The URL can be used to link to this page

22804 96TH PL W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiii 9512 22804 96TH PL W ADDRESS: ;Z �P- 7), TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL #: 0(0 q 3 71 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE) #: COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: Conditional Waiver Study Required 0 Waiver CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: Conditional Waiver Study Required E] 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: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Jana's Street File Checklist 5-14-08.doc PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 11 SMEET Name, ,,rLz3 _ke_c \A oryl%.p Date: it Site Address: aa goq - cl G A \,, I/ Tax Parcel 002a-7 900000goo Project Description: Ne,,3 SFp,. Plan Check #: Re . duced Site Plan Provided: NO) —7Zoning-. PIS Map Page: Corner Lot: (YES /65�) Flag Lot: (YES,(S�;) Critical Areas Determination #: CPh9,QQQ0VB3 Study.Req u i red - �A- -r -CJ -e. clo, . c, e, V1. E d A exil o, ko. waiver %Ktk vwvor4s '�-- a UW%q f I If R) Q U WAVIlt 1; -f6/ I y DIV5 I-010--s lss-eR I 'K. Elise- V) SEPA Determination: �ffl 11� C4 Exem * pt C/6' '0-k- b-ppxy .40 El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) "'.-flO C;bzl�ior'. Grz'd"' \, ak-ke-,-, 5-0 C*y C-" 0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with noCakeg form AP:\J V.,- Lo3, 9 4,.)l Required SetbaCAS -F�e-ar: Street: Side:(\,) Side: Actual Setbacks Street: (N) DS-/ Side:(,) JSide:(E) 501*_ 1 Rear: q0 Detached Structures: Rockeries: Not\e- !��io-ar-\ ar, Fences/Trellises: 3 Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: Qfpe.-- -9(6cr- koLoe-c— o, 30'Ak-y-OeS�r -e Stairs/Deck: ecoec) ecZL4674 e(4 Buildin HeJqht Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Height Allowed:_ tX q C�0,, Actual Height: Other Parking Required: Parking Provided: Lot Area: ir a5,,s(f � v j�, cd 0 Maximum Lot Coverage: 35 b rc Lot Coverage Calculations:,, d V cl ADU Created: (YES /(D Subdivision: )K Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES Comments STREET FILE Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 07-14-09 All U-%S. City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: Property Owner: CA e Critical Area File #: Permit Number: &_nQ_Q.r)n _TR Site Location: Parcel Number: ocxpoogoo Project Descriptio n: '�J I 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 allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and 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: Set- C_ of 4 Q 'VaVo 4 t Ir. ti.j. mv & Or%. Vy LZ A s&c 4 -.A I The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in ficcordance with ECDC 23.40.120, _6"V11 `rpa/ll Mitigation sequeri(fing; -A, C1 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare repc,-� rt on or off the development proposal site; -S -W;v -'5:V '% P. le-, 3. _\Z 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 accordance:with ECDC 23.40. 110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal'protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. % ,/ The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria 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. Conditions. Criti cal Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced.permit number for specific condition(s). Reviewer ,,,Wgnature :�Zlq f A, Date ' 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 n a— STmtET FILE (itof y 09ff STREET FILE certflf9occvaywy tlal AT Occupancy established by this certificate: DEP ,ARTMENT ' �OF 'BUILDINGS PER INTERNATIONAL BUILDING COD'E-SE Building No. Stories:— 2 Basement:`.- N( Automatic sprinkler system provided: Novl,,. V, th' Owner of building: Clearwater Homes, 7017 196 St th V ' The Single Family Residence at 22804 96 pl\W, of the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code a the proposed occupancy is classified. Dwelling'Uh Type of-C. ns �'-Aufomati&.sprinkler.i 7 N 111 it M BLD20100758 required: No VB Hnspected and approved complying with the requirements group and division of occupancy and the use for which Issued this. 30th day of December, 2011 -C� By: N Chief Building Official Any change of occupancy or use requires a building p6rmit and a now Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. .f Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnica.1 / Chvil Engineer January 6, 2011 City of Edmonds c/o Clearwater Homes, LLC P.O. Box 432 Marysville, Washington 98270 Subject: Geotechnical Response k. Elise Plat, Lots No. 6, 7 and 8 BLD 20100784 (Clearwater S.F.R.) This engineering report responds to City of Edmonds' November 30, 2010 Notice regarding the proposed three lots referenced above. One lot (Lot No. 6) contains an existing concrete foundation, based on a previously issued building permit. The two other lots (Lots 7 and 8) require a geotechnical response due to their proximity to the adjacent slope. REFERENCES: 0 Previous geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. 0 Previously issued building permits by City of Edmonds RESUB a Revised project plans by Mike Johnson, architect 0 September 27 and October 5 updated reports by D. Bruce, P.E. JAN 112010 BUILDING DkFAKTMENT BACKGROUND: CITY OF EDMONDS As previously declared, this engineer has done an extensive soil investigation verifying extremely dense native subgrade soils in the vicinity of the overall K. Elise Plat. Several homes have been permitted and constructed (with specific geotechnical in sipections by this engineer). Lot No. 6 was permitted and begun (foundation properly installed with geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E.). Currently, a new builder/developer has resumed the process of finishing the development of the overall plat. Lots No. 7 and 8 remain, as well as completing the house on.the existing foundation on Lot No. 6. SOILS * FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT * INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O.Box 95502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 * (206)546-9217 * FAX (206)-94ftft4@- i City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 2 The overall site is geotechnically stable. The adjacent (southerly) slope is not hazardous nor severe. This engineer has provided numerous geotechnical responses to the City of Edmonds. The November 30, 2010 Memo from City of Edmonds (Gina Coccia) required clarification of numerous issues on the architect plans, as well as separate geotechnical declarations. RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS NOVEMBER 30,2010 LETTER: 1. Site plan changes and clarifications: Please review revised plans by Mike Johnson, architect, to address the specific itemsas enumerated in the November 30, 2010 letter. This engineer has provided a geotechnical review of the revised plans and has determined that all modifications comply with this engineer's recommendations and do not threaten the integrity of the overall site and adjacent hillside. Geotechnical inspections are required during construction. 2. Geotechnical Report - Addendum: As requested in the November 30, 2010 Memo, the following addendum declares (and re -declares) the stability of the overall site and stability of the proposed two new houses -(and completion of Lot 6 house). 1, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer of record for the project, declare and certify that: a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; and b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 3 3. Desion Standards: This project (two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, and completion of Lot 6 house) does not require any regular and periodic maintenance to maintain the level of function. a. The proposed development does not decrease the factor of safety for* landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. The construction of the reinforced concrete footings in conjunction with footing I drains and overall storm water management improves slope stability. b. The proposed new homes are not "clustered". As discussed and declared many times, the designated "geologically hazardous areas" are not actually hazardous. c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope. The proposed and revised plans for houses on Lots 7 and 8 require very little excavation and do, indeed, conform to the existing topography. d. Locate structures to preserve "the most critical portion of the site and its natural land forms and vegetation". Done. This engineer verifies that the proposed layouts for houses on Lots 7 ad 8 do not adversely impact the southerly slope. e. The proposed development does not result in a greater risk or need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. f. No "artificial" grading is proposed for the.nominal southerly slopes. No retaining walls are required for grading or foundation support. g. Development of the new houses on Lots 7 and 8 has been designed to minimize overall impervious lot coverage. 4. Veaetati6n Retention: No removal of the slope face vegetation is proposed. Geotechnically, it is essential to maintain vegetation on � the slope face. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 4 5. Seasonal Restriction: Geotechnically- the stable site conditions easily allow for the nominal excavation and foundation work i� proceed, regardless of time of year. Proposed foundation grading is minimal, with no significant depth. Thus, this engineer declares that the building permit and authorization to work is geotechnically valid anytime during the year --subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. 6. Point Discharae of Surface Water This engineer agrees with City of Edmonds Code that,point discharge should be' prohibited onto the adjacent slopes. The proposed two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, as well as the completion of Lot 6 house does not incorporate any point discharge. Note. that storm water control is designed to incorporate on -site. infiltration (away from the slope face). On -site inspections by this engineer are required to verify actual construction of on -site storm water infiltration and dispersion. 7. Sewaab Disposal: No on -site sewage systems are proposed. SUMMARY: Previous geotechnical investigations verified dense, stable subgrade soils and stability of overall property. Geotechnical inspections performed on houses previously constructed verified good foundation techniques and overall stability. This engineer has verified that specific house footprint locations for Lots 7 and 9 are valid and conform to this engineer's recommendations. The designated "steep slope / hazard area" is not actually a hazard. The southerly slope is geotechnically stable, and not significant with regard to instability issues. The proposed new houses are sufficiently set back from the City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 5 slope and will not alter or adversely impact the slopes. As discussed, it is essential,that the existing vegetation be maintained on the slope face in order to prevent localized erosional sloughing. On -site geoteclhnical inspections by this engineer are required, to verify key aspects during construction. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. r,PntPnhni#-.q1 / rivil F:n inpar V DMB:vlb cc: Clearwater Homes 1. j -,09/251/2010 11:25 FAX Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. IA 002/006 MB.C.E, Kak Gedadribil /Civil Dgkim September 27, 2010 of FAM OfIdS Buildhig Denaftel" City of Edmonds UVE IL Subjed: GeatechnIcal Evaluntl - K. Elise Lots No. I and 8 A -T" This engineering report presents the results of a recent (September, 20 10) geotechnical evaluation of Lots 7 and 8, in the K. Elise Short Plat (north of Edmonds Way). This evaluation was required due to City of Edmonds concerns regarding geotechnical slope stability and proposed house locations. • Detailed geotechnical investigation by D. Bruce, P.E. (circa 2003) • Geotechnical Inspection Repofts by D. Bruce, P.E., for completed houses in the overall short plat * Site photographs a Proposed house layouts for Lots 7 and 8 (by a0hRect) The overall development was initiated many years ago. An access road with slope stabilization, overall property drainage, and erosion control measures were undertaken (by Michel Construction). Individual lots were subsequently developed by various builders. This ermjineer provkled geote&nical criteria, designs and Inspection for the overall plat. road, stabilization rockeries, and individual houses. It is understoix! that the previous owner of Lots 7 and 8 has sold these to the new builder / developer - - ' The City of Edmonds has required an additional geotechnical evaluation to assess the stability of the slope in conjunction mAth the proposed house kmation. son-s , FouNDAwNs , sffE DEvaopmevr , wspwmw * DRA#vAaE * DEsiaN a PERmir * LEGAL P.O. BOX 55502 * ShOrefins. WashkWn 98165 * (208) 546-9217 * FAX (206) 54-0442 - RECEIVE:13 z - I YCOP "I"T 15 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS A " I 08/28/2010 11:25 FAX 1A VVJ/VVU City of Edmonds Re: K, Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 2 ML&IAT110 : This engineer requested that the specific footprint locations for each house (Lot 7 and Lot 8) be field -staked. This was completed (see photographs). On a site visit, this engineer verffled dense native subgrade soil, easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. beating capacity for the proposed house foundations. . Small portions of the proposed house footprint would be constructed in a "sloped" portion of the lot. See plans and photographs. - This engineer ygfflW that the proposed footprint locations were no adversely Impacting slope stability -providing this engineer pertorms on-sfte inspections. The proposed houses could easily be constructed with normal excavation techniques. Compliance with City of Edmonds erosion control practices is 29SM1121 The findings, recommendations and conclusions of the original geotechnical report for the overall development (by D. Bruce, P.E.) are MWM for the proposed Lot 7 and Lot 8 houses. On -site geotechnical evaluation verified that the proposed layout$ for house (Lots 7 and 8) are geotechnically stable, and do not adversely Impact the property slopes. * Geotechnical inspections are MqulMd for the following Items: 1. Actual footprint layout pirlor excavation 2. Inspections of excavation 3. Soil bearing verification 4. Erosion control (temporary and permanent / final) 5. Any rockedes, or block walls 6. Subsurface drainap . 09/28/2010 11.'25 FAX MUU4/VVU City of Edmonds Re: K Oise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 3 This engineer to provide periodic inspection reports to City of rdmonds, as well as a flOM rePOrt at the successful compfegon of both houses. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. t Geotechnical I Civil Engineer DMB:vlb 10/08/2010 14:48 FAX @ 002/003 le Z""t'g (902r, XV-4 - -4L9b-ft9 (DOU) - 99LOO VM'OU119104S aOSSS x0e -0- WW7 JMU9d T NUS30 - .90VAUMa - N01103dSMI - AN3PVdO"J-kWO MIS SNOUY'amw 1;4 w --v ct TRIO? OV 97-J, dP:jx -407 cww -4,11',5� .411 L I ZL Yjf �k qT3 (\ a-, qwp4 p (i rx - �4 .3 O-alay.Ls A-1-i-Y.7 Irv)+ -)&toap -Lql C, I vv Q-1 wa..Laap * a �; X.�- );) !.L Y r-2-:4001. iL%-j _0 �-Jo; #C .37'T M 0"'1 S710S 1F) ta, -mr) 5; .0.05) * I -To IWO;v rma ) v -ky tL it tL 0 I Qt5, J-0-7 Clio?, "Bad launjS -W si .uuaa Nosovar? L 60 - � Ol (9*) -rT r 81^11A^ 10/08/2010 14:49 FAX 0003/003 7-rl m I on U)n Dennis M. Bruce, RE. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. January 6, 2011 City of Edmonds c/o Clearwater Homes, LLC P.O. Box 432 Marysville, Washington 98270 Subject: Geotechnical Response K. Elise Plat, Lots No. 6,7 and 8 BLD 20100784 (Clearwater S.F.R.) Geotechnical /Civil Engineer ot/) This engineering report responds to City of Edmonds' November 30, 2010 Notice regarding the,proposed three lots referenced above. One lot (Lot No. 6) contains an existing concrete foundation, based on a previously issued building permit. The two other lots (Lots 7 and 8) require a geotechnical response due to their proximity to the adjacent slope. REFERENCES: C-Fqr"%T I IL If • Previous geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. • Previously issued building permits by City of Edmonds • Revised project plans by Mike Johnson, architect RESUB • September 27 and October 5 updated reports by D. Bruce, P.E. JAN 112010 BACKGROUND: BUILDING PEARtIMENT clTy OF MONDS As previously declared, this engineer has done an extensive soil investigation verifying extremely dense native subgrade soils in the vicinity of the overall K. Elise Plat. Several homes have been permitted and constructed (with specific geotechnical inspections by this engineer). Lot No. 6 was permitted and begun (foundation properly installed with geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E.). . Currently, a new builder/developer has resumed the process of finishing the development of�the overall plat. Lots No. 7 and 8 remain, as well as completing the house on the existing foundation on Lot No. 6. SOILS - FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT 9 INSPECTION * DRAINAGE o DESIGN & PERMIT o LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) E; I A 'Rd NQ cff-, 4 Y T-0 City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 2 The overall site is geotechnically stable. The adjacent (southerly) slope is not hazardous nor severe. This engineer has provided numerous geotechnical responses to the City of Edmonds. The November 30, 2010 Memo from City of Edmonds (Gina Coccia) required clarification of numerous issues on the architect plans, as well as separate geotechnical declarations. RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS NOVEMBER 30,2010 LETTER: 1 . Site plan changes and clarifications: Please review revised plans by Mike Johnson, architect, to address the specific items as enumerated in the November 30, 2010 letter. This engineer has provided a geotechnical reylgW of the revised plans and has determined that all modifications comply with this- engineer's recommendations and do not threaten the integrity of the overall site and adjacent hillside. Geotechnical inspections are required during construction. 2. Geotechnical Repgrt - Addendum', As requested in the November 30, 2010 Memo, the following addendum declares (and re -declares) the stability of the overall site and stability of the proposed two new houses (and completion of Lot 6 house). 1, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer of record for the project, declare and certify that: a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; and b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 3 3. Design Standards: This project (two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, and completion of Lot 6 house) does not require any regular and periodic maintenance to maintain the level of function. a. The proposed development does not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. The construction of the reinforced concrete footings in conjunction with footing drains and overall storm water management improves slope stability. b. The proposed new homes are not "clustered". As discussed and declared many times, the designated "geologically hazardous areas" are not actually hazardous. c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope. The proposed and revised plans for houses on Lots 7 and 8 require very little excavation and do, indeed, conform to the existing topography. d. Locate structures to preserve "the most critical portion of the site and its natural land forms and vegetation". Done. This engineer verifies that the proposed layouts for houses on Lots 7 ad 8 do not adversely impact the southerly slope. e. The proposed development does not result in a greater risk or need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. f. No "artificial" grading is proposed for the nominal southerly slopes. No retaining walls are required for grading or foundation support. g. Development of the new houses on Lots 7 and 8 has been designed to minimize overall impervious lot coverage. 