22808 96TH PL W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiii
9514
22808 96TH PL W
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMB]
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRU(
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
qtkw PL- �j
q 5-1 q-000 -OD�
�wh - 1, atpl &
r- 12
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver N&Study Required 0 Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: Zol - :I i 0 — U,
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: -
PERMITS
- Mln�cl -
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: q I d C�J- , ;7-1 (� I I
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: 610(p, 0
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILET-DD I - 2- J LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S'
SOILS REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LATEMP\DST's\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
City of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:
cIwrwcftr tbme5
PropertyOwner:
Critical Area File #:
Permit Number:
1� 0 -7 a +
Site Location:
-r"fi
Parcel Number:
10095-7'90 0 1) 00 (POD
Project Description:
L_Of#IO WCW 5f-F_ CCX.-f-OLAVIaC[-hO-V-1)
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.
F� 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:
1 . v*1 The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. Vl The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. V'1 The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4.7 Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the cri tical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. V 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 in' 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.
F� Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
6ivia Gouo'/ 0 0
Reviewer S�ignature 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
0
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
11 Street
Name: u foww at-c* m -e 9
Review Date:
-ft
Site Address: q/ 1/ 9; C) 0 C1 Lp TI-i P L VV
Permit Number: F3LD -kO I D 0-79+
Project Description: NZVV on �CX. f-D L4 V1 .rt 61-h V1
Zoning: P-6 — 9
1 Comp Plan:
Corner Lot: (YES
lag Lot: (YES / 16
Small Site Plan: NO)
ADU.Created: (YES NO)
LLA: ---
CUP:
Variance:
Shoreline:
Subdivision/Legal/Recording Number:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES NO)
Critical Areas Determination #:
El Study Required
El Waiver
SEPA Determination:
eq Setbacks
R Req ired
Street:
Side:
el -7- 5'
Side: -7-57
\A/
Rear:
."Actual Setbacks-,---.
Street:
Side: 7. 95"
Side: 7,,5
1 Rear: Lfo
Detached Structures * Rockeries/Retaining Walls e Fences/Trellises/Arbors
Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation 9 > 30" Stairs 9 Covered Deck/Porch 0 > 30" Eaves
Chimney/Fireplace 9 Uncovered Unenclosed < 30" Deck/Porch/Patio
Parking Required: 2
Parking Provided:
Coverage Required: 35%
Coverage Provided: 1 -7
Lot Area:
Lot Coverage
Calculations:
B ilding Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height: 25'
Actual Height:
Plan Review By: Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
of E i),V
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 ST H AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020
PHONE: (425) 7 71-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
STATUS: ISSUED 6/6/2007
Expiration Date: 6/6/2008
Parcel No: 00937900000600
PROPER'n'OWNER APPLICANT CONTRACTOR
REGAL HOMES REGAL HOMES REGAL HOMES
2306 119TH ST SW 2 306 119T H ST SW 2306 119T H ST SW
EVERETT, WA 98204 EVERETT, WA 98204 EVERETT, WA 98204
425-290-7660 425-290-7660
LICENSE #: REGALHL975ON EXP:9/17/2007
NEW SFR
VALUATION: $250,761
ma'+'
PERMIT TYPE: Residential
PERMIT GROUP: 64 - Single Family Residence Nei
GRADING: Y CYDS: 275
T YP E OF CONST RUCT ION: VB
RETAINING WALL ROCKERY: N
OCCUPANT GROUP: R3
OCCUPANT LOAD:
FENCE: N ( 0 X 0 FT.)
CODE: 2003
,OTHER N ----- - OTHER DESC:
ZONE� RS-8
INUMBER OF STORIES: 2
IVESTED DATE:
INUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: I
E-X I A R EA
BASEMENT: 0 1 ST FLOOR: 0 2ND FLOOR- 0
11 110 110 S ED A It F�%
BASEMENT: 0 IST FLOOR: 1302 2ND FLOOR: 1249
13 RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 0 DECK: 0 OT HER: 0
3RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 445 DECK: 24 OTHER:O--
FRONTSEfBACK SIDESETBACK REAR S ETBACK
REQUIRED: NORTH 25' PROPOSED: 33 IREQUIRED: EAST 7.5- PROPOSED: 7.��UIRED: SOUTH 15' PROPOSED: 31
HEIGHT ALLOWED:25 PROPOSED:25 IREQUIRED: WEST 7.5' PROPOSED: 8 1
SETBACK NOTES: PATIO LOCATION OK PER 10/19/06 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PURSUANT TO ECDC23.40.280.D. BUILDINGIS
SETBACK >10'(1 1,67) FROM TOP OF SLOPE PER PLAT REQUIREMENT.
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND IN DOINGTHE.WORK AUTHORIZED
THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27.
A APPLI A ION MOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIStHTR DEPUTY AND ALL FEES ARE PAID.
-KV I 1 )1, V,— M Ai9," i - I I, kt-e, 1) h3 10— "/" 7 -/,/ /w llellc'� J-
Print Name Date
Released
Date
ATTENTION
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/ IBCI 10/ IRCI 10.
i<ARCHIVE APPUCANT ASSESSOR OTHER
STATUS: ISSUED BLD20061067
CONDITIONS
• Must follow the recommendations of the geotechnical reports. Patio location OK per 10/19/06 Dennis Bruce report and
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.280.D. Building must beset back at least 10 feet fromtop of slope (11.67 shown).
• REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR THIS PROJECT:
1) SOIL BEARING VERIFICATION
2) PROOF ROLLING
3) PLACEMENT OF FILL AND COMPACTION
4) GENERAL SITE MONITORING
5) FfNA L GEOTECHNICA L REPORT
6) SOIL NAILS
Lot line stakes must be in place at the time of foundation/setback inspection.
All new, extended, re -built or relocated electrical utility and/or service shall be placed underground.
