMITS CAN oR0PZ_RTr AOORf 5S.- 22706 .95TH PZACZ_ HEST D 370.1 IMPERVIOUS AREA BE ISSUED 7AXACC0lJNT,-ARCZ-Z 30.' 00,544JO0009700 1,455.46 (TOTAL) - 4,122 SF (51.6%) TW = TOP OF WALL -0 363.87 (AVG) p -ROOF - 2,018 SF BW = BOTTOM OF WALL 01- -DRIVE - 1,890 SF 25.00 (MAX. BLDG HEIGHT S/0 AL UPMA'� -EXP DECK/PORCH/STAIRS - 179 SF 388.87 (MAX. ROOF ELEV) WALK - 35 SF LOT 2 S/ TE PLA N 386.18 (ACT. ROOF ELEV) EXPIRES: 10/02/ CPEARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Q Environmental Services C1 Geotechnical Engineering 0 Construction Materials Testing Q Special Inspections September 18, 2007 Mr. Kyle Kragseth * 22706 95th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS KRAGSETH-SFR 22706 95TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Project No. E-12891 References: SEP 2 12007 WILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Associated Earth Sciences, Steep Slope Evaluation Kragseth Short Plat, July 21, 2006. Earth Consulting Incorporated, CriticalAreas 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 2562, 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 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. STREET FILE 1805 13611, Place Northeast #201 - Bellevue, WA 98005 - (425) 643-3780 * Fax (425) 746-0860 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 fro ' m 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 3.0 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 facto r-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. EART14 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 8 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. 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 co, ntent 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 dudng 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 distdbution 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, Sms =1.423 and Sm, = 0.639 should be used for design. EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS September 18,2007 Site Drainage =4211 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 111917 Kristina M. Weller, PE Principal KMW/skp Attachment: Plate I —Typical Footing Subdrain Detail EARTH CONSULTING INCORPORATED Page 5 4 INCH MIN. DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE— t SLOPETO DRAIN 2 INCH MIN. 2 INCH MIN, 4 INCH MAX, 12 INCH MIN. Surface seal; native soil or other SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE low permeability material NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Washed rock or pea gravel C=arth Drain pipe; perforated or slotted Consulting 0 rigid Schedule 40 PVC: or SDR 35 Incorporatrid pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL positive gradient. Do not use KRAGSETH SFR flexible corrugated plastic pipe. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. DRWN. DNM PROINO. 12891 CHKO.KMW DATE 9/18/07 PLATE 1 P 70 #P20 CA e No: :Critical Areas Checklist F" Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetation) 1.. .,...Site Address/1*4tign: :0270,4- 3>L 4. 2. Property TaxAccount Number: _490_�" 54 4 OoOCA -10-0 3. App.k.oxfinate. Site.Size, es,,Pr, s uare feet): 174.1 S'': -F-4. 4. 19 this* site currently deVeloped? if yes; how isi site devA'* loped?_ 5 J AJ. L F_ i4E.M.Cc 5. Describe the general site topogreiphy."'di kih�t applT', M A d, in; site, Fl� va on ove�i, over,,a ormntal R s Jess- than 6f' Piling, slope on �.siter generally 4600eo.Wfee Hill d­ re diAn 15% and less'than'30% (a vertic al - of'10-feet y: - _,qlpp,!�Sip OPO�10 _.site.6 rho rise -'W�'dis -.of 33,td 66-feet�"_­ Unce Steep: Oresen 'Ott �_,qf *r t of--'O-feet.�,over "aIorizontal' distance of lez -than 33-fee9'" Qthe' (pl�aseldekribe): v� ,of areas t �pft 6.. Site contains yparrroun, stahi�� A' d je wa Or ppr=-,,,, 'i " i ,� -,. , " " �, ." I " - - I L OL _�K 7. aregs. rason#s -Dqp water ;AP-PSO& ear? What season(S),qfAhq y. t cour6d 8. Site,is in of a wa'te 9. ;-,�Olq ;A,q teriflows s ffi , Yodk_?rO 5#f Pr�..Art'�arpa wa acros e,,,gr surf a��T. 