4. Vegetation Retention: No removal of the slope face vegetation is proposed. Geotechnically, it is essential to maintain vegetation on the slope face. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 4 5. Seasonal Restriction: Geotechnically, the stable site conditions easily allow for the nominal excavation and foundation work to proceed, regardless of time of year. Proposed foundation grading is minimal, with no significant depth. Thus, this engineer declares that the building permit and authorization to work is geotechnically valid anytime during the year --subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. 6. Point Discharge of Surface Water This engineer agrees with City of Edmonds Code that point discharge should be prohibited onto the adjacent slopes. The proposed two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, as well as the completion of Lot 6 house does not incorporate any point discharge. Note that storm water control is designed to incorporate on -site infiltration (away from the slope face). On -site inspections by this engineer are Lequired to verify actual construction of on -site storm water infiltration and dispersion. 7. Sewage Disposal: No on -site sewage systems are proposed. SUMMARY: Previous geotechnical investigations verified dense, stable subgrade soils and stability of overall property. Geotechnical inspections performed on houses previously constructed verified good foundation techniques and overall stability. This engineer has verified that specific house footprint locations for Lots 7 and 9 are valid and conform to this engineer's recommendations. The designated "steep slope / hazard area" is not actually a hazard. The southerly slope is geotechnically stable, and not significant with regard to instability issues. The proposed new houses are sufficiently set back from the City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 5 slope and will not alter or adversely impact the slopes. As discussed, it is essential that the existing vegetation be maintained on the slope face in order to prevent localized erosional sloughing. On -site geotechnical inspections by this engineer are required to verify key aspects during construction. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer DMB:vIb cc: Clearwater Homes 09/29/2010 11:25 FAX Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. MS.C.E, MRA. GWbdVkd/CMlD#1W September 27, 2010 City of Edmonds 00ding Department City of Edmonds ILD Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation K. Elise Lots No. I and 8 A, ;�' This engineering report presents ft results of a recent (September, 2010) geotechnical evaluation of Lots 7 and 8, in the K. Elise Short Plat (north of Edmonds Way). This evaluation was required due to City of Edmonds conoems regarding geotechnical slope stability and proposed house locations. • Detailed geotechnical investigation by D. Bruce, P.E. (circa 2003) • Geolechnical Inspection Reports by D. Bruoe,.P.E., for completed houses in the overall short plat Site photographs. Proposed house layouts for Lots 7 and *8 (by a$hftdct) The overall development was initiated many years ago, An acom road with slope stabilization, overall property drainage, and erosion control measures were undertaken (by Michel Construction). lndlvldual lots were subsequently developed by vadous builders. This engineer provided geotechnical criteria, designs and Inspection for the overall plat. road, stabilization rockeries, and individual houses. It is understoM that the previous owner of Lots 7 and 8 has sold these to the new builder / developer - - The City of Edmonds has required an additional geotechnical evaluation to assess the stability of the slope in conjunction wb the proposed house location. SOILS * FOUNDATiONS ' SITE DEMOPIWENT , wspEcTjoAf * DRAfivAcE * DestGN a PERmir - LWAL P.O. Box 5550? * Shomfins. WaShkWn 98185 ' (208) 54&Ml 7 * FAX (206) W-8442 I RECEIVED U "'T 15 2010 ^-Pn. LOPMENT SERVICES CT8. ti i KET FILEECITY OF EDMONDS 08/23/2010 11:25 FAX City of Edmonds Re: K. Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 2 EVAL!JATION: This engineer requested that the specific footprint locaijons for each house (Lot 7 and Lot 8) be field -staked. This was completed (see photographs). On a site visit, this engineer vertiled dense native subgrade soil, easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. beating capacity for the proposed house foundations. Small portions of the proposed house footprint would be constructed in a "sloped" portion of the lot. See plans and photographs. This engineer yer1fW that the proposed footprint locations were nM adversely Impacting slope stability -providing this engineer performs on -site inspections. The proposed houses could easily be constructed with normal excavation techniques. Compliance with City of Edmonds erosion control practices is es The findings, recommendations and conclusions of the original geotechnical report for the overall development (by D. Bruce, P.E.) -are valid for the proposed Lot 7 and Lot 8 houses. On -site gwtechnical evaluation verified that the Proposed IAYOuts for house (Lots 7 and 8) are geotechnicalty stable, and do not adversely Impact the property slopes. * Geotechnical inspections are MgulMd for the following Items: 1 . Actual footprint layout pirlor excavation 2. Inspections of excavation 3. Soil bearing verification .4. Erosion control (temporary and permanent / final) 5. Any rockedes or block walls 6. Subsurface drainage 08/29/2010 11:26 FAX to City of Edmonds Re: K Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 3 o This engineer to provide periodic inspecUon reports to City of edmonds, as well as a ffjW report at the successful completion of both houses. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical I Civil Engineer DMB:vlb %JV&VW IV 94.-Pf j U AA i t6O Z-pfWJSot4 Dennis M. Bruce, P.JE- 00 RO 110 K.S.C.E., M. I BA GiEt-ecMical /civil Engfinea-r g L' 7�-s 1 * (D r ,Wk.r&-X 14014vS ItTe Gi 'VJA.(? 97,10 N31 L L LO �r [ j�� ri WOOM, L,o -r PC 7-J4 E At. 1 4 SOILS pt LL(As 'b'Xk ue.1 U Lb -r -Ket,ok:r-g tE- t 0 S 1 #3 TAO L �PA"srk *A4 `R"ip-r 17447 ejeNWA-T UA4Fk-rAe-,L=r jr I-egiL ; Pxv- I.A3= A--h MUM�77ONS -1 SITE OMt)FLopmEAtr - INSpECTION . DRAINAGE . OESIGIv pE rr RM M4L .0. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155. - (206) 546-9217 - FAX ',2W) 546-8442 OU coo/zoo @ M 80:V1. OLOZ/90/01. 10 9 10 LOT 8 AVG EX. GRADE 0 3�5.00' 16,,r-,oc.K5 SF SF Ile I'll 0 T 7.,- EX. GRADE 0385.00, F%pli E NE T ca 4" Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., MRA Geotechnical / Dvil Engineer January 6, 2011 City of Edmonds c/o Clearwater Homes, LLC P.O. Box 432 Marysville, Washington 98270 Subject: Geotechnical Response K. Elise Plat, Lots No. 6, 7 and 8 BLD 20100784 (Clearwater S.F.R.) This engineering report responds to City of Edmonds' November 30, 2010 Notice regarding the proposed three lots referenced above. One lot (Lot No. 6) contains an existing concrete foundation, based on a previously issued building permit. The two other lots (Lots 7 and 8) require a geotechnical response due to their proximity to the adjacent slope. REFERENCES: • Previous geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. • Previously issued building permits by City of Edmonds RESUB • Revised project plans by Mike Johnson, architect • September 27 and October 5 updated reports by D. Bruce, P.E. JAN 11 ;011 BUILDIM3 DEPARt-MENT BACKGROUND: ClTy OF: Et)MONDS As previously declared, this engineer has done an extensive soil investigation verifying extremely dense native subgrade soils in the vicinity of the overall K. Elise Plat. Several homes have been permitted and constructed (with specific geotechnical inspections by this engineer). Lot No. 6 was permitted and begun (foundation properly installed with geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E.). Currently, a new builder/developer has resumed the process of finishing the development of the overall plat. Lots No. 7 and 8 remain, as well as completing the house on the existing foundation on Lot No. 6. SOILS * FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT * INSPECTION * DRAINAGE * DESIGN& PERMIT * LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 * Shoreline, Washington 98155 * (206) 546-9217 * FAX (206) -4400WE City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 2 The overall site is geotechnically stable. The adjacent (southerly) slope is not hazardous nor severe. This engineer has provided numerous geotechnical responses to the City of Edmonds. The November 30, 2010 Memo from City of Edmonds (Gina Coccia) required clarification of numerous issues on the architect plans, as well as separate geotechnical declarations. RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS NOVEMBER 30,2010 LETTER.- 1. Site plan changes and clarifications: Please review revised plans by Mike Johnson, architect, to address the specific items as enumerated in the November 30, 2010 letter. This engineer has provided a geolechnical review of the revised plans and has determined that all modifications comply with this engineer's recommendations and do not threaten the integrity of the overall site and adjacent hillside. Geotechnical inspections are required during construction. 2. Geotechnical Report - Addendum: As requested in the November 30, 2010 Memo, the following addendum declares (and re -declares) the stability of the overall site and stability of the proposed two new houses (and completion of Lot 6 house). 1, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer of record for the project, declare and certify that: a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; and b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 3 3. Design Standards: This project (two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, and completion of Lot 6 house) does not require any regular and periodic maintenance to maintain the level of function. a. The proposed development does not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. The construction of the reinforced concrete footings in conjunction with footing drains and overall storm water management Improves slope stability. b. The proposed new homes are not "clustered". As discussed and declared many times, the designated "geologically hazardous areas" are not actually hazardous. c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope. The proposed and revised plans for houses on Lots 7 and 8 require very little excavation and do, indeed, conform to the existing topography. d. Locate structures to preserve "the most critical portion of the site and its natural land forms and vegetation". Done. This engineer verifies that the proposed layouts for houses on Lots 7 ad 8 do not adversely impact the southerly slope. e. The proposed development does not result in a greater risk or need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. f. No "artificial" grading is proposed for the nominal southerly slopes. No retaining walls are required for grading or foundation support. g. Development of the new houses on Lots 7 and 8 has been designed to minimize overall impervious lot coverage. 4. Vegetation Retention: No removal of the slope face vegetation is proposed. Geotechnically, it is essential to maintain vegetation on the slope face. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 4 5. Seasonal Restriction: Geotechnically, the stable site conditions easily allow for the nominal excavation and foundation work to proceed, regardless of time of year. Proposed foundation grading is minimal, with no significant depth. Thus, this engineer declares that the building permit and authorization to work is geotechnically valid anytime during the year —subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. 6. Point Dischacge of Surface Water This engineer agrees with City of Edmonds Code that point discharge should be prohibited onto the adjacent slopes. The proposed two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, as well as the completion of Lot 6 house does not incorporate any point discharge. Note that storm water control is designed to incorporate on -site infiltration (away from the slope face). On -site inspections by this engineer are required to verify actual construction of on -site storm water infiltration and dispersion. 7. Sewage Disposal: No on -site sewage systems are proposed. SUMMARY: Previous geotechnical investigations verified dense, stable subgrade soils and stability of overall property. Geotechnical inspections performed on houses previously constructed verified good foundation techniques and overall stability. This engineer has verlf led that specific house footprint locations for Lots 7 and 9 are valid and conform to this engineer's recommendations. The designated "steep slope / hazard area" is not actually a hazard. The southerly slope is geotechnically stable, and not significant with regard to instability issues. The proposed new houses are sufficiently set back from the City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 5 slope and will not alter or adversely impact the slopes. As discussed, it is essential that the existing vegetation be maintained on the slope face in order to prevent localized erosional sloughing. On -site geotechnical inspections by this engineer are required to verify key aspects during construction. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. TMA De nis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer DMB:vlb cc: Clearwater Homes Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer January 6, 2011 City of Edmonds c/o Clearwater Homes, LLC P.O. Box 432 Marysville, Washington 98270 Subject: Geotechnical Response k. Elise Plat, Lots No. 6, 7 and 8 BLD 20100784 (Clearwater S.F.R.) This engineering report responds to City of Edmonds' November 30, 2010 Notice regarding the proposed three lots referenced above. One lot (Lot No. 6) contains an existing concrete foundation, based on a previously issued building permit. The two -other lots (Lots 7 and. 8) require a geotechnical response due to their proximity to the adjacent slope. REFERENCES: • Previous geotechnical and i nspection-re ports by D. Bruce, P.E. RESUB • Previously issued building permits by City of Edmonds JAN 112010 • Revised project plans by Mike Johnson, architect BUILDING DEMAR-i NT CITY Ole or • September 27 and October 5 updated reports by D. Bruce, P.E. DS BACKGROUND: As previously declared, this engineer has done an extensive soil investigation - verifying extremely dense native subgrade soils in the vicinity of the overall K. Elise Plat. W_ Several homes have been permitted and constructed (with specific geotechnical inspections by this engineer). Lot No. 6 was permitted and begun (foundation properly installed with geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E.). Currently, a new builder/developer has resumed the processof finishing the development of the overall plat. Lots No. 7 and 8 remain, as well as completing the house on.the existing foundation on Lot No. 6. SOILS * FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT * INSPECTION * DRAINAGE * DESIGN& PERMIT * LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 * Shoreline, Washington 98155 * (206) 546-9217 * FAX (206) 5dedb*42— City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 2 The overall site is geotechnically stable. The adjacent (southerly) slope is not hazardous nor severe. This engineer has provided numerous geotechnical responses to the City of Edmonds. The November 30, 2010 Memo from City of Edmonds (Gina Coccia) required clarification of numerous issues on the architect plans, as well as separate geotechnical declarations. RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS NOVEMBER 30,2010 LETTER: 1. Site plan changes and clarifications: Please review revised plans by Mike Johnson, architect, to address the specific items.as enumerated in the November 30, 2010 letter. This engineer has provided a geotechnical review of the revised plans and has determined that all modifications comply with this engineer's recommendations and do not threaten the integrity of the overall site and adjacent hillside. Geotechnical inspections are required during construction. 2. Geotechnical Report - Addendum: As requested in the November 30, 2010 Memo, the following addendum declares (and re -declares) the stability of the overall site and stability of the proposed two new houses -(and completion of Lot 6 house). 1, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer of record for the project, declare and certify that: a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; and b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 3 3. Desian Standards: This project (two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, and completion of Lot 6 house) does not require any regular and periodic maintenance to maintain the level of function. a. The proposed development does not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static.conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. The construction of the reinforced concrete footings in conjunction with footing drains and overall storm water management improves slope stability. b. The proposed new homes are not "clustered". As discussed and declared many times, the designated "geologically hazardous areas" are not actually hazardous. c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope. The proposed and revised plans for houses on Lots 7 and 8 require very little excavation- and do, indeed, conform to the existing topography. d. Locate structures to preserve "the most critical portion of the site and its natural land forms and vegetation". Done. This engineer verifies that the proposed layouts for houses on Lots 7 ad 8 do not adversely impact the southerly slope. e. The proposed development does not result in a greater risk or need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. f. No "artificial" grading is proposed for the.nominal southerly slopes. No retaining walls are required for grading or foundation support. g. Development of the new houses on Lots.7 and 8 has been designed to minimize overall impervious lot coverage. 4. Veaetation Retention: No removal of the slope face vegetation is proposed. Geotechnically, it is essential to maintain vegetation on the slope face. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 4 5. Seasonal Restriction: Geotechnically, the stable site conditions easily allow for the nominal excavation and foundation work to proceed,. regardless of time of year. Proposed foundation grading is minimal, with no significant depth. Thus, this engineer declares that the building permit and authorization to work is, geotechnically valid anytime during the year --subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. 