Approval of this foundation design is conditional subject to inspection of existing site soil conditions.
Retaining Walls must be designed and constructed to res ist the lateral pressure of the retained material.
Provisions must be made for the control and drainage of surface water around buildings.
• Installer shall provide the manufacturer's installation, operating instructions, and a whole house ventilation system operation
description. A label shall be affixed to the whole house timer control that reads " Whole House Ventilation" (see operating
instructions).
• Maximum Height 25 feet. Measured from average elevation of undisturbed soil at comers of extended building rectangle.
Subject to field check by building department.
Hose Bibbs (exterior faucets) are required to have a permanently affixed anti -siphon device installed.
In addition to the required pressure/relief valve, an approved listed expansion tank shall be installed on all hot water tanks. Per
UPC 608.
Ty pe B or L vent connectors required on fiiel-burn ing app liances pas s ing through unheated s paces. Per IMC 803.2
Obtain Electrical Permit from State Department of Labor & Industries. 425-290-1309
Purs uant to UPC 605.2 a water service s huto If s hall be ins talled on the water line as it enters the b u ild ing.
City approved plas tic p ip ing may be us ed in water s ery ice p iping provided that where metal water s ervice piping is us ed for
electrical grounding purposes, replacement piping shall be of like materials (UPC 604.8). A state electrical permit and
inspection is required if electrical grounding is altered, removed, improved, or added. Contact State Dept. of Labor &
Industries Electrical Division at 425-290-1309.
Submit all special inspection reports to the City Building Inspector on a weekly bas is.
Any request for the modification, variance or other administrative deviation (hereinafter "variance") must be specifically called
out and identified. ' Approval of any plat or plan containing provisions which do not comply with City code and for which a
variance has not been specifically identified, request and considered by the appropriate City official in accordance with the
appropriate provision of City code or State law does not approve any items not to,code specification.
Pursuant to UPC 608 a.pressure regulator valve (PRV) shall be installed near the water shutoff.
SoundfNoise originating fromtemporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from the noise limits
of ECC Chapter 5.30 only during the hours of 7:00amto 6:00pmon weekdays and 10:00amand 6:00pmon Saturdays, excluding
Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all, other times the noise originating from construction sites/activites must comply with the
noise limits of Chapter 5.30, unless a variance has been granted pursuant to ECC 5.30.120.
I INSPECTIONS
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC,) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT TIME LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
BUI]LDING (425) 771-0220 E)CF. 1333 1 ENGINEERING (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1326 1 FTRE (425) 771-0215
I PUBLIC WORKS (425) 771-0235 1 PR&TRENTMENT(425) 72-5755 1 RECYCLING (425) 275-4801 :]
When calling for an inspection please leave the follo%ing information: Permit Number, Job Site Address, Type of Inspection being
reauested Contact Name and Phone Number. Date Prefereed. and mbether vou Prefer mornint! or afternoon.
E-Erosion Control/Mobilization
E-StormTightiine
B-Stonn Connect to Stub
E-Footing Drain Connection
E-Footing Drywell
&Water Service Line
B-Engineering Final
B-Setbacks
B-Footings
B-Foundation Wall
B-Isolated Footings/Piers
B-Retaining Wall
B-Slab Insulation
B-Plumb Ground Work
B-First Floor Frarning
B-Plumb Rough In
B-Gas Test/Pipe
B-Equipment-Mech
B-Dderior Sheathing
B-Shear Nailing
B-Height Verification
B-Framing
B-Wall Insulation/Caulk
B-Floor Insulation/Caulk
B-Ceiling Insulation/Caulk
B-Sheetrock Nail
B-Building Final
" LDf #(P "
NAME: V—fo!3 C1 I ft()
SITE ADDRESS: 2,2,9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PLANNING DATA
DATE:
PLAN
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?:
MAP PAGE:-0.54 CORNER LOT: (Yes 16"6� FLAG LOT: (Yes
-. 111;� I __AD
ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION V000 I
0 StudyRequired: ftw of 151op& r"!�? aiwq
L] Waiver
arpmvt6L 10� 1)"yiA's Brv(-e-
Conditional Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION: E%ey-ye,
UL) Fee lit+ NOW
Checklist
UAPO list w/ notarized form
U(Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
8 Exempt 116 0 (AkIO fC, Y4 V'61 6 of gracli'vig pki>posed.
*____1P'SETBACKS:
rn 4 lct s' L4 Ir-f- Required Setbacks: W S
t4 Street: 2.6 Inv%Side: RiqbtSide: I-S' Rear: 15'
6" e7lop& Actual Setbacks: ox^ WWI
C N Street: f? 6ok ar:
.)*VA(*'6 X., Side: R TO 1�7 mi
JpLA ff Zvi; Street map checkedfor additional setback required? (Yes I No I
Aft, LJ DETACHED STRUCTURES: N t)Vle j,0VW" ()VI ep f +C, P I d V1.
0jo ;&Yvt d. . Ll ROCKERIES: N DVU, C7KOVVVI OVI I, f tr, J7 I a A.
LJ FENCE SITRELLISES: N 0 V1 -le 4i LA 0 WIA OVI +r, P I
LJ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION:
V"
U STAIRS I DECKS: P a-h D ft U-M 0VC5) IOLA t- me- 61C.0 tc.LA rc-f 0
e7
,,V ( fb A
q0. 7
'C6 (). p. .
-PARKING- Required: 2- Actual: t t OWC 6t I -C
LOTAREA:_Lls 006 Pf 11 IVOtO 31*Vitoy) 111,00r, P '5plovvri C)yl rtt'0ydf'd
LOT COVtZKAUL:
Calculations: 2,643 0 6 FjL i I D t-A rt 4 -_ VS
BUILDING HEIGHT -
Datum Point: 4 -�p 7,�atum Elevation: DID
A1<C4 . S. gr (P
3
Maximum Allowed: Actual "eight: 0
0 C, er 0
A.D_U. CREATED?: &Yes
one.