'fil -are ounds ,are�seasork-d?,. 1 Site. is- primarily- 04 forestLed'. ;-meadow. u art W �s .rb,:, �. , !�� - " 11. Obviouswetl4nd-is -present on�site, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C1,­." u tist4ff S-� C61Y Plan C,h.e.ck.NW1nber,:if applicable? Site is Zoned?. F715 -7- '6� SCS mapped soil "s)?. _(P At Critical Areas inventory or C.A_ map indicates Cxitical Area on si ex,04�7im M/1 V%41V+_V1 nr--Ivql n V-D - n-p- iy-,4 I ./o I I li-F�v Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area� D C, to X, C4-v e.4 V1 bi 1.; - AIC001. 6WPC__ DETERMINATION —STUDY REQUIRED /' - . ,n /I /' .- r " /j, __— WAIVER #P20 - %;. 1 0 7 City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 42�371.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 Date Received: '�t Zaq City Receipt #:- Q qk Critical Are asFile#: 1-0010-002-0 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: The CritiW*Areas,Checklist'c'o*�ntairW owthis form is to A property owner, or his/her authorized. repTesentative, -g, ve inust fill out *the �checklist si And date i( and submit- it - be filled n -a�Dc 16pment gn Qqt �y 84Y person..,p-repan" Permit Application.for the City of Edmonds prior to to the City. Ibe,City -will. review the,cliecklist, make a his/her submittal of the applicatibtf to-th6'City.­ pre�tirsory site visit, and make a determination of the lo��'compete a' VeOpment �uVsdquefifl �stepg., 'necessary 'Me Purpose of �the, Chec)dist is, to-- ei��e'� �City, -itiff to ic*ti6n.,,. permit appl determine whether any pot6ntikl. C ritical Areas are,- 'Or. ty. - lhlewiiffoi=ition.. hiily��lpfeqeut on.thp s!4bj. ..,pro Pl6ase�.Wbrifit'. jicjWt _��ap�. along. with t signed cOpyl 1: ect . per y- Ae�edoa;4;.t�.r..���l�t'e,-'�the�'�aiecklist: shoWd""".b-6'­eW;' asslif.bitritliff m� finding and"Ibcatin y - g descAbcd,-� s f avat elbin ,of the 9i el at ,speci orm. 7r§6p; addition -th shallr,,�ificlude other pertinent a i ia. informa0on (e.g--site p,an,Jopograp4y-.._i 'etc.) or 'stddies iii,c6p Cheicidist to assi jWkcuon with"41is FEB 2 4 2006`11�,,,* 41i T�I#iiit*y;assessment of the site. OWN! c ib ;)�i -ifi' ""' � )f the application agees Ile undersign Appjicant� and-his/her/its; heirs, iand,assi -6ti 6h -processing c Od gns, jn , oii§idb to.ftieasei��inddmxiifv., de&nd_-:and.b*o'I'd' Ilh- City,of YEdmonds harmless from any And:-.2ill -�_Agugo-,i incliding-reasonable u6mey.'s fee's; a-ri's-m— fibiii a- -.quiiW�abtion band iriL*hole�-or mpon Wse iifisleadi acc*urate- or: g pa# p&. in -the -H 'V�� -4& tinL-,:Ss&&r/it9iag ts,or en fticoinplete. iiifbrxndtion�W;nishJqd' :�subihitt&d-,'are. true .and -.correct to .-the. Byw,�,-,my,,- gh.ature 1-certif rthdt di -inf --:and 6ihibits,herewiih �" , * �y e..,.,: ormation. best of, .1M9,W -thatI �Itxtboii� e. s"ifolicati_ UCAWYAGENY" C/ Pr6per.ty,lj 01 ..Byt -ApOlicant/Akent- zaoply�, 'th '�siib' 16nd use 4lipatio Py Opqttirej thObove to, for4 e n et*qthorize4I .:.4qd!m*-m p,ennmib�n,forzthe�-O.ubli.c.!pfficials"-dithesta"ff.iDftheQ-'t*,�.of�Edthondsito-,tnti*,the.subjectproperty,for-the- .y ti :ap Ii pwpo6ses:ofi&p.wti-o,-n--�an,'d:'p"o atfi%dantldlhis p ic a on S IGNAI'U' RE OFOWN9R 0 _,q _16 &it_ Zip, EMdil "(D'ptional): CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Sitet-ocation: 22706 95"' Place We�t 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 Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater. among others. 0 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. 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). * 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. 0 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 information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Gina Coccia, Planner (49A429e V Name, Title V Signature Date Ke =8% 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