6. Point Discharae of Surface Water This engineer agrees with City of Edmonds Code that point discharge should be prohibited onto the adjacent slopes. The proposed two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, as well as the completion of Lot 6 house does not incorporate any point discharge. Note that storm water control is designed to incorporate on -site infiltration (away from the slope face). On -site inspections by this engineer are required to verify actual construction of on -site storm water infiltration and dispersion. 7. Sewage Disposal: No on -site sewage systems are proposed. SUMMARY: Previous geotechnical investigations verified dense, stable subgrade soils and stability of overall property. Geotechnical inspections performed on houses previously constructed verified good foundation techniques and overall stability. This engineer has verified that specific house footprint locations for Lots 7 and 9 are valid and conform to this engineer's recommendations. The designated "steep slope / hazard area" is not actually a hazard. The southerly slope is geotechnically stable, and not significant with regard to instability issues. The proposed new houses are sufficiently set back from the City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 5 slope and will not alter or adversely impact the slopes. As discussed, it is essential that the existing vegetation be maintained on the slope face in order to prevent localized erosional sloughing. On -site geotechnical inspections by this engineer are required to verify key aspects during construction. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. M. IWA C% )C/O' 170S via% Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer DMB:vIb cc: Clearwater Homes 11 09/29/2�10 11:25 FAX 77 A,� Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. MS.C.E, M.B.A6 cm�t /CMI a*1W September 27, 2010 onds Building Department chy Of MIMI Uhr of Edmonds &,n VED YLAN [ArPRO. Subject: Gootechnical Evaluation K. Elise Lots No. I and 8 I This engineering report presentsthe results of a recent (September, 2010) geotechnical evaluation of Lots 7 and 8, in the K. Elise Short Plat (north of Edmonds Way), This evaluation was required due to City of Edmonds concems regarding geotechnical slope stability and proposed house locations. Detailed geotechnical investigation by D. Bruce, P.E. (circa 2003) Geotechnical Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E., for completed houses in the overall short plat Site photographs. Proposed house layouts for Lots 7 and 8 (by a*hftdCt) The overall development was initiated many years ago. An access road with slope stabilization, overall property drainage, and erosion control measures were undertaken (by Michel Construction). Individual lots were subsequently developed by various builders. This engineer provided geote&nical criteria, designs and Inspection for the overall plat. road, stabilization rockeries, and individual houses. It is understonx! that the previous owner of Lots 7 and 8 has sold these to the new builder / developer - - The City of Edmonds has required an additionat geotechnical evaluation to assess the stability of the slope in conjunction with the proposed house location. SOILS * FOUNDAT[ONS ' WE DEVaOPMSVT ' INSPECTKW ' DRUVAGE # MIGN A PERMIT * LEOAL P.O. Sox 55500. * Shorefins. WashkWn 98165 * (208) 546-9217 1 FAX (206) 5Q-8442 RE:ce:1 VZO 'IT 112010 Op ENT SERV CITY OF 44"�'C'E's CT13. qW29/2.010 11:25 �AX ?a VU;J/VUb City of Edmonds Re: K, Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 2 EVALIJATION: This engineer requested that the specific footprint locations for each house (Lot 7 and Lot 8) be field -staked. This was completed (see photDgraphs). On a site visit, this engineer verified dense native subgrade soil, easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity for the proposed house foundations. Small portions of the proposed house footprint would be constructed in a "sloped" portion of the lot. See plans and photographs. This engineer yfriffed that the proposed footprint locato ' ns were nM adversely Impacting slope stability -providing this engineer performs on -site inspections. The proposed houses could easily be constructed with normal excavation techniques. Complianoe with City of Edmonds erosion control pracdces is esewt[a The findings, recommendations and conclusions of the original geotechnical report for the overall development (by 0. Bruce, P.E.) -are valid for the proposed Lot 7 and Lot 8 houses. on -site geotechnical evaluation verified that the Proposed layouts for house (Lots 7 and 8) are geotechnically stable, and do not adversely impact the property slopes. a Geotechnical inspections are MgulMd for Me following Items: 1 . Actual footprint layout prior excavation 2. Inspections of excavation 3. Soil bearing verification .4. Erosion control (temporary and permanent / final) 5. Any rockedes or block walls 6. Subsurface drainage 03/29/2010 11:25 FAX IM UU4/ Uvu City of Edmonds Re: K, Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 3 This engineer to Provide Periodic inspection reports to City of Edmonds, as well as a fiqjj report at the successful completion of both houses. It there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical I Civil Engineer DMB:vlb 10/08/2010 14:49 FAX @002/003 r, Z"O-gt's (90e, Xv:j - -u9b-9v9 (DOU) - 09 Lee vArt 'OU119J04S U05919 XOS -0 -JVW7 UyQgd '0 AfVWQ - 3,9VA(jVda ft AOUO3d.SWI a LIV3PVdO'JWO ZIIS SAIOLLYaNna- -40 7 ZL if Nv.�$ (N Qr v I'M 0 1p- wd (Volsal--a 'Ovt�l- y PC.# Ivv cy -x .7-filoysla ONO .7v ti- 0 1965- J-0-7 f -i4oa. 2- 0-03 4' v ry Ow Ila :ZUISUa JIA:10,JZ�0�0091 C),J 5� --L;)O ..god 'amis *W siuua(3. l",71 A I MIA^ 46 co SL st; LOT 8 AVG. EX. GRADE 0 375.00' SF SF Ile OT 7,.-- AVGr- EX. GRADE VAT 0 385.00' I'v IG, I 7""; ca 09/29/2,010 11:25 FAX 0002/008 4s4" u* wr7 . r%4rK'- Dennis M. Bruce, REV MS.C.E, M.BA September 27, 2010 9-0 to City of Edmon& Bandi Depamat City of Edmonds W9 APPROVED PLO,. Subject: GootechnIcal Evaluation K. Elise Lots No. I and 8 This engineering report presents the results of a recent (September, 2010) geotechnical evaluation of Lots 7 and 8, in the K. Elise Short Plat (north of Edmonds Way), This evaluation was required due to City of Edmonds concerns regarding geotechnical slope stability and proposed house locations. • Detailed geotechnical investigation by D. Bruce, P.E. (drca 2003) • Geotechnical Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E., for completed houses in the overall short plat Site photographs. Proposed house layouts for Lots 7 and 8 (by a*hfted) The overall development was initiated many years ago. An access road with slope stabilization, overall property drainage, and erosion control measures were undertaken (by Michel Construction). IndivIdual lots were subsequentJy developed by various builders. This engineer provided geotechnical criteria, designs and Inspection for the overall plat, road, stabilization rockeries, and individual houses. It is understvA that the previous owner of Lots 7 and 8 has sold these to the new builder / developer - - The City of Edmonds has required an additional geotechnical evaluation to assess the stabi* of the slope in conjunction with the proposed house location. soiLs , FouNDAT[cNs * srrE DEmoPmENr , iNspEc77ot4 * DRALNAaE * DEsiGN a PERmir * LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 * Shorefins. WaShkVW 98185 * (208) 548-9217 * FAX (206) SQ-8442 -PY E: C E I V E 0 OCT 15 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF ED�J()tjD�' 018/29/2-010 11:25 FAXA 1. . la VVjjVUU City of Edmonds Re: K. Elise Lots No. 7 and 8 September 27, 2010 Page 2 EVALUATION: This engineer requested that the specific footprint locaijons. for each house (Lot 7 and Lot 8) be field -staked. This was completed (see photDgraphs). On a site visit, this engineer verified dense native subgrade soil, easily providing 8,0W p.s.f. bearing capacity for the proposed house foundations. Small portions of the proposed house footprint would be constructed in a usloped" portion of the lot. See plans and photographs. This engineer v Ardiff hed that the proposed footprint locations were W adversely Impacting slope stability -providing this engineer performs on -site, inspection& The proposed houses could easily be constructed with normal excavation techniques. Compliance with City of Edmonds erosion control practices is ease Mai The findings, recommendations and conclusions of the original geotechnical report for the overall development (by D. Bruce, P.E.) -are valid for the proposed Lot 7 and Lot 8 houses. on -site geotechnical evaluation verified that the proposed layouts for house (Lots 7 and 8) are gootechnically stable, and do not adversely impact the property slope$. a Geotechnical inspections are MulMd for the following Items: 1 . Actual footprint layout j2d excavation 2. Inspections of excavation 3. Soil bearing verification .4. Erosion control (temporary and permanent / final) 5. Any rockedes or block walls 6. Subsurface drainage 09/29/2010 11:25 FAX tM UV4/ UVU Cityof Edmonds Re: K Elise Lots No. 7 and a September 27, 2010 Page 3 This engineer to Provide Periodic inspecOon reports to City of Edmonds, as well as a final report at the successful complegon of both houses. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical I Civil Engineer DMB:vlb 10/08/2010 14:48 FAX @ 002/003 Z"S-at'g (90e, XV:J - LL96-OV9 (906 - 99LID6 VM 'Oulle'304S U0599 MOe '0',j 7V-QZ-7 -UPVURd V N91,930 - 39MM&C & AXVt03dSMt 0 LN3PVdO*7-iW47 RUS SMOLLY'ONnOd * S7/09 1--4 ll-vv%);:� TV? OV4 11), A-q)1jifflof 1 0.7.: 1� L OR 'Plx 407 c-icv J--Vryweov �-% w j!, 147 0,-alw-Ls F) �Lq I � kl- 0 0.414F. I v of IV vy -1 (74.L " wd ri o i s a ;r Ir "001.4,;Oe Yaw "w --w siuuaa. i vV L 60 OS 105- J-0-7 P kk LOT 8 AVG. EX. GRADE 0 375.00' 161W5 SF. �01 SF 0 T 7,- PGo- EX GRADE /* -7;z>:%-'A T- Y 0385.00, r Z rl T CD Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical / CkAl Engineer January 6, 2011 City of Edmonds c/o Clearwater Homes, LLC P.O. Box 432 Marysville, Washington 98270 Subject: Geotechnical Response K. Elise Plat, Lots No. 6,7 and 8 BLD 20100784 (Clearwater S.F.R.) I 2-,o 16 - 075 71 'SL-D zo 16 - 6-75-6 This engineering report responds to City of Edmonds' November 30, 2010 Notice regarding the proposed three lots referenced above. One lot (Lot No. 6) contains an existing concrete foundation, based on a previously issued building permit. The two other lots (Lots 7 and 8) require a geotechnical response due to their proximity to the adjacent slope. - REFERENCES: I it ST11"EET FILE • Previous geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. • Previously issued building permits by City of Edmonds RESUB • Revised project plans by Mike Johnson, architect • September 27 and October 5 updated reports by D. Bruce, P.E. JAN 11 'All BACKGROUND: BUILDING P&R-71YIENT CITY OF MONDS As previously declared, this engineer has done an extensive soil investigation verifying extremely dense native subgrade soils in the vicinity of the overall K. Elise Plat Several homes have been permitted and constructed (with specific geotechnical inspections by this engineer). Lot No. 6 was permitted and begun (foundation properly installed with geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E.). Currently, a new builder/developer has resumed the process of finishing the development of the overall plat. Lots No. 7 and 8 remainj as well as completing the house on the existing foundation on Lot No. 6. SOILS * FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT * INSPECTION * DRAINAGE * DESIGN & PERMIT * LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 * Shoreline, Washington 98155 * (206) 546-9217 * FAX (206) -940*401? City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 2 The overall site is geotechhically stable. The adjacent (southerly) slope is not hazardous nor severe. This engineer has provided numerous geotechnical responses to the City of Edmonds. The November 30, 2010 Memo from City of Edmonds (Gina Coccia) required clarification of numerous issues on the architect plans, as well as separate geotechnical declarations. RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS NOVEMBER 30, 2010 LETTER: 1. Site plan changes and clarifications: Please review revised plans by Mike Johnson, architect, to address the specific items as enumerated in the November 30, 2010 letter. This engineer has provided a geotechnical review of the revised plans and has determined that all modifications comply with this engineer's recommendations and do not threaten the integrity of the overall site and adjacent hillside. Geotechnical inspections are required during construction. 2. Geotechnical Report - Addendum: As requested in the November 30, 2010 Memo, the following addendum declares (and re -declares) the stability of the overall site and stability of the proposed two new houses (and completion of Lot 6 house). 1, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer of record for the project, declare and certify that: a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; and b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 3 3. Desicin Standards: This project (two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, and completion of Lot 6 house) does not require any regular and periodic maintenance to maintain the level of function. a. The proposed development does not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. The construction of the reinforced concrete footings in conjunction with footing drains and overall storm water management Improves slope stability. . b. The proposed new homes are not "clustered". As discussed and declared many times, the designated "geologically hazardous areas" are not actually hazardous. c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour t of the slope. The proposed and revised plans for houses on Lots 7 and 8 require very little excavation and do, indeed, conform to the existing topography. d. Locate structures to preserve "the most critical portion of the site and its natural land forms and vegetation". Done. This engineer verifies that the proposed layouts for houses on Lots 7 ad 8 do not adversely impact the southerly slope. e. The proposed development does not result in a greater risk or need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. f. No "artificial" grading is proposed for the nominal southerly slopes. No retaining walls are required for grading or foundation support. g. Development of the new houses on Lots 7 and 8 has been designed to minimize overall impervious lot coverage. 4. Vegetation Retention: No removal of the slope face vegetation is proposed. Geotechnically, it is essential to maintain vegetation on the slope face. City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011. Page 4 5. Seasonal Restriction: Geotechnically, the stable site conditions easily allow for the nominal excavation and foundation work to proceed, regardless of time of year. Proposed foundation grading is minimal, with no significant depth. Thus, this engineer declares that the building permit and authorization to work is geotechnically valid anytime during the year —subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. 6. Point Discharge of Surface Water This engineer agrees with City of Edmonds Code that point discharge should be prohibited onto the adjacent slopes. The proposed two new houses on Lots 7 and 8, as well as the completion of Lot 6 house does not incorporate any point discharge. Note that storm water control is designed to incorporate on -site infiltration (away from the slope face). On -site inspectionsby this engineer are required to verify actual construction of on -site storm water infiltration and dispersion. 7. Sewage Disposal: No on -site sewage systems are proposed. SUMMARY: Previous geotechnical investigations verified dense, stable subgrade soils and stability of overall property. Geotechnical inspections performed on houses previously constructed verified good foundation techniques and overall stability. This engineer has verified that specific house footprint locations for Lots 7 and 9 are valid and conform to this engineer's recommendations. The designated "steep slope / hazard area" is not actually a hazard. The southerly slope is geotechnically stable, and not significant with regard to instability issues. The proposed new houses are sufficiently set back from the City of Edmonds Re: Clearwater Homes / K. Elise Plat Lots 6, 7 and 8 January 6, 2011 Page 5 slope and will not alter or adversely impact the slopes. As discussed, it is essential that the existing vegetation be maintained on the slope face in order to prevent localized erosional sloughing. On -site geotechnical inspections by this engineer are required to verify key aspects during construction. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. M. 1740 All Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer DMB:vIb cc: Clearwater Homes T 2-j 7,zcboq %� LRJ& ASSOCIATES, INC. .... . . ..... . .. ..... . ... . . . . . . ...... ... .... .. .. . ........ . Q'ux ..I 'ec e'ermg rli;pi: ee,4;u Goo�ogv Sc;enu- ..................................................... J 1��l ly L 20 11 Nfr. Bob Murph.); Murphy Building Co.n-ipan-% 6203 U Strect SW 1'..yr.wwood., WA 99036 N11'. imurphy. Subji�ct: Rairn Gar.den for.Stom.,,wi-itor Dispos�lj 228'x\ — 96"'.1 1ace V" Ednionds, %ishingt0l". 1, & A J o1b N o, I I - 0 1. 2� I NNIAO DITC1.710N Wc -understand that a'rain. g�irdt:n is now being Cor stourivva-Wr di-iposal "01- dw resKle.rices to be constructed on, Lots -1 �ind 8 of the. sub.10-cil. vro.)."V. This mill g�lrdcnis to be located. in ��l 11al to gendy sloped iirca at t.1-w south end ofi 50-foot-.v,-i& k-,,;iscnnen� ttaversing the i�-,ast side of the subJect lots. Thc subsbrfi ce condition Of thk prcvlous'.1-y c-,plorled hy _mvo test pits. with thl�. ious Of thew test pa'�' pres-.wed in our 0 5/0.3 0 1 1 Addendkini, Nf.). 1 to our A 7'10 1. 1 ongjazifl geot�M-j.nical re -port Pir-esenteLi in .0his repo-1.1 zire "'Yur mconlmclld2tiol-l-i rbr t1le r�lin �ordea. ;:n SUIBSURFACE, CONDI-1.710N Soil C.ouditicin The tvvo test vits exuviltcd in tiw ;ircj. ofthe propused. ritili guden were �,Ncavate.d, to depths of" 65 _5 to 12,5 ;"Wt. 'Both t;�"st clicountmd ;i laver of 1114 as much as 3,0 feet 19213 Kenlake Place NE - Kenmore, Washington 98028 Phone (426) -413-9134 , Fax (425) 486-2746 R Er' S-5 R OR B FILE JUL 0 5 2011 STRE'" BUK.DINQ DEPAPt-MENT �3 LID 2- c)l 0-07S_8 CITY OF EDWDNDS 4. -- t July L 201 1.1ree Sin gle-Family J.'�esjdences ...&A.Job'No. 11-01.2 Page 2 t1iick and a Layer of relic topsod of', evwul thick. 'T'he fill is cle�aii aud appeus to Nave beer, compacted to evAain detg.rce. Underlying the feHc topsail is a layer of medhun- dense weathered, soil of ill, Me sa.ad -witb. a trac�� of gravcAt up to 3,10 feet Betnoxh his la oil i yer or hm a soil of fighi-gray� vvi�,--densc7 weakly- Vcr of w-ealhercd a [a, eementcd� cx.trcinely lom, penneabUlty, Wy fine szwjd� tip to about 2,0 f et thick., This Ash till to the depth mplored is a WE advance outwash. depcisdt of, g.ray, dense, gravoll�.-, medium to Coarse Sund cif In.oduate.1), Iiigh pem-wability. Grouudwate.r (.'oudidon �vas not encounic-red by either ofth.c two test pits excw�tted in the prqpose�-- �arca of the rain garden. Since storm.mvaltr can infiltrate the ('sm"vast.1 dqoSit, there-forc, hqpact of g groundwatcr on ehc rain garkii should. be GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The area, of the prop�-,-�,.ed rain ga.-rden is n-oinfled by a Layer of compac�,ed f ill. a layeT of relic �wrpwil beneath. '1111;�� relic. �opsofl is 1-mder-jain. by V,�Ty-donse till aad dem,"t- rc- of' vcf-).