4-3
C)
SUBDIVISION: P-'2'C)o1 - 2j� ( in-
14 4 -k -,i- -.
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: (Ke—S le
OTHER:?, lArV &-A
&'y
Plan Review By:
NewBPP1ann1ngDataForm,D0C
LH I
OLYMPIC VIEW ESTA-f
XXCA >< om
6 --I> = x
- z 29 ]!! Ln
m .1 * 0 m rz- :Z:
ol �o
> 4-920
Mm 0 0 <
mo
K >
oz m
c: oc) z
Ln
0 -n
m 0 ;o
Z 0
N 00'39'40" E— 536.87'
37' 156.62' SIMON
_01 0 V) 133.37'
Z: m
0 m 00
U)
MOM
_01 M M j� 0
M 0 m
'AIN L> > V)
C7 >
V)
M
Ln r- >
\\ r-
U')_ ON.
CAL
un 04.
o
Ln
%p L
--24.68A
'25'22#'
04 9\
Cp N
IRL"Irg-c— 1. 1 OD
I 4th, 00
A e (D INS
cl�
OD
u-,
6% Ln Aj
uk 00 (40,
L4
N) , cp u)) C#
V)
C61 0) NN
OLYMPIC MEW WATER
Ni q)
AND SEWER DISTRICT (D ()cr
ay. Ln
SANITARY SEWER X
I U)
EASEMENT -SEE DETAIL. 0 a I
ON SHEET 4 OF 4 1 IN
I I lei I I I a
IN omo
>
U) >
m
>
C
r. m
CO
- A'" 0
2 > m
%pl
��l ,
z _
�jj
g>zU
-z
z.,.g
m 5:1i
Q >
V,l 2�-A,;VQU co &
a
1
. 2
2
p
M
-z
A:
.A. m
.P. Z
,c
p
il, cc z r.
z�
,z
m
12M.- 0.. - ,
v
o� 1.
.z
o -2 U,
Eq > Xgl, gv
A m g 2.
z
>
'AS k12 29h o'.
z, z
m
"Ra- p
T
o
icc
WAS
to
0-Al
5
Cc
0
mnm
c �;qz
sRn.,svllN Ix
IP.A r> %4
P z 2" To
vzz ,
>
g g 4x .
CO P-SAm-Ho.... '..
5j io
0
2-18 >
c c U -K
z r
m A. I
z
28
9A
-z
26.2Z N'NAMI.
-c-:� 2 >
L
8,21 2q z
?2 ig P .
X�, m 2�,2a �' 2
m
M
C- - fig�t_
2q 9 g2q 2 g-a>A K I I
21 -014 m
HY: ?Q 99-'R Pz 1 9 �' il T �g q c�
> Eq� N, *- FUR 2 �l 3 2 Z
>
m
2 >.-I 019 '9
5 2c��2 z .1'. .2 2
V2 Z, 5
Z
Am 2
z
Iz
t fiz "m Jp,
I
cz
0 HZI Z, .m
H
0
WO
> x z q
om
I o
M c -z
V 2
... ... .... 5
r r r t 5jv"�2 q 9 z
10 10, <0 pg p q f mxzo�jo� g 0
> RUN
2-c� 'o
Z 0 M I - j T
0 r 'o ICE 2 2 z r
z S2 Niggh- 4z
M
m 0 GNzKo
o G) 00 !, =; . o 0.
z > m
0 0 c z hl M
m m
> z
z M,
> < r
m > - Wi-g,
Z z
c 0
m m
z m
go 0 AUld
M, Xz
0: "o, * A
z------- A
rp
C041"..
CO 'o
7, ilb t�? .0
31. Pp k
8
CD K) in
0
0
m 0
m f, c
4
.4 Z 1 2'
m A
at
co
z Cl)
0 m
X 0
0 -1
r 0
co Z
1 -4
.< W
0
00
c n
z m
-4
0
z
> 0 w
(j) Co m
2; .
z
0
0
z
0
0
qRq.-&�:MERE: WEST
7 12
CHAINUNK
0.3* N
E)os3wc 4, IDOLS',
IMOCID FEN
N 08'22'W W
28th STREET S.W.
----------
,3.00.
O.r
I - ;. / — ..
ILOOD SF
M SF
E . ROCIKERY
EXISTNGjp
-:&072 SF
I+—
EASEMENT
3
WOOD 7D
0.7' W
-0
PER IF- NO-
4 , . , . ,
2002IM310273
1-6161' .'Vl
R
4
In
EXISTING 6.—
w
WOW FENCE
th PL W. -P
VARIES FROM
0 4' W TO
N W-2
N K. ELISE
-*E SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E.. W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
S SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHIN43TON
SCALE : 1'-56
6Tswsi!!%mlli
0' 10'20'W'40'50' 75* Too'
SCALE - 1'�15'
o 41 8
0 . 7' W
Z9.7a-
,AD
IV CITY OF EDMONDS
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
0' 10' 15'
In
4 t Nj
SEE OCTAA. ON
SHEET 4 OF 4
W
B.IGG SF .60 -- ------
t; 16 6g5 IF
E�STING 5,5'
WOOD FENCE
7
N 34 22" E
E=TNG 5
I
11 1\
i
VARIES FROM
ILS W TO 0.5* W
4,
1
CNA.0 K FENCE
VA W
0.4' W
5
ATRZOWN END TO
30. W AT SOUTH END
".6" sF 6 7_
si,71
END OF
u
jI.OD, sF ,a.,5a iv-_-
TOP OF SLOPE ov
IL
15- SETBACK
SIE
E�Vl
10
�060. t
G ET.
4
A // N �`08'22' E
1,
I, - lArEN
NE4
0
50e.C.D. NO. I
C
Of Ism OMISH Couj%Ty-
8
N IND�
54'42*28 OFF TOMP
EASE-Z'g.
kf._�.' 2027210
14.5 OF SLOPE
k:
7
Sol,
Qw 0'
X,
10
"I .:-"
" -
. -' 5 0
88'22'W W---
—
47.923
SF e
0
'01
11
,
..
"
..... ... ...
00* -------
---
-
15' SEIB
SEE DETAIL ON
SHUT OF 4
q
- -
.
.3 WALE 1'-30*
6
9
z 6mw5ii
10.293 SF
15* VTpJT,
Top
OE 0' 15' 30'
SLOPE
_j
DL.
z
EASEMENT
TTPICAL
....
... t
15, ... %
STEEP SLOPE PROTECTION EASEMENT
THE STEEP SLOPE AREA AND ITS BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE TO BE PROTECTED AS FOLLOWS
NO BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN 15 FEET OF THIS EASEMENT UNLESS A STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION IS
APPROVED AS PROVIDED FOR IN ECDC SECT10N 20.159.110.D.2- NO YARDS, DECKS, GRADING OR OTHER
DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED N THE EASEMENT UNLESS A STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION 5 APPROVED AS
DESCRIBED ABOVE. NO MODIFICATION TO THE LANDSCAPING IS PERMITTED WTHOUT SUBMITTING A PLAN
To THE PLAHNtNC DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL.
NOTE ' A PREUMNAPY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED WN THE MAT TO ESTABLISH NAT
SCIL COMPOSTION AHD CHARACTER MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION.
P,
... ...........
LEGEND
@) � SET 4 . X 4' CASED CONCRETE MONUMENT
"TH 1-5/8- BRASS DISK WN _X_
SSB - STEEP SLOPE BUFFER
NOTE
ALL LOT CORM34S AND THE INTERSECTIONS/CORNERS
OF THE 15' SETB CK FROM THE STEEP SLOPE SUFFERS
WILL BE MARKED WIN 1/2- X 24- RON PIN$ WN
PLASTIC CAPS NO'D. 22969. AS CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED
AFN
IN NWI/4. NEI/4, SECTIP-N-1 6. T.,27W.*,*�I.3E., W. M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & AS`SGr0IATr.S;'lNC._._...
19400 33RD AVENUE W., SL*Tli 20Q ...... :Z.
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 9610.3a--4 I*..7lf__
5.159t.
LSA FILE NO. 4211 6HEET. <3- OF 4
El
SCALE
G`f� 70 �0' ow
5V PRIVATE
DRAINAGE EA S EMENT
TO BENE T
LOTS 1-8
K. ELISE
R-45 00' SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E., W.M.
L�7,54' CITY OF EDMONDS
R-41 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L= 75
8
N ;4'25' SCALE 1'-50'
ol 4.64'
uTTLI'
0' EASEMENT
26.84'
N89'29'5rW iv UTUTY
EASEMENT
N; -a;MONDS 1.72' 'o 3'T 5a,
To,
EASEMENT N89W*57'W .
-0
10
50'
- — --------- :% oL,MPIr A*w -TER
' - TR16
EP
"Y_ _R_r
A OS 'C—T
EX 50' P.U.D. NO.
OF SNOHOMISH TY
. ..... TRANSMISSION LNE EASEMENT
; R-1 a. PER A.F. NO. 2027210
SCALE L � , I
1'-50' R-13ea.ag'
L-597.49' '
_"7 '5_
6
1121 w
r T.
SCALE ; 1'-20'
Tsil%@
0' 10' 20'
10
TOE OF SLOPE
N 88'22'40' w-aO.00-
N 82100
3.
.2
15' SETUACK r
—�t5 — — A- — " '0' ,
N eel K23' C
9
Vo
N 1. 1
0,
ENtr OF
TOE OF SLW7WE 107
E�
NO
TOD OF
E M
7 1 los SLOPE
0' 5
SLOPE
�4
�—N .
TOE
(IF SLOPE
27'07 39 E
8.3z
.............
7� 't SCALE
6
0' 5' 30'
TOE OF
I
SLOPE I'%,
"ba 10.
4,
. ..... ... . .. ...
. :L
IN 9972'W
80.00�' AFN
IN NWI/4, NEI/4, SECTIO!4--919. T-2LTbI-*:-8-3E-. W.M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASS E
19400 33RD AVENUE W.. SLJIT-9'200
LYNNWOOD. WASHINGTON 980�18---;Ii2a�,7-715'1591
LSA FILE NO. 4211 SHEET.4-6F' 47-
0
GEOTE ICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
.SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS 6 AND 7
OC& 96 TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
El 1729
,March 31, 2005
PREPARED FOR
REGAL HOMES, LL
Steve\J. Scharf
pJAA
w
0
z
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Manager of Geotechnical Services
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 643-3780
Toll -Free 1 (888) 739-6670
(JoZb - IDO
nor
a t REE7 FILE
REC,91VED
AUG 4 2005
PERMIT COUNTER
WPORTANT INFORMATW
ABOUT YOUR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
face conditions than any other factor As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are offered
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities,
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the report may
affect its recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your oeotechnical engineering report should not
be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed, for example, if an office building will be
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre-
frigerated one;
• when the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered;
• When the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• when there is a change of ownership, or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid-
ered in their report's development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall subsurface conditions, -their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by
earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate-
riais may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their
impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be
needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
advisable before construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground-
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to
determine if additional tests are necessary
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet
the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
consulting civil engineer Unless indicated otherwise,
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer.
1� I
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION
Costly problems can occur when other design profes-
sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations
of a geotechnical engineering report. 1b help avoid
these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be
retained to work with other appropriate design profes-
sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to
review the adequacy of their plans and specifications
relative to geotechnical issues.