-high u., high shcar sm"n.'a.th 'nxix, ha�, adwin.ce ik"'k a - high resisume sloprt flfflure. Tlw, ama is Nat to gentiy sloptd and -tl)e basil ivils are ofili b. Z�gainst ��rosion, pownd".11 Rv �4 as, lan.dsfide �i.rj,d crosiotl, to oi--Clir. in. thc of flhi� minimal. I.AtT& ASSOCIATES, INC. J u ly I � 20 It [ Tbree single-Fanlily, k,,-sidcll-ccs LS-A-lbb'No, 11-012 Nge 3 RECOMINIENDATIONS Gentral J."lased. on ti.w subsiivf*,ICQ confli-tion cllcollswrcd by the !,,wo pit�,, in llw awca proposcd rain gardent it is our opinion diat it. is sWuble, to use rai.n. gaM.eti to dispt�s�;.-, �t -�sxflstrmlwd Lot 7 w-mj 8 of dic su-bject prqlect, irs Vhk, mp-owf.-�irc, uk.-i-od in design. ofdhe min garden fUlly 411plQfnwin.�A and, dwring com, b:,Utlion fA'." -min. , z.,urilen. 1.1-c-sigo of --Raim U-mlea lbal the yopowd rain gaf&n i's to b� abow, 2 to 3 fela iktcp, ff the bottojm of thf, rain is to, i'n'to t.*�,'-;i,,�,,.r�.".-.',�..,.-. oz- below the rOiQ ORK75 iph, omit bavkfok-.-�.l s".-Ind W1 garden. 'q, tum vprdml no x 'ne Am 30 to .30 Pumm, w um"way Awly Hugo 141 U" 0� i X.',�5, �J'Nk— IQ 1, 2011. II-irce Single -Family R.esidences LckA Job No. 11-0 12 .Page 4 Mts, of ih,�� rain gardm should bc toleraut of poixthig, ,,vater aj,,d saturated soil condition.s in. -%vinter ;Twniths wnd. in th-e sut.-atner months. In gen.eral� the prcdomin.arl plants, should. be of facultative �pecies adapted to strvsses i;is�ocialed ,vith. an.e. dr�: conditions. Typicall�,,� the rain garden plam,� wa): couipriw ofred dc!,,gwood. sedges. salmonbcrq� did twinbem,, and ornamentals such as rbyzi ferns, bigdcki�---Od ligyularias or vario-us primroses, Erosion Mitigation Vegetali,on outside of corj%ruction limits shcAild be prosened and n-wintained, The surficiA topsoil and", we�qhered soil drapirsf;�, IS A, above fh�: -.ain gardcn contain a hi, gh percenlagc ol'.' 11nes al.-e to, n3.oi.sutn� andi Qwi distuybed by construi:tion. tr�ffl.c. A la�:t�r of Llemi! 2-to-1-inc-h ip.-aarry .,hould' be y4aced over mas of fn�!qtwm!. traffk� such as the rarrvp to and fivin flie. Tain garden location, in requkeQ to potcct lh.c ,,ubgrade soils from,. disturbunce by consupetion. saffic. A sill flejic;� sh,ould. bc installigd fdorq,-,� thv downhill. �idies Of wn�-;)rucdon area. zo trans,port of sedhment orlo n6gJhborinj.:,, prc�pwrt-4,�-� or the st.m tF, bou(n.-n oftdw flltier COT of the sill. s"hould be anchored in a trench fillod svith oniiu, soil, D I i-murbcd arcas and. areas devoid of mQuUm on The Ape remllto-i *From kw)n!."h-u04'm aetivi6es should be raseeded and renegmied �,xv) is us.A he dis,.Jizrgt�d onto 11-1t: 1�-, LFLY& ASSOCIATES, INC. J u ly 1, 2( 11ree Re,,,idQi)ccs .L&A JobN o. I 1 -0 12 Pago 5 Aptrvioug suriken such as mots wid paved should bc C."Irl-ured by underji-yound drain fine sysiein connec',',�d to roofdovvnspoots or by caLch basins insudled i p a, - r - these droin -'ine -�-yswj.ns !.d.loldld bt lighflined to avod drlvl�nv, y. Wate. collected by discharge in.to a storrn s��vver or suitable stormwater disposal faciliies� CIMSURF-, We axe ph-a�ied to be of sei.-vice t.o you, on this pl-qj&t, P.-wa-�,e reel 1*nc to c""n't-act us if.' yow have wny quesiions regarding. this or consulvad.oll, fLin6litul A Yours veqy (ndy, SSOCIATES. INC. S. I'Juiiarl) 1-41, Ph.,D, F.'J.". C"'on'sul'Ling Frigificer, LRJ& ASSOCIATES. INC. 6. i LIU & ASSOCIATES., INC. Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology ............ ... June 27. 2011 Mr. Bob MUrphN' M.urphy'Building Company 6203 202"' Street SW 1.�,-'nnwood, WA 98036 Dear Mr. MUrph-y- SubJect: Rain Garden 1"or Storimvater Disposal Three Sinp.,le-Family Residences ?28xx -- 96"' Place W Edinon&s. Washington L&A Job No. I 1-0 12 INTRODUCTION Earth Science We understan(l that a rain garden is no\\: being considered for stormwater disposalfor the residences to be constructed on Lots 7 and 8 of the SUbJect pro.ject. This rain garden is to be located in a flat. to oently -sloped area at the south end of a -50-foot-wide easernent traversing the cast side Of tile SUbject. lots. 'I'lic subsurface condition of this area 'Was previously explored by two test pits. Nvith tile lotgls of these test pits presented in Our 05.�03 ;2011 Addendum No. I to our 17'2011 original gcoiechnical report. Presented in this report are our recommendations for the rain garden. SUBSURFACE CONDITION Soil Condition I -lit: t\� o test pits e.\ca\ ated in the area of the proposed raln garden x\ ere excavated to deptlis of 6.5 to 1-7.5 feet. Both icst pits encountered a laye-r of fill its 111LIC11 as 3 ).0 feet 19213 Kenlake Place NE - Kenmore, Washington 98028 JUL 05 2011 Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746 . Lily' allILDING DEPAh— STREET FILE cirt oF: WmONDS 'eLD 20/0 -0 7S-8 9 1 June 27, 2011 Three Sinale-Family Residences Z_" L&A Job No. 1, 1-0 12 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the subsurface condition encountered by the two test pits in the area of the proposed rain garden, it is our opinion that it is suitable to use rain garden to dispose I stormwater for the residences to be constructed on Lot 7 and 8 of the subject project, provided the recommendations in this report are used in the design of the rain garden and fally implemented and observed during construction of the rain garden. Design of Rain Garden We understand that the proposed rain garden is to be about 2 to 3 -feet deep. If the bottom of the rain aarden is to be cut into the relic topsoil or the medium -dense weathered soil below the relic topsoil, a design infiltration rate of 0.75 iph inch per hour may be used for the design of the rain garden. If the bottom of the rain garden is to be cut into the advance out -wash sand deposit. then backfilled with clean, gravelly, fine to coarse sand ,vith nominal compaction, a design infiltration rate of 1,5 iph may be used to design the rain garden. Construction of Rain Garden The cut slopes of the rain garden should be no steeper than 3H: I P. The pond of the rain I Qarden. should be lined with a laver of amended soil at least 1.8 inches thick. The amended soil should have 30 to 35 percent of compost tilled into the rain garden native soil to achieve a n organic content of 10% by dry weight. 'LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. JLln.e-'17. 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 4 Plants of the rain garden should be tolerant of ponding water and saturated soil conditions in the winter months and drought in the summer months. In general, the predominant plants should be of faCLIttative species adapted to stresses associated with wet and dry conditions. Typically, the rain. garden plants may comprise of red twig. dogwood. rushes, sedges., salmonberry and twinberry and ornamentals such as royal fernst big -leaved li ( gularias or various primroses. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. Please feelfree to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or need further consultation. Yours very truly, LIU � SSOCIATES. INC. J. S, (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer LIU &ASSOCIATES, INC. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Mav ". 20 11 Mr, Bob Murphy Mulrphv BuildilIL" C - ompany 6 _01 '�0'1111 Stl,eej S\N.7 2 ) - - Lymi\vood. W'A 0036 Dear N,ir- kluirpliv: SubJect: Addendl.4111 NO. I to 3/ 17/20 11 Cleo(echniclal Reporl Three Simule-Family Residences 228xx - 96"' 1:'Iacc W' L.Amoi-ids, W"ashill2toll L&A Job No. I 1 -0 12 I NNTRODUCTION Eanh Science ],if I iltratioii trei-iches are plaililed to dispose slorill\vater ollsite for [lie two residellces to be constructed oil Lots 7 ai-id 8 ofthC SLIHOCI pl-0JIM. Origiiialk. ireiiches Nvere to tic located III the area of cclitral cast side ol, a �04601-\vi& Ca'S I CIIICIII ahU1tIIIL' the ca�i side 011_01 "I'llis Is aII area along flic baso ol: a steel) slope coming CIO\\.]I fl,0111 the west side aild desccilds eastward ai-id drops a few feet dowii to.a ileluliborimy propert\. h \\:,--.is decided this mav not be a I suitable locaiioii for the -at'oi) trei-iches and Ille TO flat SOLILII CIICI Of this easemetit i-icar Edmonds \Vay Is iiow flic .-,elected ai-ea fi)r ireilches. The sullsurl" cc - 1"md'i-l- -ecoimmmdatloiis 1'01' Wilditlon Of this arca was explored by two test pits. Ow I os atid I infiltratioil trei-iches to be coi-isiructed In this arca are prescilted III this addenclum. SUIBSURFACE C'ONDITION Soil Coltildition 'I IIC SLIbsurface condilloi-I it Ille NOLilh elld 01' Ille JUSa jiorfli of F.'dmoiids Wax. was explored \\Jtll t\\(-) pIts. These test pits \N:cl,c e\cavatcd oil April 2 1 . 2('H I . With "I [I'LICk-11101,lilted 19213 Kenlake Place NE - Kenmore, Washington 98028 RESUB Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746 MAY 18 2011 UILDING DFPARt—:MENT STREET FILC CITY OF EDMONDS A M L' I v 3. 2? 0 11 Addendum No. I to 31;: 17/20 11 Geotechrilcal Report Three Sin2le-Familly Residences L.&,A Job No. 11-01-) P 2 backhoe to depths from 6.-5 to 12.5, feet. The capproximate loCitiOlIS 01' these L\\o LeSt tilt"'. doslunated a,� Test Pits 6 and 7. are shown on Plate I - Site and Exploration Location Plan. I lie test pits were located with visu.'-Il reference Io existlIll-, t01101-11-I'lphiC I'C�ILLIFCS III tilt Held Lilld 011 tile SLII*\,e\ III.Aip. 'Ind thell. 10C�111011_1; ShOUld he considered 0111\ JS �ICCLII`Lltc 10 the 111CLIS1.111111-' IllethOd Used. "eoteclulical ellu'llicer from our office was present during subsurface eNplol'�MOII. Who ex,clinined the soil and gcolooic COIlditiOlIS CI1COLllItCrCd dild C0111pletCd tO'-'S of test pilS. Soil Samples obtained from each soil L11111 III tile test ])Its \\-C]-C CLI"'Sliled III Uellel'A accordance with United Soil Classification SN!stcm. a copy of which I-, presented on Plate 33. Detailed descriptions oi'soils eiIC0LlIIICI-Cd bN' W.St pit are prc�ejllcd In the �,oll lou-, on Plate,, 0 and 7. Bntll test pits ClIC01,111tered ',I IaNerof'compacted derlse Jill Lip to 3:0 I'CeL thiCk. L)iderl\inu the 1-111 is it laver of relic topsoil. abOuT 9 Inches thick. The topsoil Is tind cri al 11 bv -1-1 klycr of oraq'c- bromi weathered soil ofniedium-Clensc. SIIIN 1,111C S"Ilid with it trace o!'"ravel. up to C�m thick. Belleath this la\'erol,weall-tered sod is a laver ol'l'resh till soil ol'liuht-LraN. \erv-dens,�. weaklv- cemented. silty fine sand. tit) to 2.0 feet thick. �_�ndcrlylng, this 17resh till to the depth explored is 11 fi-eSh ',1dVII1Ce OLI1\ViISlI deposit of graN . dense. Ln-avelk. medlil.1111 to COaFSC Salld. Groundwater Condition Groullch\atcr \vas not CIIC0LIIItCI'Cd h�' eithCl_ Ol'thC I\\0 IeSt ])Its CNC�I\�ItCd III 111C prOpOSed ilrei:t 01' infiltration trenches In ilie easement. The test pits Were eNCavatcd III a wet carly Spi-1110 followim-, a vrery wei winter. Therefore. it is our opinion Impact ol' groundwaier on tile proposed infiltration trenches should he minimal. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. May 3. '-,Oil Addendum No. I to 3/1 -7/220 11 Geotcchnical Report Threc Sinuje-Family Residences L&A.lob No. I I-0 I-) Pa a e 3 RECONNINIEN? DATIONS General 11ased oil the soll condition encountered by test pits e.\ca\ aicd Ili the area ol'Proposed Int-11tr-ill'oll trenches. 11 is our oplilloll tll,11 tile SoLlIll end ot'dic casement ,hould he SLIlt-11hle tile ,11111u, oi, The clean medi -)\ 111c le"I ti-cliches. [Lill] to CoLtl'.�e S,'Illd deposit ellcOulliel,ed 1:1 PitS ShOLIld be able to support Infiltration trenches for onsitc stortilwater dispos'-d. The bolloill ol, I nfl ltral toll LI-ellClICS ShOLIld be cut at least 6 Inches Into the LII1ClCI-l\TIIlQ LALIVWICe OLIM"'tsh C011SO-LIC11011 Of 11"Ifiltl-Liti011 ti-enches S1101.11d be monliored L)\- a gcotechnical ellu'llicel'. Desion Infiltration Rate One soil sample obtained at 7.5 ieet belo\\ grade Crom Test Pit 6 w1as selecied t`ol- Partic1c '.-,IZC DIS11-11)LIA1011 IC�t III laboratory to determine the inliltratio n rzite ol* tile turgeled LICIValICC OLIlWaSh deposit. The report ot'this tcst is presented oil Plate A- I ]it attached APPENDIX. I- -)Illpw -)I, As ;ljomj oil the Panicic Si/.c DiStl-IbU11011 I-CINA-1. the -�Oill �alllplc \\-IS ct s c cl k to coarse sand. with a clay content and uravcl�'sand ColltellL 01'94. 1 "0. ACCol-dill'-, it) tile USDA TeXtUre Triangle (fi-om U.S. Department of shown In Plate A-22 Ili atU-1chcd Appendix. this soil sample can be classified ,is "sand'*. The Dio size ofthis soil sample (tile size o ' 109 " passi ng) is 0. 114 1 10 1 , I Accordina to Table 3.7 of Ific Storillwater Nllall�lLlelllellt 1`01: W7esterll \-Va ,hi m-, toll. 2005 b\ Washington State Department ol' Fcology (hercinafter referred to as tile D01" Mallual). sllo�vll oil Plate A-'- In amiched Appendix. tile estimated long-1crill (cleslu'll) Illfillratioll ralc is 2A.) 1pll (Inch per hour) based oil a correclion faclor of 4 Oil C.-I shol-t-lerill 111111tralloll rale ()1' 8 Ipll 161, LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 0 NI a 'v 3.. 2 0 11 AddendUm No. I to 3/17/210 11 Geotechnical RcpOrt Thi-ce Sln-le-F�imilv Residences L&7A Jot) No. I 1 -0 1) page 4 sancF. Based oil the Particle Size DiSti-IbLI11011. te�,t oil tile s011 �,Jfflple obtlillt�d froill the advance OLII\\al',Il depUSit III TCS1 Pit 6. the Dl,., sla o-l'this-soll sanlpic is 0.114. Aceording to Fable ').8 ot' the DOE MMILIal. shown on Plate A-4 In tile attached Appendix. the estilllatt�d lollu-tern) Infill1ration I"Lite is 3.5 Mh fol- DA; =-. 0.2 �Illd IS 2.0 dl)h f0V 1)1,, - 0.1. BY illtel'I)OIL111011. the estim-lited lom-, terin Infiltration r.ate for the soil sample shoUld be 2.315�4�Llwitll Dj�; = 0.1 14. B�l Sed Oil tile IbOVC. NVC recommend �i clesign long-term 111fillrallon n1le ) ci-I I I D-)l I be LISCd f0l- tile 50 �O lie it 111) ItIllh-1 infiltration trenches to be constnlCtCd ill the �Offlll elld al'ea OftlIC 5 -f M-WICiC Ca',01 1 ' L - tile side S. with tile hOItOlII Of tile tI-CIlCh0'., CUt at lel-ist 6 Inches Into the cican sc-ind soil of the advance 01.1twash deposli. The remaining recoillmolidations, J*(.-Ir tile design and coli,struction ol'the Infiltrailon trenches ]I) our 1�1 T201 1 geotechnical report siliould still -,Ipply. CLOSURE We are pleased to be ofser\ i1CC 10 01.1 Oil PICISC I'M fl-CC to COMLICI U-S I OLI hl"We MIN, (ILIeStIOIlS I'eUardlnu th' d 1111-thel- C011SUIlLitioll. c - is I'cport 01, nee Yours very II'Lll\. 1-11 i �-_;�SSOCI ATF'S. INC. .1. S. duh-L11)) LILI. Ph.D.. P.F. C011SUITIffil Gicoicchnici-d Lngineer Attiidlftl: PliteS 1. 1. 6 and 7 and Appendix LIUI & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIV& ASSOCIATES, INC. Geoi�--c hn;-.pd Fnqineeiing - Engineering Geology - Earl h Science SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN THREE SIGNLE--FAMILY RESIDENCES 226XX - 96TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB No 1 DATE 4/15i2ol I I PLATE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME GRAVEL CLEt'kN G,A! ;�%.'EL, Filhc: T-_ CO R S E - ro ,_, R F. I HA I : 5 ,j "i, 1,; GRAVEL �_i P P:- 1:7'R L'i P C GRAINED GRAVEL WITH G [0 SOILS R:: T.4 I ;,I:: Nl N 0 4 S 1:: I N ES, S A d\ID CLEAN �C, �A! E L L L f%,, C, F F_ A "i [-;Ir)RF TH,,N NIORE THAN KYA, OF SAND SP SAINDAlITH S m E. RETAINIED 0+1 .,iEvE FINESS so FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC IVIL SILT CL L AY GRAINED LICIUID 1 IMPT ORGANIC OL SOILS LESS THAN 501_�,, THAN SILTY AND CLAY INORGANIC MH FILT :�F ;I Y EL" �T �'Ll CH C, L "Y 0 H `.�H PL.-'�STP' 17'r C LA PASS11-iG THE LIQUID UMIT ORGANIC OH S;LT NO, 200 SIEVE 501��, OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HER NOTES: S,.:)I[,- MOGTURE MOE)IFIERS F;ELD �G;J 1� BASED Cl I �1_`J�_ L; !'-' E r", -, 1 1 -EkEF3L 4�,;- -,Roi.;�ir V,�;ITH L',T1,.4 D` _r:-, SOILCLASSiFICATION UISIN,_- L"BiDRATORV EST's 13 &LSED r�7 I- ir-i C� 7; 1p C: f :1—T ON ASTM D2487-83, MCTiST :)Arvi.P� BUT NO VvATE- R 3 DESCRIPTIOkS OF S:;IL DENSITT` C)R VE RY f,,IC! ST P` E) P E P �: I T.—. T Hz: Tr �!,_'H BASED ON NTERPRFTATION OF ELO�l%l--:,:lUjjT C�AT4. ViSuai. VE T V1 SiEDLcE R P E R :4,, 4-.,�T� D APPE.-IR4%NCE 0� SIDILS, LNC,�CR TEST I 7 1 H F F,,-, e� T E p I LE LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEN/1 Gentechriral Engmeern� �n�imcerma C-evogy Sc!ence PLATE 3 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO, Date: 3/4/2011 k" Ground El. + Depth USCS CLASS. Soil Description Sample No W % Othei Test Sm Scottish broorn and berry bush on surface Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, fine roots, molsl Sm \tTOPSOIL) 2 ------------------------- Brown. mediurn-dense, silty fine SAND, some gravel. moist (weathered VASHON TILL) 4 - - - - - - S M - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - Light -gray. very -dense, gravelly, silty. fine SAND. weakly - cemented. moist (fresh VASHON TILL) 5 -------------------------------------------- SID Gray . dense. medil,1111 SAND. somp gravpl, molsl 6 (fresh ADVANCE OUTIP.JASH) 9 Test pit terminated at 8.0 ft: groundwater not encountered. 10 TEST PIT NO. 6 Logged By: JSL Date: 4/2112011 Ground El. Depth fl. USCS CLASS. Soil Description Sample No. W CXI Other 'rest Sm Grass and brush on surface Brown -gray. dense. gravelly, silty. fine to medium SAND. moist - - - - - - jEILL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - OL Dark -brown. loose, organic. silty fine SAND, moist - - - - - - - - - (relic_TQRSOLL� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 SM Oreinge-brown, mediurn-dense. silty fine SAND. tiac.1-1 qrav,�I. 1110ist 5 I 6 Sm Light -gray, very -dense, silty fine SAND, wealkly-ceniented, moist (fresh VASHON TILL) 7 ----------------------------------------- SIJNJ Gray, dense. gravelly. medium to coarse SAND, moist 8 (fresh ADVANCE 0UTVfASH) 10 Test pit teiminated at 9.0 ti: groundwater not enCOLlnteled, LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ci�_otectinicai Engineemig Engineering Geology Earth ZiciellCe TEST PIT LOGS THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 228XX - 96TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO 11-012 1 DATE 4/21/201 '1 1 PLATE Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date� 4121/2011 7 Ground El. Depth k USCS CLASS. Soil Description S@mple No w "16 Oiher TEst Sm Grass and brush on Surface I Gray, dense, gravelly. silty, fine to niedit-1111 SAND, some small 2 wood and root fragments. moist (FILL). 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OIL . . Dark -brown, loose. organic, silty fine SAND. moist 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Sm Orange-bfown, rnedlLim-dense. silty fine SAND, traco gravel. 5 rnoist -- 6 - - - - - Sm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- Light -gray. very -dense, silty fine SAND, weakly- cemented. moist (fresh VASHON TILL) — a - - - - - - Sw - - - - - - - - -- Gray, dense, gravelly, medIUM to coarse SAND, moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) to Test pit teirninated at cM fi. gtoundw'ater not etICOLI[Ilefed. Logged By: TEST PIT NO. Date: Ground Ei Depth ft. USCS CLASS Soi I Description Sample N1. Olin 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology Earjh Science TEST PIT LOGS THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 228XX - 95TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO 11-012 DAT E 4 /2 1./ 2 0 11 1 1 P L,'4T E APPENDIX Particle Size DiStl-IL)LI6011 Test Report Three Sinule-Family Residences -)-),S-\x — 96' 11 Place N.N.est Fdmonds. VlashillMoll LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9C 0� U-1 6( Z 5� LLI U (LI LIJ 4; 0- 3 2 1 ASTM C1 17/136 Particle Size Distribution Report ;1 4 T—� Soo 100 10 J-1 --- ---- J-4 I 'i— AIN SIZE - mm % GRAVEL % SAND % FINES FINE CLAY INE % COBBLES CRS, MEDIUM 2 7. 