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE
SEPARATED FROM THE
ENGINEERING REPORT
Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi-
neers based upon their interpretation of field logs
(assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation
of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are
included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs
should not under any circumstances 6e redrawn for inclusion in
architectural or other design drawings, because drafters
may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
Although photographic reproduction eliminates this
problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of
contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara-
tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici-
pated costs are the all -too -frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta-
tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical
engineering report prepared or authorized for their use.
Those who do not provide such access may proceed un-
der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re-
sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information
always insulates them from attendant liability Providing
the best available information to contractors helps pre-
vent costly construction problems and the adversarial
attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate
scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY
CLAUSES CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively
on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical
engineers have developed model clauses for use in writ-
ten transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses
designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto
someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which
identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities
begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec-
ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro-
priate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely
to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and
you are encouraged to read them closely Your geo-
technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank
answers to your questions.
OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
REDUCE RISK
Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit-
igate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of
materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a
complimentary copy of its publications directory
Published by
THE ASSOCIATION
OF ENGINEERING FIRMS
ASF I 1_11-111— IN THE OEOSCIENCES
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0788/3M
Earth Coiisultants, Inc.
Gooteclinical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists
Construction Testing & 1CB0 / WABO Inspection Services
I
IMarch 31, 2005
Regal Homes, LLC
2306— 11 91h Street Southwest
Everett, Washington 98204
Attention: Mr. Marko Liias
IDear Mr. Liias:
I
I
I
I
I
11
EStablished 1975
E-1 1729
Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) is pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Single -Family Residence, Lots 6 and 7, 228XX — 96" Place West,
Edmonds, Washington". This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective
laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were
outlined in our March 1, 2005, proposal.
Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the development of the lots with
single-family residences is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Support
for the single-family residences may be provided using conventional spread and
continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on structural
fill. Slab -on -grade floors may be similarly supported.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if
we can be of further assistance, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Steve J. Scharf
Staff Geologist
SJS/KMW/lap
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, WA 98005
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670
Other Locations
Fife
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-1 1729
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1
General
1
ProjectDescription
...........................................................................................
1
Scopeof Services
2
............................................................................................
SITECONDITIONS ................................................................................................
2
Surface
2
Subsurf ace
3
Groundwater
4
LaboratoryTesting ...........................................................................................
4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5
...............................................................
General
5
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
6
..............................................................
Stripping....................................................................................................
6
Structural Fill
7
SlopeFill Placement .....................................................................................
8
Foundations
8
Slab -on -Grade Floors ........................................................................................
10
RetainingWalls
................................................................................................
10
Seismic Design Considerations ..........................................................................
11
GroundRupture ...........................................................................................
11
Liquefaction................................................................................................
11
SlopeFailure
...............................................................................................
11
Ground Motion Response .............................................................................
12
Excavationsand Slopes
12
....................................................................................
SiteDrainage ...................................................................................................
13
LIMITATIONS................................................................................
14
......
AdditionalServices ...........................................................................................
14
I
I
IEarth Consultants, Inc.
I
0 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Continued
E-1 1729
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Plate 2
Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3
Slope Fill Placement
Plate 4
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Plate A 1
Plates A2 through A7
Appendix B
Plate 131
Field Exploration
Legend
Test Pit Logs
Laboratory Test Results
Grain Size Analyses
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS 6 AND 7
228XX —96 TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 1729
INTRODUCTION
General
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth
Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for two single-family residence lots located at 228XX - 96 1h Place
West, in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity
Map, Plate 1.
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and
based on the conditions encountered, develop geotechnical engineering
recommendations for developing the site with two new single-family residences.
Project Description
The subject site consists of two, single-family residence lots (Lots 6 and 7) within a new
eight lot, residential development located in the 22800 block of 96" Place West in
Edmonds, Washington.
We understand it is planned to develop each lot with a new single-family residence.
Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the proposed residences will
be two to three stories in height and will be of relatively lightly loaded wood -frame
construction with a combination of slab -on -grade and wood joist floors. We anticipate
wall loads will be on the order of 2 to 4 kips per lineal foot and column loads will be in
the range of 50 to 60 kips. We estimate slab -on -grade floor loads will be approximately
150 pounds per square foot.
Based on observed surface conditions at the time of our field exploration, we anticipate
the proposed residences will be constructed at or near existing grade with estimated cuts
and fills generally in the range of five feet or less.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 2
Scope of Services
We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in
our March 1, 2005 proposal. On this basis we excavated six test pits on the lots and
our study addresses the following:
0 Surface and subsurface soil and water conditions;
Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including stripping depth
recommendations, details of structural fill placement and compaction;
Suitability of existing on -site materials for use as structural fill, and
recommendations for imported fill materials;
9 Seismic hazard review, including an evaluation of potential liquefaction hazards;
Short term and long-term groundwater management and erosion control
measures;
Foundation design recommendations, including bearing capacity and lateral
pressures for walls and structures;
* Estimates of potential total and differential settlement magnitudes; and
0 Temporary and permanent slope recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surf ace
The subject site consists of two, irregular shaped residential lots located in the 22800
block of 96" Place West, around 400 feet southwest of the intersection of 228' Street
Southwest and 96 1h Place West in the City of Edmonds, Washington (see Plate 1,
Vicinity Map). The subject lots are bordered to the east and west by undeveloped lots
within the tract, to the north by a cul-de-sac at the end of 96" Place West, and to the
south by a southeast-f acing slope. The south and east sides of the site are bordered by
sanitary sewer and storm water easements.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
11
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 3
The topography to the south of Lot 6 consists of a southeast facing slope that
descends approximately 50 feet from the southern property line to the toe of slope
around 95 feet to the south with approximate gradients of 30 to more than 100
percent. The topography within Lot 6 is relatively level between the north property line
along 96' Place West and the southern property line around 110 feet to the south.
The topography within Lot 7 consists of a south facing, gradually descending slope
that extends roughly 80 feet beyond the south property line with gradients in the range
of 10 to 30 percent.
The majority of the site is sparsely vegetated with tall grass, Scots broom, blackberry
bushes, and miscellaneous ground cover. The slope to the south of the site is
vegetated primarily with blackberry bushes, Scots broom, and sparse deciduous trees.
Suhsurfanp
Subsurface conditions were evaluated by excavating three test pits in Lot 6 and three
test pits in Lot 7 at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2, Test Pit Location Plan.
The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of nine feet below existing grade
using a rubber -tired backhoe. Our test pit logs are included as Plates A2 through A7.
Please refer to the test pit logs for a detailed description of the conditions encountered
at each test pit location. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface
conditions encountered.
Based on subsurface conditions encountered in Test pits TP-2 and TP-3, Lot 6 is
underlain by two to five feet of existing fill comprised of loose to medium dense silty
sand (Unified Soil Classification SM). Lot 7 contains six feet of fill comprised of loose
to medium dense silty sand as encountered in Test Pits TP-5 and TP-6. The fill
thickness appears to increase to the south toward the top of the descending slope.
The fill was characterized by its loose condition, its disturbed appearance, and
presence of trace household debris.
In Test Pits TP-2, TP-3, TP-5, and TP-6, the existing fill is underlain by glacial till
comprised of dense to very dense silty sand with gravel to the maximum exploration
depth.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
U
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 4
No fill was encountered in Test Pit TP-1 (Lot 6) or Test Pit TP-4 (Lot 7). In Test Pit TP-
1 we encountered eight feet of silty sand with gravel (SM) over poorly graded sand
with silt and gravel (SP-SM). In Test Pit TP-1, the native soils were medium dense
from the surface to around three and one half feet below grade then became dense to
very dense to the maximum depth explored. In Test Pit TP-4 (Lot 7), we encountered
dense to very dense silty sand from the existing ground surface to the maximum depth
explored.
Groundwater
Light seepage was encountered in Test Pit TP-6 at five feet below existing grade. The
observed seepage appeared to consist of seasonal perched groundwater, with
groundwater collecting in a relatively permeable sand lens surrounded by low
permeability soils. No seepage was observed at the remaining test pit locations.
The contractor should be aware that groundwater levels should not be considered
static. Groundwater levels may fluctuate significantly depending on the season,
amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the groundwater
.level is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the
field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering
characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by
grain size analyses on representative samples. Moisture content tests were performed
on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are
contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not
accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical engineering
recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI cannot be
responsible for the interpretation of these data by others.
In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil
samples for this project will be discarded after a period of 15 days following
completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
11
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the construction of the proposed
single-family residences is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint.
Support for the proposed residences may be provided using conventional spread and
continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on newly
placed structural fill.
The southern portions of the lots are underlain by up to six feet of existing fill that
appears to have been pushed over the top of slope that borders the lots to the south.
The existing fill slope along the south side of Lot 6 is in an over steepened condition.
In our opinion, the loose fill that was encountered near the top of the slope in the
southern portions of the lots should be reworked and compacted to the requirements of
structural fill. The existing fill along the top of the slope should be over -excavated and
replaced in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Slope Fill Placement
section of this report.
The existing fill is also unsuitable for direct support of the proposed buildings. If fill is
encountered at construction subgrade elevations, it should be overexcavated and
replaced with structural fill. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the bottom of the
overexcavation should be compacted in -place to the requirements of structural fill.
Alternatively, the foundation elements may also be extended through the existing fill and
bear on the underlying dense native soils.
The subject lots are bordered to the south by an approximately 40 to 50 foot high,
south -facing steep slope area. In our opinion, provided the existing fill on the south
side of the lots'is over excavated and replaced with structural fill and the structures are
founded on competent native soil or newly placed structural fill, the total construction
setback/buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten feet from the descending steep
slope area.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 6
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use
of Regal Homes, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is
made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents
for the information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
At the time of this study, rough grading had been completed within the limits of the
site. We anticipate cuts and fills on the order of five feet or less will be required to
reach construction subgrade elevations within the proposed building areas. We
anticipate underground utility work to consist of connecting utilities from the existing
stub outs to the buildings.
Stripping
Proposed building, pavement, and areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and
cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter, existing structures or pavements, and other
deleterious material.
Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetative cover encountered in our test pits,
we estimate a stripping depth of approximately four inches. Stripped materials should
not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. The stripped soil materials
may be "wasted" on site in non-structural landscaping areas or exported off site.
Root balls from vines, brush, and trees should be grubbed out to remove roots greater
than about one -inch in diameter. The depth of excavation to remove root balls could
exceed 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on the grubbing methods
used, disturbance and loosening of the subgrade could occur during the grubbing process.
Soil disturbed during the grubbing process should be compacted in -place to the
requirements of structural fill.
Existing underground utilities to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so they
do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems.
IEarth Consultants, Inc.
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 7
Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations,
or slabs are to be placed should be observed by an ECI representative. Where feasible,
the building areas should be proofrolled to identify soft or yielding areas. Proofrolling
should be performed using a fully loaded dump truck and should be observed by a
representative from ECL Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding,
should be overexcavated and replaced with a granular structural fill. For this application,
a woven geotextile such as Mirafi 60OX or an equivalent material can be placed directly
on the subgrade. The geotextile should be used in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
Structural Fill
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts
not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D-1 557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near
their optimum moisture content.
Based on the results of our laboratory tests, the fill soils encountered at our test pit
locations appeared to contain a high moisture content that may not allow for proper
compaction, and may not be suitable for use as structural fill if they are above optimum
levels at the time of construction. The native soils encountered at our test pit locations
appeared be near their optimum moisture levels and should be suitable for use as
structural fill provided the grading work is constructed during the dry season. Wet soils
can be aerated during dry weather to achieve a suitable moisture content for compaction.