3.1 2.8 6.5 6�6 2].l SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) I in. 100.0 1-4 in. 5/8 in. 1/2 :n. 'n. , :4 410 44 C 4200 5.9 0.0329 Inin, 4.7�-- 5010 , M. 0.20 M 3.5 0.01-2 nini. 33-5 0.0(00 inni. 2. S, ().C-)61. [nni. 2.8 0.0031 mm. 2.7 0.0013 1.3 Soil Description Test Pil t. 0 , md SL AtterbeM Lin,(iLs PL= LL= pl= Coeff icients D85= 13.5 D60= 1.52 D50= 0.935 D30= 0-"21 D15= 0.156 D,lc= 0.11-' CLJ= 1.1.40 cc= 0.60 Classification USCS= AASHT0= Remarks As delivered by client on 4-22-2011 (no ,Ivcification Sample No.: Sourceof Sample: Date: 1-3-201i Location: E)ev./Depth: — ----- --- — ----- Client: Lui & A�I-vciiUcs 190 711 Project: 110IJ I.aboratory'.'c�1ing --C,-V\T0RY. iric. Robert Aikma n IF�qj ect N o:- -01) 11 I CITY OF EVERETT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL Figure 9.1 USDA Soil Textural Triangle Table 9�-t Recommended Infiltration Rates based on USDA Soil Textural Classification. *Short -Term 1--stirnited Long -Term Soil Textural Classification Infiltration (.orreclion Fsetor, Cl'- (Design) Infiltration Rate Rate (i n./h r) (in./hr) Clean sandy gravels and 20 2 10 i�ravefly sands (i.e.. 90% of thc total soil sample is retained in the i;10 sieve) Sand 8 4 2 Loam), Sand 2 4 Sandv Loarn 1 14 0.25 Loam 0.S 4 0.13 *From WFF/ASCE, 199S. Volume /11 — Fiovv Controi arid Troatmerit 9-7 Correction Factors h1Lher than those provided in Table 3.7 shOUld be considered for situations \vhcre long-terin maintenance \vlll be d1flicult to implement, where hule or no pretreatment is anticipated, or wherc sitc conditions are h1uhly variable or uncertain. T11C.SC situations re(JUH-C OIL' use of best by file site engineer and tile approval of file local jurisdiction. An Operation and Maintenance plail and a financial bonding plan may be reClUired b\ file local jurisdiction. 2. ASTM Gradation Testing at Full Scale Infiltration Facilities As an alternative to '1*',il)lc 3.7. reeCTIT studies by Ma�,�inann and Butchart (2000) �vefC used to develop the correlation provided in Table 3.8. These studies compare infiltration 1llCU1.UrCn1t:ntS froin full-scale infiltration I'acilities to soil oradation data developed US'ill" the ASTNI PrOCCCIL11-e (ASTM D422). The primary source ol'the data used by Ivla�sniann an(] Butchart \vas froin W711tsie (1998), who included hinited inflLration Studies oil]), oil Thurston County sites. Ho\vever, Massinarin and BUIChart nw, and Clark County sites in their also included limited data frorn K' analysis. This table provides recommended long-term infliltration r3tc.� that have been correlated to soil -,radation parameters U.SinO the AYl'NI soil gradation Procedure. Table 3.8 can be used to cstinlate lon—terni desi,-,ii infiltration ratc-s directly froin soil gradation data, SLIL�ject to the approval ol'the local 0 U ri sd iction. As is true offable 3.7. the long-term rates provided in Table 3.8 represent average conditions regarding site variability, the degree oi' lon—term maintenance and pretreatment for TSS control. The lon,--terni infiltration rates in Table 3.8 mav need to be decreased ifthe sito ls� hliadflv variable, or if maintenance and inflUCIrit characteristics are not well controlled. 'File data that iornis ilic basis for Table 3.8 was Crom soils that \vould be classified as sands or sandN, ('ravels. No data \vas available I'or finer soils at the time file table was dc\:clopcd. Tlierciore, Table 3.8 should not be used for soik, xvith a dio �,lzc (I V40 pa -,sing the llstcd) IL:-,;,; than 0.05 film (U.S. Standard Sieve). Table 3.8 -- Alternative Recommended Infiltration Rates based on ASTM Gradation Testin2. 1. ]-)to Size froni ASTNI D422 Soil Gradation Test (nini) Estimated Long-Terni (Design) Inflitration Rate Ondfir) i OA 0. 6.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 * Not recommended tbr trcauncut * Refer to SSC-4 an'd SSC-6 R11 UUMUCIlt LL�k:J'Wh1ht\' criteria February 2005 Volunle /it — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs 3-77 A kd�� d 0 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology March 17, 2011 Mr. Bob Murphy Murphy Building Company 6203 —202 nd Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98036 Dear Mr. Murphy: Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Three Single -Family Residences 228xx — 96th Place W Edmonds, Washington L&A Job No. I 1 -0 12 INTRODUCTION 0 Z - -, zgoq cjc� Earth Science w-REET FILE RE -SUB MAR 2 3 2011 BUILD'NC3 1Drq.FAF_1%ENT CITy OP FDMONDS We have completed a geotechnical investigation for the development of three single-family residences, located at the above address in Edmonds, Washington. The residence on Lot 6 has had its foundations already poured and construction of the other two on Lots 7 and 8 is yet to start. The general location of the residence site is shown on Plate I — Vicinity Map. The purpose of this investigation is to characterize the subsurface condition of the residence site, evaluate feasibility of onsite stormwater disposal and slope stability, and provide geotechnical recommendations for onsite stormwater disposal (if feasible), grading, slope stabilization, erosion mitigation, drainage control, and building foundation support for the residences. Presented in this report are our findings, conclusions and geotechnical recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For our use in this investigation, you provided us with topographic survey and plot plans of the three residences. We understand that all three residences are to be above -grade, wood -framed 19213 Kenlake Place NE - Kenmore, Washington 98028 Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746 March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 2 structures supported on perimeter concrete walls and interior bearing walls and colunms. Due to the sloping ground within the lots on which the houses are to be built, some cut and fill may be required for construction of these residences. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this study comprises specifically the following: 1. Review geologic and soil conditions of the site based on a published geologic map. 2. Explore subsurface conditions of the site with backhoe test pits to depths where a firm bearing and/or percolable soil stratum is encountered or to the maximum depth (about 10 feet) capable of by the backhoe used in excavating the test pits, whichever occurs first. 3. Based on the soil data obtained from the test pits, perform evaluations of onsite stormwater disposal feasibility and slope stability, and provide recommendations for grading, slope stabilization, erosion mitigation, drainage control and foundation support to the two new residences. 4. Prepare a written report to present our findings, conclusions and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject residence lots are located on the southeast side of 96 1h Place West. They are situated on the top of a moderate to steep, southerly to southwesterly -declining hillside. The terrain within the lots generally slopes down gently to moderately southeasterly for about their northern to northwestern halves, then descend steeply from there to their southeast boundaries. The gently sloped north to northwestern portions of the lots is covered with lawn grass, while the remaining areas of the lots are covered by thick Scottish Broom and berry bushes. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. I 1 -0 12 Page 3 GEOLOGIC SETTING The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, published by U. S. Geological Survey in 1983, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site. According to this publication, the surficial soil units at and in the vicinity of the subject site are mapped as Vashon Till (Qvt) underlain by Advance Outwash (Qva). The Vashon till soil unit covers the upper portion while the advance outwash soil unit covers lower portion of the hillside. The geology of the Puget Sound Lowland has been modified by the advance and retreat of several glaciers in the past and subsequent deposits and erosion. The latest glacier advanced to the Puget Sound Lowland is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which has occurred during the later stages of the Pleistocene Epoch and retreated from the region some 14,500 years ago. The Vashon till soil unit was plowed under glacial ice during the most recent glacial period as it advanced over an eroded, irregular surface of older formations and sediments. The till soil over the top two to four feet is normally weathered to a medium -dense state, and is moderately permeable and compressible. The underlying fresh till -soil, over -consolidated by 3,000 to 5,000 feet of ice, is a very -dense mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel, and scattered cobbles and boulders, often referred to by laymen as "hard pan". The fresh till soils are practically impervious. They have a shear strength comparable to that of low-grade concrete, and can stand in steep natural or cut slopes and remain stable fona long period. If remained undisturbed and well -drained, the fresh till soils can provide excellent foundation support with hitle settlement expected. LIU & ASSOCIATES,.INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. I 1 -0 12 Page 4 The advance outwash soil unit, normally underlying a Vashon till soil unit, is composed of stratified sandand gravel with very minor amount of silt and clay, deposited by the meltwater of advancing glacial ice of the last glacier. The advance outwash deposits had been glacially overridden and are generally dense to very dense in their natural, undisturbed state, except the soil exposed in the top 2 to 3 feet which is normally weathered to a medium -dense state. Due to their generally granular composition, the advance outwash deposits are of moderately high permeability and drains fairly well. SOIL CONDITION The subsurface conditions of the lots and an adjacent private drainage easement were explored with five test pits. These test pits were excavated on February 17 and March 4, 2011, with a tra6k-mounted backhoe to depths from 6.5 to 12.5 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate 2 - Site.and Exploration Location Plan. The test pits were located with visual reference to existing topographic features in the field and on the topographic survey map, and their locations should be considered only as accurate to the measuring method used. A geotechnical engineer from our office was present during subsurface exploration, who examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed logs of test pits. Soil samples obtained frorn each soil unit in the test pits were visually classified in general accordance with United Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented on Plate 3. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered by test pit are presented in the soil logs on Plates 4 through 6. The two test pits, Test Pits I and 2, located in the upper portions of Lots 7 and 8 encountered a fresh till deposit o� light -gray, very -dense, weakly -cemented, gravelly, silty, fine sand with LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11 -0 12 Page 5 occasional cobble, from about 2.5 to 3.2 feet below ground surface to the depths explored. This till deposit is overlain by layers of fill and weathered till soil. Test Pits 3 and 4, located north of a buried stormwater detention vault in the private drainage easement abutting the east side of Lot 8, encountered 6.1 and 3.3 feet of fill, respectively. The fill appears to be spoil soil from lot grading or from excavation of the vault pit and was disposed onsite. It appears to have been compacted to some degree, but the fill in Test Pit 3 still experienced some sloughing. A thin layer of relic topsoil was found underlying the fill in Test Pit 3. Test Pit 5, located near the eas t boundary of the easement, encountered a layer of topsoil, but no fill. Underlying the fill and topsoil in these test pits are layers of weathered till and fresh till soil to depths from 5.0 to 8.0 feet. A fresh advance outwash deposit of gray, dense, medium sand with various amount of gr avel, was found underlying the fresh till layer in these three test pits. GROUNDWATER CONDITION Groundwater was -not encountered by any of the five test pits excavated on the site. The fresh till deposit underlying the site at shallow depth is of extremely low permeability and may perch stormwater infiltrating into the more permeable surficial soils. The amount of and the depth to this near -surface, perched groundwater would fluctuate seasonally, depending on precipitation, surface runoff, ground vegetation cover, site utilization, and other factors. This near -surface perched groundwater may dry up completely during the dryer Summer and Fall seasons and accumulate and rise in the wet Winter season. The test pits were excavated in the middle of Winter and the subject site is located on the top of a hillside, therefore, we anticipate only limited amount, if any at all, of groundwater under the site even in the winter months. Consequently, the impact of groundwater on the proposed development, in our opinion, should be minimal. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11 -0 12 Page 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the geologic condition indicated on the above -referenced geologic map and the soil condition encountered by test pits excavated on the site, it is our opinion that the subject lots are suitable for the development of the three proposed residences. The fresh till deposit at shallow depth underlying the upper portion of the lots should be able to provide excellent foundation support to the proposed residences. This deposit.is also of'extremely low permeability and will not work well for infiltration facilities. However, the advance outwash sand soil encountered in Test Pits 3 through 5 located at the downhill area in the private drainage easement is of moderately high permeability and should be able to support infiltration facilities for stormwater disposal of the residences to be constructed on Lots 7 and 8. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND REMEDIATION Landslide Hazard The site is underlain at shallow depth by very -dense fresli till soil of high shear strength, with a high resistance against slope failure. The fresh till soil is also exposed on a vertical cut bank in the middle part of the hillside that can be seen from the gravel -surfaced yard next to a gas station on Edmonds Way. This vertical cut bank in fresh till soil has remained stable for many years. There fore, it is our opinion that the potential for deep-seated landslides to occur on the subject lots should be minimal, provided the recommendations in this report are fully implemented and complied with during construction. Erosion Hazard The fill, topsoil and the medium -dense weathered soils mantling the site are of low to moderate resistance against erosion, while the underlying fresh till and 'advance out deposit deposits are of LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11 -0 12 Page 7 high to moderately -high resistance against erosion. There is an outside chance that erosion may occur in the weaker surficial soils over the steep slopes of the lots if they are devoid of vegetation cover and overly saturated. Progressive erosion can lead to shallow, skin -type mudflows on the steep slopes of these lots. To mitigate such erosion hazard, vegetation outside of construction limits should be preserved and maintained. Unpaved exposed finished ground within the site resulted from construction activities should be re -seeded and re -vegetated as soon as possible. Concentrated stormwater should not be discharged uncontrolled onto the ground within or adjacent to the lots. Stormwater over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved driveways, should be captured by underground drain line systems connected to roof downspouts or by catch basins installed in paved driveways. Water collected by these drain line systems should be tightlined to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility system, such as infiltration trenches. Seismic Hazard The Puget Sound region is in an active seismic zone. The site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense fresh till and advance outwash deposits of high to very -high shear strength. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential for seismic hazards, such as landslides, liquefaction, lateral soil spreading, to occur on the site should be minimal if the erosion mitigation, drainage control, site stabilization measures recommended in this report are fully implemented. The proposed residences, however, should be designed for seismic forces induced by strong earthquakes. Based on the soil conditions encountered by the test pits, it is our opinion that Seismic Use Group I and Site Class C should be used in the seismic design of the proposed r6sidences in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). TEMPORARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job NoA 1-012 Page 8 The onsite surficial soils contain a high percentage of fines which are sensitive to moisture and can be easily �disturbed by construction traffic. A sufficiently thick layer of clean, 2-to-4-inch quarry spalls should be placed over areas of frequent traffic, such as the entrance to the site, as required, to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic. A silt fence should be installed along the downhill boundaries of the site to minimize transport of sediment onto neighboring properties or the streets. The bottom of the filter cloth of the silt fences should be anchored in a trench filled with onsite soils. Ditches or interceptor trench drains should be installed on the uphill sides of construction areas, as required, to intercept and drain away storm runoff and near -surface groundwater seepage, if any. Water captured by such ditches or interceptor trench drains should be discharged into a nearby storm inlet. The storm inlet should be covered with a filter sock to prevent sediment from entering the stonn sewer system. The filter sock should be cleaned frequently during construction to prevent clogging, and should be removed after completion of construction. Spoil soil should be hauled off of the site as soon as possible. Spoil soil and imported structural fill material to be stored on site should be located in areas where the ground surface is no steeper than 15% grade, and should be covered with plastic tarps securely weighted down with sandbags. EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES Under no circumstances should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified by local, state and federal safety regulations if workers have to perform construction work in excavated areas. Unsupported temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper than 3/4H: IV in the fill, topsoil and weathered till soil, and may be vertical in the underlying fresh till LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 9 and advance outwash deposits provided that the overall depth of excavation does not exceed 12 feet. Unsupported permanent cut banks should be no steeper than 2-1/411: IV in the fill, topsoil, no steeper than 2H: I V in the weathered till soil, and no steeper than I- I/2H: I V in the underlying fresh till and advance outwash deposits. Permanent fill embankments required to support structural or traffic load should be constructed with compacted structural fill placed over undisturbed, proof -rolled, firm, nati ve, fresh till soil after the surficial unsuitable soils are completely stripped. The slope of permanent fill embankments should be no steeper than 2-1/4H:IV. Upon completion, the sloping face of permanent fill embankments should be thoroughly compacted to a nbn-yielding state with a hoe - pack. The soil units and stability of cut banks should be verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. The above recommended cut and fill slopes are under the assumption that groundwater seepage would not be encountered during construction. If groundwater seepage is encountered, the construction should. be immediately halted and the slope stability re-evaluated. The slopes may have to be flattened and other measures taken to stabilize the slopes. Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of cut or fill slopes. Permanent cut slopes or fill embankments should be vegetated as soon as possible for long-term stability, and should be covered with clear plastic sheets, as required, to protect them from erosion until the vegetation is fully established. STRUCTURAL FILL LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 10 Structural fill is the fill that supports structural or traffic load. Structural fill, if required, should consist of clean granular soils free of organic and other deleterious substances and with particles not larger than four inches. Structural fill should have a moisture content within one percent of its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. The optimum moisture content is the water content in the soils that enable the soils to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. Onsite soils meeting the above requirements may be used as structural fill. Imported material to be used as structural fill should be clean, free -draining, granular soils containing no more than 5 percent by weight finer than the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of the material passing No. 4 sieve, and should have individual particles not larger than three inches. The ground over which structural fill is to be placed should be prepared in accordance with recommendations in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL GRADING and EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES sections of this report. Structural fill should be placed in lifts no more than 10 inches thick in its loose state, with each lift compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density determined by, ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor Method) as follows: Application Within building pads and under foundations Roadway/driveway subgrade Retaining wall backfill Utility trench backfill BUILDING FOUNDATIONS % of Maximum DEy Density 95% 95% for top 3 feet and 90% below 92% 95% for top 4 feet and 90% below LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page I I Conventional footing foundations may be used to support the proposed residences. The footing foundations should be constructed at least 6 inches into the underlying, yery-dense, fresh till soils. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in excavated footing trenches. Disturbed soils in footing trenches should be completely removed down to undisturbed, native, fresh till soils prior to pouring concrete for the footings. If the above recommendations are followed, our recommended design criteria for footing foundations are as follows: 0 The allowable soil bearing pressure for design of footing foundations, including dead and live loads, should be no more than 3,000 psf if constructed into very -dense, weakly - cemented, fresh till soils. The footing bearing soil should be verified onsite by a geotechnical engineer after the footing trenches are excavated and before the footings poured. • The minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footings below adjacent final exterior grade should be no less than 18 inches. The minimum depth to bottom of the interior footings below top of floor slab should be no less than 12 inches. • The minimum width should be no less than 16 inches for continuous footings, and no less than 24 inches for individual footings, except those footings supporting light -weight decks or porches. A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term, transitory, wind or seismic loads. For footing foundations designed and constructed per recommendations above, we estimate that the maximum tot al post - construction settlement of the buildings should be 1/2 inch or less and the differential settlement across building width should be 3/8 inch or less. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. I I March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 12 Lateral loads on the proposed residences may be resisted by the friction force between the foundations and the subgrade soils or the passive earth pressure acting on the below -grade portion of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soils or backfilled with a clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density (EFD) of 350 pcf (pounds per cubic foot) for the passive earth pressure be used for lateral resistance. The above passive pressure assumes that the backfill is level or inclines upward away from the foundations for a horizontal distance at least 1.5 times the depth of the foundations below the final grade. A coefficient of friction of 0.55 between the foundations and the subgrade soils may be used. The above recommended soil parameters are unfactored values, and a proper factor of safety should be used in calculating the resisting forces against lateral loads on the proposed residence. ONSITE STORMWATER DISPOSAL Feasibility Three soil samples were selected for Particle Size Distribution tests in laboratory to determine feasibility of using infiltration trenches to dispose stormwater onsite for the residences to be constructed on Lots 7 and 8. These soil samples were obtained from the advance outwash deposit in test pits excavated at the lower portion of the hillside within the private drainage easement abutting the east side of Lot 8. Soil Sample I was taken from Test Pit 3 at 8.5 feet deep, Soil Sample 2 from Test Pit 4 at 8.5 feet deep, and Soil Sample 3 from Test Pit 5 at 6.0 feet deep. The reports of these tests are presented in APPENDIX — Laboratory Tests, attached hereto. As shown on the Particle Size Distribution reports, Soil Samples I through 3 were all composed of gravelly fine to coarse sand, with a clay content of 3.4%, 3.0% and 3.5%, and gravel/sand LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 13 content of 82.1%; 82.8%, and 81.9%, respectively. According to the USDA Texture Triangle (from U.S. Department of Agriculture), shown under Appendix, all three soil samples can be classified as sand -dominated Loamy Sand. This type of soil should be able to support infiltration trenches for onsite stormwater disposal. Design Infiltration Rate According to Table 3.7 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 2005 by Washington State Department of Ecology, the estimated long-term (design) infiltration rate is 0.5 iph (inch per hour) based on a correction factor of 4.on a short-term infiltration fate of 2 1ph for loamy sand, and is 2.0 iph based on a correction factor of 4 on a short-term infiltration rate of 8 iph for sand. Since the loamy sand of the advance outwash deposit is sand -dominated, we recommend a design infiltration rate of 0.75 iph be used for the design of infiltration trenches to be used for onsite dispose of stormwater for the residences to be constructed on Lots 7 and 8. Construction Recommendations Infiltration trenches extending to at least 6 inches into the underlying advance outwash sand deposits at the lower portion of the hillside within the private drainage easement may be used to dispose stormwater for the residences to be constructed on Lots 7 and 8. To reach this target so' 11 layer the infiltration trenches would have to be excavated from approximately 5.5 to 8.5 feet deep. The soil unit at bottom of infiltration trenches should be verified by a geotechnical engineer. The infiltration trenches should be set back at least 5 feet from property lines and at least 8 feet from nearby house foundations. Cut banks of the trenches should be set back at least 2 feet ftom the nearby existing rockery, and should be sloped back no st eeper than 3/4H: IV in fill, topsoil or weathered soil and may be vertical in the underlying fresh till and advance outwash deposit. The LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 14 soil units and stability of trench cut banks should be verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. The schematic presentation of an infiltration trench with a single dispersion pipe is shown on Plate 7. The infiltration trench should be at least 24 inches wide. The schematic presentation of an infiltration trench with multiple dispersion pipes is shown on Plate 8. Multiple dispersion pipes, if used in an infiltration trench, should be placed at least 2 feet off the trench walls and spaced at no closer than 4 feet on centers. The side walls of the trenches should be lined with a layer of non -woven filter fabric, such as MIRAFI 140NS. The trenches are then filled with clean washed 3/4 to 1-1/2 inch gravel or crushed rock to within about 8 inches of the finish grade. The dispersion pipes should be constructed of 4-inch rigid PVC pipes and laid level in the gravel or crushed rock filled trenches at about 10 inches below the top of trenches. The top of the gravel or crushed rock fill should also be covered with the filter fabric liner. The remaining trenches should then be backfilled with compacted onsite clean soils. Stormwater captured over paved driveways should be routed into a sediment control structure/oil-water separator catch basin before being released into the infiltration trenches. DRAINAGE CONTROL Building Footprint Excavation Building footprint excavation for the proposed residences, if encountering groundwater seepage, should have bottom of excavation sloped and ditches excavated along the bases of cut banks to direct collected groundwater into sump pits from which water can be pumped out. A layer of 2- inch crushed rock should be placed over footing bearing subgrade soils, as required, to protect the soils from disturbance by construction traffic. This crushed rock base should be built to a LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 15 few inches above groundwater level, but not less than 6 inches thick. The crush rock base should be compacted in 12-inch lifts to a non -yielding state with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Runoff Over Impervious Surfaces Storm runoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved driveways, should be collected by underground drain line systems connected to downspouts and by catch basins installed in paved driveways. Stormwater thus collected should be tightlined to discharge into a nearby storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility system, such as infiltration trenches. Bu ilding Footing Drains A subdrain system should be installed, -around the perimeter footings of each of the proposed residences. The subdrains should consist of a.4-inch-minimum-diameter, perforated, rigid, drain pipes, laid a few inches below bottom of the perimeter footings of the buildings. The trenches and the drain lines should have a sufficient gradient (0.5% minimum) to generate flow by gravity. The drain lines should be wrapped in non -woven filter fabric' socks and completely enclosed in clean 3/4 to 1-1/2 inch washed gravel or crushed rock. The remaining trenches may be backfilled with clean onsite soils. Water collected by the perimeter footing subdrain systems should be tightlined, separately from the roof and surface stormwater drain lines, to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility, such as rain gardens. Surface Drainage Water should not be allowed to stand in any areas where footings, on -grade -slabs, or pavement is to be constructed. Finish ground surfaces should be graded to direct surface runoff away from the proposed residences. We recommend the finished ground be sloped at a gradient of 3. percent LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11-012 Page 16 minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet dway from the buildings, except in the areas to be paved. Cleanouts Sufficient number of cleanouts at strategic locations should be provided for underground drain lines. The underground drain lines should be cleaned and maintained periodically to prevent clogging. RISK EVALUATION STATEMENT The subject site is underlain at shallow depth by very -dense, weakly -cemented, fresh till and advance outwash soils. These basal soils are of high shear strength and the site should be quite stable. Proper and adequate erosion mitigation and surface and groundwater drainage control are key to maintain site stability during and after completion of construction. It is our opinion that if the recommendations in this report are fully implemented and observed during construction and following the completion of construction, the areas disturbed by construction will be stabilized and will remain stable, and will not increase the potential for soil movement. In our opinion, the risk for damages to the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil instability should be minimal. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to this project for the exclusive use by Murphy Building Company and their representatives, associates, consultants and contractors. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11 -0 12 Page 17 the information of the prospective contractors for their estimating and bidding purposes and for compliance with the recommendations in this report during construction. The conclusions and interpretations in this report, however, should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The scope of this study does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for design considerations. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the geologic and soil conditions encountered in the test pits, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The actual subsurface conditions of the site may vary from those encountered by the test pits. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction starts. If variations appear then, we should be retained to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, and to verify or modify them in writing prior to proceeding further with the construction of the proposed development. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or need further consultation. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17, 2011 Three Single -Family Residences L&A Job No. 11 -0 12 Page 18 Eight plates attached Yours very truly, LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. J. S. (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. March 17. 2011 'I'liree Sinule-Family Residences [-&A Job No. I I-0 I? CLOSURE \V'c are pleased to be of service to \'01-1 011 this IN'O.'ject. feel free to contact LIS IfV0L1 have any cluestions reglai-ding, this report ()I- need fLII-tl1CI- C011SUltati011. A, Eight plates atuiched YOLII-,'--, VCIA: tl-Lll\. S. OL111"'111) LiLl. PhD, P.E. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. i K r �P_Zfj �T E -T sl, 'LEY DA y:1 14 '9" Z ST' E ... PO E _M, Oic ',N LL MAIN ST COL.- ''v- YOU V)l DAY TON H '09TH PL -7 5 KA P, L 2 ST WER c iv) -ST 2 AUIER! ST UNION C-F WALN UT ell" R11 OIL HoLk! DR CEDAR ST HOWELL WY L 2 L M4RSH Sir :[Lt. z I I H HEMLOCK 21� I ST EPSE 2i5TH S, :�H - I . 1�� OR ) I z = !r Sw �Z 2!5N ___nL , ;6T, S.W-, a— --------- -- p v! S, 2i6 L F N-71 21 A 51-F �d _z -- I I Sw 21 M ST SO rH PL Sd KAKAH J�77 I �ZT f 1ST 21 AT' I PLI 1 LQ Lj_j 30 I J- COOLA ST EL r OT RD 22 c* I sw JTCOma c� I Y, 1� �_ _2� 1 BIRCH co sw B I RUH f� IL S"? _S4 sr H S 114N q so 224TH I I i T PL SW ck: 226TH T S� LN 220i PLI N 4,w T TH PROJEC Eamos, 22.7rH P� llt�, �,i 227TH 228TH 228-rH SITE /I Cf?, TERY 228T�l -rPL W Ins" co N 37 7 PL w 232ND STI-5—w I., -- . 11 < 231 T ST HO L LY LN _T _�32ND IT (2311�0 PL SW) `_�t EWh'05- . 'W 233RD,i - J �j st SW I Ljj —:�� MAPLE k900WAY PL SW-��- a�' ozzl, 1 MNZ PL 5W) __gTi TH IT it& SW it - fz�-_ w C::, )IMA -ty, 97W F . - - L N NO U I NGRAM Ei� , - RD 235ni PL 3: '235TH PL SW 31 JRGBBERS ROOST RD z 235 2`15T� 13 N ST Sw - �YF_N PL S i_z I ccj� teelll 3 6 '�jSw Q, 238TH ST 238TH ST SW sw j sw 237TH Rp V KEMP Ll sl Sw AA 1 241 z;T S T L CC) 0 L LN LV OU__ sw L E ?42ND ST C.- 4 pt 5� It- SIS AV) mu LN I . Z_ VICINITY MAP I -At., &ASSOCIATES, INC. THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 228XX - 96TH PLACE WEST Geotechnical Fnaineering Engineering Geology - Eaith Science EDMONDS, WASHING rON r08 NO. 1-012 —j I D TE 2/15/2011 1 PL C) �D D J c- 0 m C/) - m C) M W -j m �: X 0 X - Z > m m -Tl m (j) > F (-) 2 M 0 m r-n (D cf) m 7 n > m cf) ItJ c) 0 CURREN1 AS-OLALT SEE A CEN ILR OF CLA-DESAC MY PRE -DPA-1 �V T PLA; LWONEERm; CW �OURS LIJ 385.4a' 9 6 t h PL. W. ZIO' CITY OF B)MONIDE - DR A -MEN r AIN GE EASE rr) SIA: t)[:IAIL ON CD 5HF'E 1 4 OF 4 'o CPE 0 50 40 - -.--'> up E I io f-I i 3' J�j c CA. OARAW- > 9 5 sl Rf-q"fNC 307 50 OLYMPIC ',IEW WATER (10 :EkJ<4—c (IV -R DISTRICT AND SEW� SANITARY SEWER q CASDIENT-SEE DETAIL 7 "s ON SHEET 4 OF 4 UTILITY V\ A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GW DED r-. E 7 C-01�-RSE GRI`� IN-10RE T� I` N V -::R""'EL P GR,�-',VEL WIT'ri M GFAINED C-- 0 " q SE F R C T SOILS R E 1 ;�' 1 N Ez 1) C FINES ..... � E',' AE L GC SAND CLEAN SVv SAND FIRIETC �'C)la.R.:�E SAND S P P,) R L I'- G P A [D E D SA �',l -D N! 0 R E' " H A 1\1 50% I00RE T-i'AN '50'A, C'F SAND WITH sm P E T I NIIE: D ) N T H E cl)4r$E r - .. NO -rX S;EVE 1 -';l FINES Sc s";N'D FINE- SILT AND CL,-"Y INORGANIC SILT CLAY GRAINED LQUID LfM'T ORGANIC OL '7�11L T l:,PGANIC -LA SOILS LE: S S THA N 50% f-il 0 R E T H A N 5 0 SILTY AND CLAY INORGANIC MH '�;LT OF HIGH PLAIJICITY 7LASTIC' C,LT H GLIL� :,)F H,��h FAl P�',.SSING ON THE LIGOD UNI'T ORGANIC OH ORGANIC SILT, ORGtM'JIC SILT N111 200 SIEVE 50"k, OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT A T A Il D C'T H. E R �A- I G h L Y C, R GA N I C S I S NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS-. 1 F l;-: L D C. U4S,; I F I C T 13 .1 1 S CA SE D 0 1 J V IS'-U� L E X;, M I 1.'1 0: i DRY ST'( OF S01 !N ASTIVI. D2488-R, FHE TOUCH -2 SOIL CLASS I F!CATION USING LABCJRAJOR� I ESTS IS BASED S -Llf7-� IST - T-�'-,- ON AST M D2a87-83 iii� D 1 S T - D.A. ki P, S U -' NO VI I B L E V"A E R 3. DESC91PTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY �'RE ,T LIRE FELT -,0 TH.= TOL,CH VEF�l MOIST - VERY' DAMP, MCI- BASED ON? 1NITER PRE TIATION OF BL,0VV-COUtJT DDATA, VISUAL T - VISIBLE �PEE kNATER OR SATURATED, APPEEAR,�-.NCF OF SOILS 4WD�OR TEST DA-A 'F i S,-;IL iS C)BT��[N!ED FROM m -L-3W VJATER TABLE L11-i & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SY S T E M Geoiechnicel Engineering - Engineering Geolog.., Eanh Science P LA, T E Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 2/17/2011 1 Ground El. Depth USCS CLASS. Soil Description Sample No. W % Other Test Sm Scottish broorn and berry bush on Surface Brown to gray, mediurn-dense. silty fine SAND. sortie gravel, with fine roots. rnoist (FILL) 2 -de-n-se- -fin-e _SA_N_D_t_ra_ceg -ra-ve-1. 'm-ois-t ST1_ _L_ig_htb_row_n_, -me-d-iLl m- s-ill-y (weathered VASHON TILL) ------------------------------------------- 4 S rVi Light -gray. very -dense, gravelly. silty, fine SAND. occasional cobble, weakiy-cemente.d. moist (fresh VASHON TILL) 6 8 9 12 13 Test pit terminated at 12.5 ft; groundwater riot encountered. Logged By� JSL TEST PIT NO. Date� 2117/2011 2 Ground El. De Pt, USC S CLASS. Soil Description SamPle No. W % Othe, Test Sm Lawn grass on surface 1 Brown to gray, mediu.ni-dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel. _Ii!.