Based on the results of our laboratory testing and site observations of soils encountered
at our test pit locations, the site soils have a fines content typically in the range of 18
percent fines or greater passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in excess of
approximately 5 percent are moisture sensitive and will degrade if exposed to excessive
moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases
significantly above its optimum condition.
I
I
IEarth Consultants, Inc.
I
I. ' 0 0
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 8
If the site soils are exposed to excessive moisture, cannot be dried -back to optimum
levels, or if they cannot be adequately compacted, then it may be necessary to import a
soil that can be compacted. During dry weather, non -organic compactable granular soil
with a maximum grain size of four inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather
should consist of a well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of four
inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus
3/4-inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this
possibility.
Slope Fill Placement
In our opinion, the placement of fill on a sloping grade is acceptable, however, where
slope gradients exceed 20 percent, the fill must be keyed and benched into the slope.
This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The
keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of at least two feet
into medium dense or dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be
cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward sloping benches. Typically, the
benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of
the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the
wider the benches.
Plate 3, Slope Fill Placement, shows a schematic diagram of the keyway and benches.
Fntindatinn-Q
Based on the results of our study and provided our recommendations are followed, in
our opinion, the proposed single-family residences may be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or
on newly placed structural fill.
The southern portions of the lots are underlain by up to six feet of existing fill that is
unsuitable for support of the proposed buildings. If fill is encountered at construction
subgrade elevations, it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Prior to
placement of the structural fill, the bottom of the overexcavation should be compacted in -
place to the requirements of structural fill. Alternatively, the foundation elements may
also be extended through the existing fill and bear on the underlying dense native soils.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 9
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below
final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of
12 inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation
elements should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. Continuous and
individual spread footings should have minimum widths in accordance with local
building codes.
With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing
capacity of 2,000 psf for competent native or structural fill soils should be used. Loading
of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of 3.0
against actual shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third
increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used.
With structural loading as expected, total settlement of less than one inch is anticipated
with differential movement of less than one-half inch. Most of the anticipated settlement
should occur during construction as dead loads are applied.
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent
native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35
should be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance should be computed
using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These lateral
resistance values are allowable values, a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included.
Unless overlain by pavements, the passive pressure should be neglected in the upper one
foot. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive
resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not
acceptable or the adjacent, grade slopes away from the foundation at a gradient steeper
than 4H: 1 V (Horizontal:Vertical).
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms
or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 10
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on competent native soil or on newly placed
structural fill. Existing fill should be over excavated to a depth of one foot from slab
areas and replaced with structural fill. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the bottom
of the over excavation should be compacted in -place to the requirements of structural fill.
Loose or disturbed native soil encountered at subgrade elevation during construction
should either be compacted in -place to the requirements of structural fill or overexcavated
and replaced with structural fill.
The slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a minimum
of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel. In addition, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil
plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls and the below grade portions of the foundation should be designed to
support the lateral loads imparted by the retained soils and applicable surcharges. Walls
that are designed to yield should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 35 pcf. If walls are to be restrained
at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to 50
pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges due to backfill
slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads, or other surcharge loads are
assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added
to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity,
and friction coefficient previously provided in the Foundations section are applicable to
the retaining wall design.
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to build up behind the retaining walls,
the retaining walls and the below grade portions of the foundation should be backfilled
with a free -draining material such as pea gravel or washed rock extending at least 18
inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A
rigid, schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35 perforated drainpipe should be placed at the base of
the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with
washed rock. The pipe should be placed with the perforations in the down position.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 11
Seismic Design Considerations
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority of these
events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments. Large
earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the
Olympia area, the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area, and the 2001,
6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake.
There are four potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event
at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, slope failure, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from 30 to 55 miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not
been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at
this site during a strong motion seismic event. is negligible.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of
time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of
grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to
behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a
grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it
must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and
duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or
differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the
liquefaction potential of the site soils is negligible because of the lack of a shallow
ground water table.
ISlope Failure
I
I
I
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, the subject lots and the upper portion
of the descending slope are underlain by dense glacial till within six feet of the surface.
As such, provided the recommendations contained in this study are followed, the risk of a
seismic induced slope failure is minimal.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 12
Ground Motion Response
The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) regulations contain a static force procedure
and a dynamic force procedure for design -base shear calculations. Based on the
encountered soil condition, it is our opinion Site Class C, Very Dense Sofl and Soft Rock,
as def ined in Table 1615. 1. 1 should be used to characterize the site soils.
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state
(WISHA) and federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from
our field exploration and laboratory testing,. the existing fill and surficial native soils
encountered at our test pit locations would be classified as Type C by WISHA/OSHA.
Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an
inclination no steeper than 1.5H:lV. The underlying dense and very dense native soils
encountered during our exploration can be considered Type A by WISHA/OSHA.
Temporary cuts greater than four feet in Type A soils should be sloped at an inclination
no steeper than 0.75H:lV. If groundwater seepage is encountered, the soils should be
treated as a Type C soil and cut accordingly.
If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA/WISHA guidelines,
temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or
excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Fill slope construction should also be observed by an ECI representative to observe
construction methods and test structural fill soils. Supplementary recommendations can
be developed, if needed, to improve slope stability, including flattening of slopes or
installation of surface or subsurface drains.
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
IEarth Consultants, Inc.
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 13
ISite Drainage
Light seepage was encountered in Test Pit TP-6 at five feet below existing grade. The
observed seepage appeared to consist of perched groundwater, with groundwater
collecting in the relatively permeable sand lens. No seepage was observed at the
remaining test pit locations.
If seepage is encountered in the foundation or utility excavations during construction, the
bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The
collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent
discharge point. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary
Ito interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches.