(LCq_qTf cloth, moist f FI LIQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Sf� Brown, medium -dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel, moist - - - - - - - - - �we3tbejed_VA&i0NJI_LL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Sm Light -gray. very -dense, gravelly, silty. fine SAND, occasional cobble, weakly -cemented. rnoist (fresh VASHON TILL) 4 5 7 ___j7Test pit terminated at 6.0 ft; groundwater not encountered, 8 LIU & ASSOCIAYES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering , Engineering Geolcgy Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 228XX - 96TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 11-012 DATE 3/412011 1 PLATE 4 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 3/4/2011 I Ground El. Depth ft- LISCS CLASS, Soil Description Sample No. W % Other Tesi Sm Scottish broorn and berry bush on surface Brown to gray, loose to medium -dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace to some gravel, moist (FILL) 2 Note: Fill on trench wall partially collapsed. 4 6 ------------------------------------------- 7 SP/SM Brown, medium -dense, slightly silty, fine SAND, some gravelly. moist SP - - — ---------------- —dray, jense, medium E;Aj�15, Trace to sorne gravelly, moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 10 A, 1 Test pit terminated at 10.0 ft: groundwater not encountered. TEST PIT NO. 4 Logged By: JSL Date'. 3/4/2011 Ground El. Depth ft. LISCS CLASS. Soil Description Sample No. W % Other Test Sm Scottish broorn and berry bush on surface Light -brown to light -gray, niedium-dense, gravelly. silty. fine SAND, trace gravel, rnoist (FILL) 2 3 4 -------------------------------------------- OL Dark -brown, loose. organic, silty fine SAND, moist '��4 '-i_R_eT11Pat_1QF!�0LLL — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5 Brown, medium -dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel. nioist (weathered VASHON TILL) ------------------------------------------ Sm Light -brown to light -gray, very -dense, gravelly, silty, fine SAND, weakly-cernented, moist (fresh VASHON TILL) ------------------------------------------ Gray, dense. gravelly. niediUrn SAND. rnoist 9 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 10 11 Test pit terminated at 10.0 ft; groundwater not encountered. 12 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0ecitechnical Engineering Engineering Geology - Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 228XX - 96TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO 11-012 DATE 3/4/2011 -1 PLATE z C- 0 0 rn i T, r-r >< >< ri-I ITI W In M, > C/) > C', I z m IT] (j) ��j C) m cn m 0 o 0 7-1 Fri 1 tj:�5 its t i lllt�ltl TRO D I m T 60� w ATo P- �, 0 PA RA-ro P, FePF- _),I L o v e:�j 7-,(flH-rLti-4F- '766, 1 0. o , " iL -qq -ro CL r--A t� 5NO P L�T Logged By� JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 3/4/2011 5 Ground El. Depth P., USCS CLASS. Soil Description Sample No, W Other Tes: Sm Scottish broom and berry bush on surface Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND. fine roots. moist Sm (TOPSOIL) 2 Brown. medium -dense, silty fine SAND. some gravel, moist (weathered VASHON TILL) 4 ----------------------------------------- SM Light -gray, very -dense, gravelly, silty, fine SAND, weakly- cernented. moist (fresh VASHON TILL) — - - - - - - SID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - Gray, dense. rnediurn SAND. some gravel. moist �fresh ADVANCE OUT�,%/ASH). 7 9 Test pit terminated at 8,0 ft,- groundwater not encountered. 10 Logged By: TEST PIT NO. Date� Ground El. + Depth ft. USCS CLASS. Soil Description Sample N o. W % Other Test 4 5 6 7 9 10 LIU & ASSOCtATES, INC. G -oipch n ic-,A I E nginee ring Engineering Geology EarthScience TEST PIT LOGS THREE SINGLE -FAMILY -RESIDENCES 228XX - 96TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS. WASHINGTON JOB NO. 11-012 1 DATE 3/4/2011 1 PLATE 6 r - r- " — C- 0 Cl) z j > 0 i T1 0 Co X 0 m z C" -T T-1 m > Z M i n < o M F1 M, 7 :76 m I o" Pic& wo vr--�j eo J� co zoo. -,Q jo 0, 0 11 % 1. * -o"I� Q, �90 '05 2' �> �3 1 evj Hou 5 T w f-xTr-,P- C- Pl-\ f -,-& T (0 t� C�\TC-H (re<p V C� T 16 H 1,0/\y C L- e RA V r-- L- 0 (2, �,-, 6�,' P, f C-K P i L- SOT-T-Oml-rRet�r-H I �-) To (-, �- a AVVENDIX P,LSULA S OF LABORATORY FFS 1"'S I'l IRLISINGLE.*-FAMILY RESIDENCES 22 .�..�',SXX - 9 6 "'' P L A CE W F-'S T EDMONDS, NVASHINGTON LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. 70 Q� LLJ 60 Z _qG U.1 UJ 40 0- 21 01 20 10 -201-L t>AMrLe- J- ASTM C117/136 Particle Size Distribution Report S 7 SW 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - nim % GRAVEL % SAND % FINES % COBBLES CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FI.N-E. SILT CLAY I 0.0 1 �7.4 12.9 =5-9 11.8 24.2 3.4 SIEVE SIZE PERCENTI FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 2 ill. 100.0 14 ill. 2'. 518 ill. 60.4 1!2 ill. 67.- 31 8 65-i 59,S ,110 53.9 #40 42.1 `200 17.k) 0.0-1 IS 11w), 10.6 8.8 0.0121 111131. 6.3 ..0087 min. 5.1 0.0062 niin. 3.kl 0.00313 inin. 2.7 0.0013 niiii. J.t) I Soil Description Ty - Sandy I'A)U111 Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 40.7 DCr,)= 4.,S"7_ D50= D30= 0. 17 7 D15= D10= C1.0417S' CLJ= 175.16 C C = 0.2) 3 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks F. N1. I . 2 0 (ni, 5w,tr inji prio, iJ,J) Sample No.: 97,24 Source of Sample: IMurphy ; '�iriglc 1,csidoncr, - Date: -I (-'!C I I Location: Elev./Depth: S. rlien L"li & Associatcs Pr jetr-t: 2011 Laboratoi-.�Testi rig Pr9ject No: 0911-2R Nick Averill 100 9(; 80 -to ff U 60 7- ILL 50 W C) cl� LLJ 40 30 A '�,O(L- 5AMPL-E- Z- ASTM C117/136 Particle Size Distribution Report N' T-.T � X -F �j I Or 10 GRAIN SIZE - n-Irn % GRAVEL % SAND % FINES BBLES T CLAY IL CO -�INE SIL CIRS. FINE CRS. MEni�r -- I - - 14.'� 0.0 -25.� - SIEVE SIZE PERCENT!, SPEC.' FINER PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1-14 in. 100.0 1 in. 9;.0 5i'.i� in. S7�0 1/�� in. in. 7S.6 44 (17.1 1' C; 56.2 �-40 42.7 - 00 17.2 0.('331 Min. 9.2 �).C-2 10 1 nn). X.4 0.0124 inni. 6. 1 0.6089 mn-,. 3.9 0.0063 rnjr,. 3.2 0.00', 1 0.0013 min- I . TP—� Loam,, Sand Soil DeSGription AtterberG Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 14.0 D60= 2-81 D5 D30= 0. 173 D15= 0.0636 DJO= C,= 72.98. cc= 0.2,S Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks F. M. = 0. 6 _3 (flospm-ific.a6mi prw-rided) Source of Sample: Murphy.) Sing Sample No.: 9`25 gie Rcsidieuce - 11 11 -0 1 () Date: 3-1 �i- I I Location: ElevdDepth: 8.5' Client: Lul & Assocle.Lc�s Project- Mi L [pr-Oject'No: GON-18 N 1 ve�� K 100 go so 70 0� - W 60 LL -0 LLJ 0 w LLI 40 0 '01 5( A ASTM C1 17/136 Particle Size Distribution Report F - - --------- F 14 100 10 1 0.1 0.0 0_001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % GRAVEL % SAND % FINES % COBBLES ___ I — CR` FINE CRS ' MEDIUM J FINE SILT --CLAY —123 '1(),(; .14-6 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER SF 3EC PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) 1- 1,:4 in. 100.01 I i n. ; 34 in. 86. 519 in. 84.17) I ' 1? ill. 11 1). () 3i',S iii. 12.9 414 67.0 10 6 1.0 �40 4S.7 0 -12 6 7�n 0.0 " 10 ryu D. 7.8 (1.0'12 , ', rnrn. 6.3 0,0088 in-n. 4.8, 0.006'� nl_ln. 4.0 0.0031 inm. 0.001-1 Min. 1.7 Soil Description TP-5 Atterberg Limit PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients Df35= i 7.2 D60= 1.7i D5o= 0.460 D30= 0. 15f) D15= D 1 0. 03) 2 1 Cu= 53.23, cc= 0.41 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Reniarks F..%, 1, - 0. 7, 4 �no �zpe,;il3c-ltic,.n pro-VICOU.) Sample No.: 971-6 Source of Sample: Nlurphy 3 Single Fainily Rcsidrnce - 11-010 Date: I Location: Elev.lDepth: 6.0' [Client: Lui &.kssociate-s Project: 201 i Labcoratory Testing, :j ProjectNo: 11011 Nick Averill Textural TrIangle U.S.D.A. 100% c3ey - go 10 so 20 70 Clay 30 60 40 C, so slit so A clay 40 Sand 60 lay clay 11ty zo 30 Sandy CIMY TO Loom so I V go Cal "Orma'. Slit 100% sand 90 Go 70 00 60 40 30 20 10 IOOX am I Shaded area is applicable for design of infiltration BNlPs Figure 3.27 USDA Textural Triangle Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 3-74 Volume U/ — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs February 2005 1"Wr Ao / -/ ee-f1'c1&^ea' 1520 �F -4 F- 21,TD -eF 575- 1!� Olive ".JOL/ v /,,, I k W., */, 2oqS- 6t 114 I)IOV .oar V.4 v 7o 41 -rpq)w 4fe^ 7 lb' W9 4 2-zs- SF Per 13/ 4;Ll eA- 0.�fs--"P4 .01 of 6'jlxl�llf Took \40- IJ4 -�- r �5 (jZ 94Yz Nc> r.%om �r% 3p'-' 4. '6VNER(CoNTRAcTOR IS RESPONSI 1) pS t40TED EROSION CONTROL AND DRAIMPC EN S APPROVED BY PLANNING I E INEE C,e.e— a C_�t- I'd t *&.r% 4pe r- C_� . % V / / SCALE: 1" =20' 0 10 20 CURRENT AS -BUILT CONTOURS (TYR) PRE -DEVELOPMENT CONTOURS (TT-) MONUMENT 96th PL. W. A SET A CENTER OF 18-41 1 4\ CULDES4C PER A(P PLAT ENGINEERING ELEV 385.58' 10, CITY 81 OF EDMONDS 11 �65 SF DRAINAGE �ASEMENT 0.0 01 5 RESIDENCE A )PF MAIN @( 377.5 C) LIN I PRIVATE DRAINAGE E OF I EASMENT TO BENEFIT� GARAGE STRUCTURE LOTS 1 -8 SLAB 0 LINE OF 18" �A 377.5 OVERHANG FFIR�P� I 20.00 C 'All F 4' WIDE, 18" DEEP )ECK t Ll 76 .00 J 8, 8 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT' 'SANITARY SEWER ESMT 1_71 7� 6LYMPIC VIEW WATEO AND SEWER DISTRICT 00 ------- SANITARY SEWERIESMT.z Ln 04 t�i ADDRESS 22804 96TH PL W. TAX PARCEL NO 00937900000800 LEGAL SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27, RANGE 3 DESCRIPTION: NE QUARTER K. ELSIE BLK 000 D-00 LOT 8 SITE AREA- 16,695 SQUARE FEET LOT SLOPE NORTH -SOUTH 385,00' - .345.00'= 40.00' 40.00 VERTICAL FEET= 38.0% SLOPE 105.00 LINEAR FEET HEIGHT CALCULATION A= 382 B= 373 C= 367 D= 378 150014= 375.00' AVERAGE GRADE= 375.00' ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT= 399-75' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT= 400-00' LOT COVERAGE Zone &a-Z_ Corner_&jaFIag_&L§ Setbacks Required Actual Front Sides Rear 65) Other RESIDENCE 1,534 SQUARE FEET Hei&t t - S 26 a Y. 7 11yu. WVETILL/ PORCHES, GARAGE TOTAL 1,534 SQUARE FEET 35X MAXIMUM 1,534116,695= 9.19% LOT COYMOE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. RESIDENCE (including overhangs) DRIVEWAY 1,534 SQUARE FEET 526 SQUARE FEET WALKWAY 80 SQUARE FEET TOTAL 2,140 SQUARE FEET FIL 0'"'-FOO"r RESUB JUL 0 5 2011 BUtLDINQ DEPAR-CMENT CITy op MMONDS NOTE. 1. SEE GRADINGITESC AND DRAINAGE/U77LITY PLANS FOR MORE INFORMA710N. I AREA (SoFT) FLoNE] TYPE 1 1. 1 EXEMPT I I 2. 3. NEW 2,140 4. 1 To TA L 2,140 — I — NWIA 114,SEMON36,T.277V,R.3E-,W-M- SNOHOWSH COUNTY CLEARWATER DESIGNED BY- DATE: SUALL: JOB NO.: S.ROSE 051171,' 1`20' 1 10-0525 SITE PLAN amp INSIGHT INGININKING CO. P.O. BOX - 1478 EVERETT, WA 98206 (425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX R,W0@1NS1GHTENGjNEER1NG.NET V INJ H, Ai NO 3-4.,011 of "OWN"YCONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVED AS NOTED EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE By ENGI EERI G SCALE: 1 = 20' 0 10 20 I kk APPROVED BY PLANNING Datow, ff I .000, CURRENT AS -BUILT CONTOURS (TYP.) PRE -DEVELOPMENT CONTOURS (TYP.) W A, 96th A. MONUMENT SET A CENTER OF I CULDES4C PER B. Ac-� DR\d PLAT ENGINEERING 1�,+ ELEV. 385.58' i.Vr Ay. $04 --49-.5% A 10' 81 CITY OF EDMONDS 16,6145 SF DRAINAGE �ASEMENT di 5 .00 x RESIDEN6E 50' A �F MAIN @( 1`577 5 \ Ct. PRIVATE DRAINAGE LINE OF GAR4GE STRUC I EASAfENT TO BENEFV TURE SLAB @ LINE OF 18" 1 LOTS 1-8 377.5 1OVERHANG o 20.00 nRiPLA I C .111r) 4' WID 18* D 5 j -� - - - - - - - - KC00 [)ECK L Ll )7 8,658 �F Po - Ir �'OLYMPIC VIEW' WATEI? 'I AND SEWER DISTRICT' 'SANITARY SEWER ESMT. 0 7- 4" 6LYMPiC VIEW W4TEq ----- - AND SEWER DISTRJCT 5� Ln SANITARY SEWERIESMT. C14 0 C3 t� AnnMEY'C' 7AV nAn^� k1A LEGAL nrer,otrinAki. S17E AREA. LOT SLOPE NORTH -SOUTH HEIGHT CALCULATION A= 382 B= 37J C= 367 n_ 7�0 150014= 375.00' AVERAGE GRADE= 375.00' ACTUAL BUILDING HE7GHT= 399.75' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT= 400.00' LOT COVERAGE. 22804 96TH PL W. 00937900000800 SECT10N 36, TOWNSHIP 27, RANGE 3 NE QUARTER K. ELSIE BLK 000 D-00 LOT 8 16,695 SQUARE FEET J85.00, - J45.00,-- 40.00 , 40.00 VERTICAL FEET= 38.0% SLOPE 105.00 LINEAR FEET RESIDENCE 1,534 SQUARE FEET INC. COVERED PORCHES, GARAGE TOTAL 1,534116,695= 9.19%. IMPERVIOUS COVER4GE. RESIDENCE (including overhangs) DRI"AY 1,534 SQUARE FEET Zone Comer t &Flag �Le Setbacks E�Iired� Actual Front (9) ;L5 Sides Rear (Z) 16 Other Heiglit OF J5X UMMUM LINE TYPE LOT COVERAGE 1. EXEMPT 1,04 SQUARE FEET Z I REPLACED 526 SQUARE -FEET I J. I NEW WALKWAY 80 SQUARE FEET TOTAL Z140 SQUARE FEET JUL 0 5 2011 BUtLDING DEPARc-MENT CITY Of EDMONDS NOTE: 1. SEE GR4DING/TESC AND DRAIN4GE/UTILITY PLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION. AREA (SQFT) VVPr NO*-EXEWT 1 4. 1 TOTAL I I Z 140 NW114, NE114, SEMON36, T27N., R.3E., WM. SNOHOWSH COUNTY CLEARWATER DESIGNED BY: DATE. sr-4LE.- joB No.: S.ROSE 0511712011 1 1`--20 10-0525 SnE PLAN M:12r5 INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. P.O. BOX - 1478 EVERETT, WA 98206 (425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX R4FO@INS1GHTENGDMER1NG14]37 11 SCALE: I" = 20' CLEARED AREA. 17,278 SF ghth PT U 11 0 1--- EX. 6 PVC muNumt1vt SET A CENTER OF CULDESAC PER PLAT ENGINEERING TEMPORARY ELEV, 385.58' CONSTRUCITON ENTRANCE MHjIO RIM 383.40 IE 375.00 EXIST. S1W & D W_ WAk, NW114, NE114, SECTION36, T.27N., R.3E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COLWTY WAShTVGTON COVER ANY STORM WATER CATCH WINS DOWNSIREAM FROM c THE SITE WUH RLTER SOCKS TO GE PREVENT SITE RUNOFF FROM IE ENTERING PER EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL E1.2 PRE -DEVELOPMENT CONTOURS A I)b \DRWY ca EXISTING CONTOURS 8 16,695 F RESID FF WIN 77.5 LO#EST FOOTIN 3z -6-2 GAR4GE /F vooliviG 0 010 mo sf SLAB @ 0 a1059 85 377.5 130Tfo S, V. 3W-c.-ojerl. CL -:--364- t4G' L FO . I J2 374.20 370.031 EX. 8 CMP CB13 7, CE 362.37 IE 358.37 CNI 10' CITY OF EDkONDS DRAINAGE �ASEMENT 50' Z PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASMENT TO BENEFIT GE 356.50 0 YR,-,.�S62- I IL DI.OU cp-, Ove BSSL .62 - ' I - S 7 YQL� GARAGE B @ 385. 0 8,658 SF STORMWATER GE 387.43 IE 384.43 i OTIIG DETENTION 7 BoTrm�c v EA VAULT 33-00, A5L�k --- CONTOURS �3gY(To 1703 Sk YQJ10 %r ELEV. GE 357.25 �ESID4 CE :'I VIEW OLYMPI 1E 354.25 FF MAIN @ 385. 00 1 LOWEST F007ING @ 376 AN S�WER D TRIC - IT4fiY SEWER E$-MT. ZE I BOTTOM,--, If 111(n I OF FOOTING MH110 ELEV. 377. 00 6 205 S,&� �P' DECK RIM 348 10) IE 340.701 11,002 SF YD 5 GE 390.20 H RIM 383.401 IE J87.20 1E 375.0(Y co 0000, GE J64.70 OL41C VIEW WATER 1E 3361.70 ANO SEWER DISTRICT 5- SANITARY SEWER ESMT, 55 ESMT, ----- ING D -51 _51:1 YD 8 GE 37788 IE 374.88 so. Lo ol� -340- 4v 9-1 or FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN 25' MIN. RADIUS CONTINOUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES FILTER FABRIC OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH QUARRY SPALLS SECURED TO 2" X 2" FABRIC TO WIRE. �,-4" �IN DIA 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC J 8 -12 MIN. DEPT EQUAL 2" X 2" WOOD OR VWIRE MESH SUPPORT FEa..E EQUIVALENT To SUPPORT FILTER FA IC. 71l�lvvvvv\1\1\1\1\A1\1v\ �u '50�00- �/\A/vvvv �/\/ /VV \A)\/VVVV" N D LTER (U CBURY BOTTOM OF Fl- MATERIAL 8' TO 12' 6' MAX, U 2' X 2' WOOD POSTS OR CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN T MPORARY PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/ CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DURING THE EGRESS AREA rLMV, J/ -t - I.0 VYt%,)rlr-U VRMVr-L- 11-4 LUUlVHLLN1 THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALLI ,CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROI STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL, OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN, IMEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN. F& TER FA BPJC FENCE F& TPuA 7 YON S YS TEMS STABEL7,ED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE S7D DTL. El. 1 NOT TO SCALE STD DTL. E1.2 ESC NOTES (ECDC 18.30. A. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ALL ACTIVITIES NECESSITA77NG A CLEARING OR GRADING PERMIT AND ALL UTILITY PROJECTS CONSISTING OF MORE THAN 500 LIN64L FEET OF TRENCH EXCAVATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TO PERMANENTLY STABILIZE EXPOSED SOIL RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION. PROJECTS INVOLVING A CRITICAL AREA MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY COMBINATION OF THE ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. COMPL14NCE WILL BE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN APPROVED ESC PLAN. GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ESC PLANS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL. THE PLAN MUST ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. 1. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE, WHENEVER PRACTICAL, LIMITED TO ONE ROUTE. ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS OR CRUSHED ROCK TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. IF SEDIMENT IS 7R4NSPORTED ONTO A ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A CONTROLLED SEDIMENT D/SPOSAL AREA WITHIN 24 HOURS. STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. 2. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED AREAS. ALL SOILS EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIWTIES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SUITABLE APPLICATION OF BMPS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOD, HYDROSEEDING, OR OTHER VEGETATION, PLASTIC COVERING, OR MULCHING. ALL BMPS SHALL BE SELECTED, DESIGNED, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. THE EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. (lYPICALLY, NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO DAYS FROM OCTOBER 1 774ROUGH APRIL JO AND NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER JO). 3. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION BY APPROPRIATE USE OF VEGETA77VE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES OR MULCHING, OR BY A COMBINATION OF THESE MEASURES AND OTHER APPROPR14TE BMPS. 4. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - MAINTENANCE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. 5. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - OTHER BMPS. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS TO MMG47E THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED RUNOFF SHAH BE APPLIED. 6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - UNDERGROUND U71LITY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING. A. EROSION CONTROL FOR EXCAVATED AND STOCKPILED MATERIALS, B. THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY AND SPACE CONSIDERATIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES, C. TRENCH DEWATERING SYSTEMS (MUST DISCHARGE INTO SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS); 0. TRACKING AND SPILLING OF MATERIALS ON STREETS DUE TO HAULING, E. DAILY CLEANUP AND S7REET MAINTENANCE. 7. ADDITIONAL ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES LAND DISTURBING AC77VMES OF GREATER THAN, OR EQUAL TO, ONE ACRE IN ADD177ON TO MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FOR774 ABOVE SHALL COMPLY WITH ESC REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW. 8. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - DELINEATE CLEARING AND EASEMENT LIMITS. IN THE FIELD, MARK CLEARING LIMITS ANDIOR ANY EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVEICRMCAL AREAS AND THE BUFFERS, TREES AND DRAINAGE COURSES. 9. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - SEDIMENT TRAPPING. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SITE, STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL PASS THROUGH A SEDIMENT POND OR SEDIMENT TRAP, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS. SEDIMENT PONDS AND 7R4PS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS, AND OTHER BMPS INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT ON -SITE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN GRADING. THESE BMPS SHALL BE FUNC77ONAL BEFORE LAND DISTURBING ACTIOTIES TAKE PLACE. EARTHEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES, AND DIVERSIONS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. 10. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CUT AND FILL SLOPES. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE EROSION. IN ADDITION, SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESC REQUIREMENT NO. 2. 11. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CONTROLLING OFF -SITE EROSION. PROPERTIES AND WATER WAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT SITES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION DUE TO INCREASES IN THE VOLUME, VELOCITY, AND PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT SITE. 12. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZATION OF TEMPORARY CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. ALL TEMPORARY ON -SITE CONVEYANCE CHANNELS SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION FROM THE EXPECTED VELOCITY OF FLOW FROM A TWO -YEW, 24-HOUR FREQUENCY STORM FOR THE DEVELOPED CONDITION. STABIL07ION ADEQUATE TO PREVENT EROSION OF OUTLETS, ADJACENT STREAM BANKS, SLOPES AND DOWNSTREAM REACHES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE OUTLETS OF ALL CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. 13. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION. ALL STORM DR41N INLETS MADE OPEWLE DURiNG CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT 14. ESC REQUIREMENT - REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY BMPS. ALL TEMPOR4RY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STAB104TION IS ACHIEVED OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY BMPS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED. TRAPPED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE. DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESUL77NG FROM REMOVAL SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 15 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - DEWATERING CONSTRUCTION SITES DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL DISCHARGE INTO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT POND. 16. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT ON CONSTRUC77ON SITES. ALL POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT THAT OCCUR ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE HANDLED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONTAMINA71ON OF STORM WATER. IZ EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - FINANCIAL LABILITY. PERFORMANCE BONDING, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FINANC14L INSTRUMENTS, SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN. [ORD. 3013 § 1, 19951. - TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REQUIRED NOTES: ThE 12 ELEAENTS OF TESC BAV CONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCE ELEMENT #1 - MARK CLEARING LIMITS. 1. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT OF CONSTRUC77ON ARE CLEARLY MARKED. SCHEDULE AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY INSPECTION UNIT AND EROSION CONTROL ELEMENT J2 - ESTABLISH CONS7RUCTION ACCESS: SPECIALIST. A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS SHOWN. 2. FLAG CLEARING LIMITS AND INSTALL SILT FENCE AS SHOWN. ELEMENT JJ - CONTROL FLOW RATES. AN INFILTPu47ION TRENCH IS PROPOSED. 3. INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. ELEMENT 14 - INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROLS. 4. GRADE AND STABILIZE FOUNDATION AREAS. COVER EXPOSED SOILS SILT FENCE, INLET PROTECTION, MULCH, INTERCEPTOR SWALES AND WITH MULCH, HOG FUEL OR HYDROSEED. SEDIMENT POND ARE PROPOSED. 5. CONSTRUCT WATER AND STORM UTILJTIES. INSTALL 'GAS, POWER, ELEMENT #5 - STABILIZE SOILS. TELEPHONE AND WLE UTILITIES, AS REQUIRED. SOIL STA61LIZATION IS ACHIEVED BY MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING AND SEEDS. - 6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH COMPOST AMENDED SOIL PER STORMWATER MANUAL DETAIL T5.13. ELEMENT #6 - PROTECT SLOPES. SLOPES ARE PROTECTED BY PLASTIC COVERING, MULCHING AND Z CONSTRUCT STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND REMOVED SEDIMENIA77*ON EXISTING VEGETATION. IN ALL CATCH BASINS AND THE VAULT. ELEMENT #7- PROTECT DR41N INLETS: 8. STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND REMOVE ALL TE.S.C. MEASURES. INLET PR07ECTIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE STORM DRAINS. ELEMENT#8 - STABILIZE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. OUTLET PROTECTIONS ARE PROPOSED. _6�,D ELEMENT #9 - CONTROL POLLUTANTS. ALL VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT AND PETROLEUM PRODUCT STOR4GEIDISPERSING AREAS WILL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO -fz DETECT ANY LEAKS OF SPILLS, AND TO IDENTIFY MAINTENANCE NEEDS AND PREVENT LEAKS OF SPILLS. ELEMENT #10 - CONTROL DEWATERING. THESE WILL BE NO DEWATERING AS PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. ELEMENT #11- MAINTAIN BMP's. ALL TESC BMPs SHALL BE MAINTAJNED AND REPAIRED AS NEEDED. ELEMENT #12 - MANAGE THE PROJECT: THIS COULD BE ACHIEVED BY MINIMIZING THE EXTENT AND DURATION OF THE AREA EXPOSED AND BY EMPHASIZING EROSION CONTROL THEN SEDIMENT CONTROL. 1. REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED OF ANY PLAT IMPROVEMENTS TH4,T ARE DAMAGED DURING CONS77?UCITON. 2. ENTIRE STORM SYSTEM ACCESS WILL BE FROM 96TH PL W. EVERY EFFORT SHALL BE MADE TO OBTAJN PERMISSION TO ACCESS THE CONSTRUC77ON OR THE RAIN GARDEN FROM EDMONDS WAY. J. SEE SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE/077LITY PLANS FOR MORE INFDRM4770N. .GRADING QUAAMIES.- CUT. 50 Cu. Yds. FILL: 50 Cu. Yds. (GRADING QUANTITIES WERE CALCULATED USING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT DESKTOP COMPOSITE METHOD. CALCULATIONS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SOIL SWELLING AND SHRINKAGE.) 1. EXCESS CUT MAY BE SPREAD ON SITE. Z ANY SOIL REMOVED FROM THE SITE MUST BE HAULED TO A C17Y APPROVED SITE. jTE.S C. LEGEND - SF SF SILT FENCE TEMPORARY CONS7RUCTION ENTR4NCE CATCH BASIN INSERT PROTECTION (TYP.) CLEARING LIMITS VEGETATION MULCH &IOR STRAW MATTING PLASTIC COVER FLOW ARROW (EX.) CITY OF EDMOADS APPR 0 VED FOR CONS TR UCTION 004TACT OLYMPIC VIEW /GRATE FOR: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DA7E MH 10 ,WATERISEWER DISTRIOT RIM J41.28 1E 334.58 CB REVISIONS PER CITY SJR 07-12-2011 MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE S"TREET FILE REV. NO. DESCRIP77ON INITIALS DATE ALLOWED 149/6 C8#6 U_TXU7TC0NFLICT)V0,TE.- GE 3;n2 IEZJ34.55 4 CA UTION. - FILTER SOCK WITH OVER FLOW HOLES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE U77LI77ES AND SURVErNG THE OWNERICONTRACTOR IS RICE-SPONSIBLE FOR HORIZONTAL AND VER71CAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONS7RUC770N. THIS AND EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE 4 THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 0 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING U77LITIES AT LOCA77ONS OF NEW UTILITY INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. CATCH BASIN LOCA71ONS OF SAID UTIL171ES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED P.O. BOX - 1478 919 COVE D WITHN 2 DffiS SITE ADDRESS. '22804, 22806 ACCEPTABLE TIWTM CALL YWO (2) BUSINESS DA 96TH PL. W. EDMONDS, W4. 98020 ERIAL SIDR 35 BEFORE YOU -DIG 1-800-424-5555 TAX ACCO .S. BLD. 20100757 SICH 40 STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN BLD. 20100 8 N -12 CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E111), THIS APPLICAITON r-010 HANCOR SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL R. TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON PERIOD, NW1/4, M114, SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E., WX CLEARWATER ;,U�FIIOVED AS NOTED CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL 2\1 IN- -RINI" MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN. DWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY. DATE. I SCALE:., JOB NO.: 36499 100525-FIAIAL.DWG S.ROSE 0511712011 P620 10-0525 IS T Vo-, X AL SHEET -TEAVORAR Y SEDMNT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS ld_o2allh Cl NOT TO SCALE STO DTL. E1.3 -7- E 8 U B GRADflvG AND TESC pLAN Of JUL 12 2111 2 BUiLIDING IDEPAR�10IENT clTy OF EIDIVIONDS --� Q 2A 0 o-1G6- EX. HSE. 8 EXj. HSE, v p 7 C.O. TOP-368.2 --, — — — — — — — — — — A C- c oc C.O. - - - - - - TOP-578.7 Val ,N% 10 0 10 20 40 i iNdH = 20 FT. Storm "As-Builts" Elise Short Plat 96th Pl. W 12119120 f I kilo I ff a & �om Art-c-a- =: Z-7s G�- Nc-�� ;:7 /14D 6�- , 1-4 Py IdY I Y�fa C.O. TOP-353.8 -50, PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BENEFIT LOTS 1-8 I.E. -.Tfg. f8 ±2 5 RET. WALL ,�� Op (TYP-) 1 FLOOR AREA ±440 S.F. TOE (7yp.) 7/p/w OVERFLOW GEIVE&U NOMS. 1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD PLANS AAin nmoz rur rninAlml, NW114, NE114, SECTION 36, T.27N., R.M., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASIMVGTON V eER VIO US S UR FA CE LOT # DRIVEWAY WALKWAY ROOF OUTLINE TOTAL IMP. AREA LOT 7 541 SF 30 SF 1,512 SF 2,083 SF LOT 8 526 SP 80 SF 1,534 SF Z 140 SF TOTAL 4,22.3 S7F7] 7 BIORETENTION CALCULATIONS PER TABLE 5 6 61ORETENTION BOTTOM ARE4 = 4,223 SF x '�'/100 = 266' OR USE 11' WIDE BY 25' LONG POND BOTTOM WITH 6" OF PONDING DEPTH. SCALE: I" = 20' DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE 0.75 INCHES PER HOUR Ellm mom I limm 20 10 0 20 40 CB#2 GE 374.20 IE 370.031 Wil P W- EX. 6 PVC STRIP DR41NS <11 L MONUMENT TO BE CONNECTED SET A CENTER OF TO ROOF DR41NS CULDESAC PER 0 PLAT ENGINEERING EX, 8 CMP ELEV. 385.58' DRWY TRENCH FOR W, CABLE, POWER & PHONE TO PROPOSED RESIDENCE CB#3 EXISTING (ALL NEW UTILITIES MUST BE UNDERGROUND) 4 GE J62.37 'b . DR77 . V� CONTOURS IE MH#10 358.37 RIM 383.40 -SLOPE -9.5%-." IE 375.00 10 4 EXIST. S/W & DIW 8 CITY OF EDMONDS co 16,695 15F DRAINAGE �4SEMENT -K I EN�E FF 1 @'377.5 LOWEST OOTING @ 3 50, 62 IV WA 20L of 0 E' GARAGE 11E. 362.00' 6" Pvc,� EASMENT TO, BENEFIT' SLAB 0 1 / LMAIAT RCCESS �LOPE +4%',*'--" 4' DOWNSPOUT 37Z5 @ 35% COLLECTOR TYP. wIPIPE CB' //T�P ��51� 4-'rb677NG DRA ANCHORS�� GE 35y5oVAULT SOTTPM 349.64 FCOLLECTOR TYP. IE 130,50 cp" -.4 YO 4 GARAGE S B 7 15, @ 385.01W 8,658 SF GE J87.4J TILI PROPOSED IE 384.43 .- 4- 4N SS LINE __ I EA EM 0 4- fbOlING ZDRAW Lyl RESID CE OLYMPI� VIEW WA�R LINE TO It IJAIAI 0% TOr nn IIAND S ER DISTRIC DRYWELL 03 LOWEST FOOTING 0 376 1 I NITAPY SEWER EWT. A) :r-- I 1 76.00 cb IE. 3 V, - 4 N 6VI I i KIN I '>Iy IlAi,_ DECK 0 y L Ll STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT U-j YDjIO 0 GE 35 7.25 r3lLF 6 1 PVC IE 354.25 /0 12.90% 20LF 61 Pvc 1 I I � _il; 1 0 38LF 6 1. PVC 0 23.68Z / (4 Weq-�V� 6 DEC 6 11,002 SF Y6 5 ss-/ Z) GE 390,20 /7. RIM 383.40 IE 387.20 .,o Z6 lE 375.001 M 3lx3lxjl Ln Ul. FILLED 1001 ID 9 wIGRAVEL GE 364.70 c's IE JJ61.70 OL�HPIC VIEW WATER ANO SEWER DISTRICT ------ 4111 ANITARY SEWER ESMT. I SEWER CLEMOUT SEWER CLEANOUT 04E 362.00 AT EASEMENT LINE _5�1 zl YD 8 (6- WITH 12- CAST IRON GE 377.88 SEWER UT LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVER IE 368.00 w1112- HEKBOLTS, 71?�) IE 374.88 z z SEWER CLEANOUT AT MEMENT LINE �(60 WiTH 12m C4ST IRON LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVER w1112- HEX�IOLTS, TYP.) _380- IE. 340.10 A IA 3' HIGH WA YARD MIN TABLE YD# RW IE 370.00 36700 J6100 J60.00 354.00 351.00 J49.75 J4zoo J5Z75 J55,00 kav GARDEN BOTTOM AREA = 289 SF, -340- SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET Ln Lo 3:1 SLJPE `MHj 10 RIM 348. 10 IE 340.70 USE LOW PERMEABLE SOIL FOR BERM ARFA MH#ld 0.00 0111 7A 1 ')Q J� IE 334.5 8 4 A CBJ6 GE J ,134.55 EX. CB E TOP 337.28 qc, NV 334.54 N 1-1 = 334.39 W `,, FX. CRMH #F 1. REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED OF ANY PLAT IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCITON. 2. SEE SITE PLAN AND DRAWAGE/UTILITY PLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION, 1 COMPACTED 3" COARSE WOODCHIP MULCH BERM (ABOVE PONDED AREA) - - - - - - - - - - 341.00 V rx - - - - - - - - - INLET PIPE. SET 0. 1" MIN. - - - -- - - - - - - - ROCKLINED OVERFLOW ABOVE RAIN GARDEN FLOOR. (SEE NOTE 4) rzow ROOF DRAIN 1E. 340.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 340.50 INSTALL RIP RAP DISPERSION PAD ------- 90LF 6" 0 7,677. PONDING DEPTH VARI SEE NOTE I FLOOR: 340.00 RAIN GARDEN BOTTOM 7t: 3" COMPOST MULCH IN PONDING AREA TYPICAL RA17V GARDEN DRARVA GE SECTION A -A (jV -17 1�11 PIP V, N.T.S. RAIN GAP -DEN EYSTALLA TION NOTES: 1. PONDING DEPTH SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 5 (6 OR 12 INCHES). 2. BIORETENTION SOIL DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES FOR FLOW CONTROL AND A MINIMUM OF 16 INCHES FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT. J. SCARIFY SUBGRADE 3" MIN. BEFORE 131ORETENTION SOIL INSTALLATION, 4. SIZE TO CONVEY DESIGN OVERFLOW. 5. APPROVED PLANTS FOR RAIN GARDEN PER GEOTECH ARE RED TWIG DOGWOOD, RUSHES, SEDGES, SALMONBERRY AND TWINBERRY AND ORNAMENTALS SUCH AS ROYAL FERNS, BIG -LEAVED LIGULARIAS OR VARIOUS PRIMROSES, a Lmgbl= ! C %JfC4%7 4 d Ie.*# I r % r Wit I.It I Y, I* r. :2 v :�j v m I AMOL r&lsc i i d i. I d I.P-. 1.7% r m I r %III r%,. orNlrA %, r juj"w lr cl rcmalit ml N91 mcit IL*..* 1% Aj ir 4 L % 1 111111 1110 1 0 -1 IN.% 1,C 641 n r6r FINI r I IAN r %6r I I I Ne U 1 E-1 .1 In %;J +-.A;m a 1`�Ll 1+ Cr%r..;%L VlA i m mr-i ink Its tiff i I% i -wr-:0 I"- 1 1-1 L it .1 4`6111 1 1 111-11 'NJ .11.1% LJ.'A':% k rx' k UmFULr a m i Irl r% it r NN m m il P 1 15 1 .-1 16. 1" .0 IL I..Lk%. 116 4.4'1.LJ Lpmilla fj:.rjX -An I a L-v -in a I INA IN m; r m L.;q wJ bi i i win r, J 6 &,a%e m4iv I k7 ;k#A I rr r i I i rw r fs*Lr- i s Jrj I a-i ori i ea i r. I wLi m&I A i. -Im maJ I.. L I I bal 1 1 a, I, I 1 1 J 1%. 1 ;; v I 1W. IN 0 1 t-.v?y7l e I, I I I. i i-i-r: i ieq-6-e, f A-Y 1p 5ro*ey 4 i"r. r. 11,66rd I s". .8 rybi I; eex ".viwllrre x It -I No -m% I ir IM. :.I Nr i I au 10 1 NINA': -P91 P LJ -Ll A IIIA4 J I -J.IA.L% L I % .,e -rK--m- ri f , u � -e in -e t rz k7ryr-m n l* v Iv, re Yy*:! v I LL I r a. IMUNN :.11 URN..% V%A. A % I- Ir -6 at �r C6 MIA I'll III As .1 Ipr i bmLL-.. 'A6 J & lLr MoLl UTlLflTC0NFZ1CTN0,TE.- CA UTION. - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING 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 AND THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE @ 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCA77ONS 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 CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. CUL nVOl'l I B USI7NESS DA YS tl-lv BEFORE YOUDIG 1-800-424-5555 oo'g SPECIFICATIONS AND CODES, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL MUNICIPAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS: - CURRENT INTERNA77ONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) - 2010 WSOOTIAPAA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION - WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN (CURRENT EDITION) 2. STANDARD PLAN AND TYPE NUMBERS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE J. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOBSITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 4. DEVIATIONS FROM THESE PLANS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD ALL APPROVED DEVIATIONS FROM THESE PLANS ON A SET OF "AS -BUILT" DRAWINGS AND SHALL SUMMARIZE ALL AS -BUILT CONDITIONS ON ONE SET OF REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE OWNER PRIOR PROJECT COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. A SET OF AS -BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING OCCUPANCY/FWAL PROJECT APPROVAL. 6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET. SEE SURVEY FOR BENCHMARK INFORMATION. 7. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY OTHERS BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND PROTECT ANY OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTA77ON OF THIS PLAN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION, DEPTH, SIZE, TYPE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES AT CONNECTION OR CROSSING POINTS BEFORE TRENCHING FOR NEW UTILITIES. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF CONFLICTS THAT ARISE, 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUC77ON AND SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE BEFORE STARTING WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 10. PIPE LENGTHS WHERE SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHERE APPLICABLE) AND SHALL THOROUGHLY FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE CONTENTS THEREOF, ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT. 12. STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 13. MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, UTILITIES AND PAVEMENT SHALL BEAR ON MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE NATIVE SOIL OR COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL. IF SOIL IS DISTURBED, SOFT LOOSE, WET OR IF' ORGANIC MATERIAL IS PRESENT AT SUBGRADE ELEVATION, REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 14. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO DETERA41NE IF FOOTING DRAWS ARE REQUIRED. FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM SYSTEM, TIGHTLINE TO DRYWELL AS SHOWN ON PLAN, 15. ALL REQUIRED STORMWATER FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 16. ALL ROOF DRAINS AND CATCH BASINS SHALL BE CONNECTED To THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS NOTED 07HERWISE. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. 18, AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH COMPOST AMENDED SOIL PER STORMWATER MANUAL DETAIL T5,13. 19, ALL DISTURBED SOIL AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR STABILIZED BY OTHER ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR THE PREVENTION OF ON -SITE EROSION AFTER THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR SPECIFIC GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS, 20. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF -SITE STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY SWEEPING. WASHING OF THESE STREETS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL, 21. SLOPE OF FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE CONSTANT BETWEEN FINISHED CONTOURS OR SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN, a . =OF EDMOlWS APPROVED FOR CONSM UCTION RMLIC WOPSS DRECTOR DAM 2 1 REVISED RAINGARDEN SJR 09-21-2011 �Lj REVISIONS PER CITY SJR 07-12-2011 REV. NO. I DESCRIPTION INITIALS DATE INSOGHT INGINMIRONG Co. P.O. BOX - 1478 EVERETT, WA 98206 (425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX INFO@INSIGHTENGINEERINGNET S17E ADDRESS: 22804, 22806 96TH PL. W. EDMONDS, W4. 98020 TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S: BLD. 20100757 BLD. 20100758 'or NW114, NE114, SECTION 36, T.27N., ME., W.M. CLEARWATER DWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY, DATE: SCALE: JOB NO... 36499 1 tSTV, 100525 -FINAL, DWG IS.ROSE 0511712011 1 1'�-20' 10-0525 ONAL SHEET C2 DRANAGEIUMIMS Of 2