I
I
I
I
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed away
from the building areas, areas to receive structural fill, and site slopes. Water must not
be allowed to stand in areas where structures, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed.
Loose surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for
moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from
the residence foundations and the descending slopes. The ground should be sloped at a
gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the proposed
residences.
Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the residences, at or just below
the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is
provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be con-
nected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to an
approved discharge. Outfall from the downspouts should not outlet within or above the
steep slope. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic
maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
I. ' 0 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Regal Homes, LLC E-1 1729
March 31, 2005 Page 14
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site materials, selective
laboratory testing, engineering analyses, the project information provided us, and our
experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from our
test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those
encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may
not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested
to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing
prior to proceeding with the grading and construction of the residences.
Additional Services
As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general
review of the final design and specifications to verify the earthwork and foundation
recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in
the construction specifications.
ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions
differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
hOPHOU114 226TH ST S
RO
228THI ST-��
N SW
SW
e
� MEASL
n6TH K, Sit S'
277 �z Pt
- N 22'81 11
L:W
226TH
22 T11 STj!,� K SW
1 SC *11,
ST Sw'� "
229T'd ; PL
9 Sr SW
----------
25 R08111 0"
232ND
238TH ST!i-!L:S0W
40TIN
E-0:
ca
X:
5T
Ell
zm
12,n,
�:MJPL
TH S SW
PAW @&ST 2
SW
rs
H
ST S L 4
n3RD S1 SW L
P � S
234TH ST 234TH Z ST
Ne SW ILA
+� � (Y,4 Y R
3
3
'OTT _t
.12 TH ST to '4 N 23
v'_ 238TH ST SW A, 5
W q 5W
2,37TH t, rM VA.
RESTIj WN S
PL, S4'
ST SW 2- MENOR L' 102110 F1 Y'S' -e 7 24OT14— -1 ST
-- APJ CENTM -AV ISY ?L (ELN
UI LV ' ;�, P . P, SW 11 11
01 Z
LE
11, 14- 224lSf-'
i. - F1 VA
9 r2 'L r, Ali �')O e 4'- IND 01 242ND ST Pnu z SW
T - (Stj0lWI4tSH AV)
43 - ';� � - "� " 4 s"'
URRI 01 p
IL 54
:2 S7.-- sw 144r., si.0 ?43RD
11W r1wa
j, ;t TiT27N' ST st z Q_ SW AU aNTZ
T (NW 205TH
411
T
(31 9;11�i 26;96'YST
QN. 114 57
202M) NW
201 ST ST A.N 20 FM ST ir M,
LN 'A NW 201C� 1,
W 201ST ST N 20M ST Z 0 k z
��T- mw�jsl N 201ST ST A WC-,
VILLAGE ?L
=4 PL IMR
-1 1 1. �f_ - -�20M
M 19
HPL
19M St r FL 19 q1H 200TH ST
MW 190111 Pl.
STAN 19FMI ST
- , �, ? - ' I �-'
108TH ST 1 0; 1;9""
5t 19r.] 19 T %Xl STST
I 198TH :
:-"NW 195TH ST 6nf
=-
I ir 0
K, 1961 Y
:6
4�'
x 193FU) NW Ig3RD
1!
93Z
PL
E:
'ST
LAKE �AAI;
$1
-
IN ST ST
IN
k
omit CT
KTS
0
=i 192ND
�0_ S1 z N
NN
192W ST
Hit
93AD
Of MWI
ca� I
RAW
A
RIX
R1
I& Z 191
TH ST 19,
90 A",
H SI
H R L D
IWM III PAal
NU 189?H NW j9jM
P0 Tw N
SR
191%IL St'"'t
st
N
ST V,
192tlD ST
4-
Jua
PAK
W Iam ST I =
oRICHM NO N 88tH
-.' I
ST
S-r
RI ND
EACH
PAN P CVA
185TH Ar
5
'5
L !216-
;5?__a �ZT
ST
4,
2g
PS
M A
184M
DIV
N 185TH -
ST !QI
16 IS
IBM ST
k
U.71 S1 I
44, 183RD' ST
f�' '?v S
ST N 182ND JIM
1a3RD ST
It
IN 18 N
, ST 181ST
0
V�
' ST
NW ig
MN '18( S T
Reference:
Snohomish County
Map 454 t
By Thomas Brothers Maps NORTH
Dated 2005
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
1100�xftl
Earth Consultants, Inc.
99-
Geotechnical Engineering. Geology. Environmental Sciences
consIrt [Clion Testing & WWI / WABO lnsl wrtion Services
Vicinity Map
Single
Family Residence, Lots 6 and 7
228XX 96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. DNM
Date Mar. 2005
Proj. No. 11729
Checked SJS
Date 3/16/05
1 Plate 1
4
3
2
$e
,th
8
TP-4
5 TP-1 1
1
—0— 7
0—
ITP-5
I
6
TP-61
I TP-2
LEGEND
TP-3
TP-1 I
Approximate location of
ECI test pit, Proj. No. E-11729
March 9, 2005
Subject site
6
Lot number
Surrounding lots
t
H
0 60
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN'FEET
REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY CLIENT
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
op ;,.,Earth Consultants, Inc.
echnical Engineering. Geology. Environmental Sciences
Construction Testing & 1CB0 / WABO Inspection Services
Single
Test Pit Location Plan
Family Residence, Lots 6 and 7
228XX 96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. DNM
Date Mar. 2005
Proj. No. 11729
Checked SJS
Date 3/16/05
Plate 2
Existing
Slope should be stripped of topsoil
and unsuitable materials prior to
excavating key way or benches.
Benches will typically be equal to a
dozer blade width, approximately
8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet.
Final Slope gradient should be
— : — (Horizontal : Vertical).
Final Slope face should be densified
by over -building with compacted fill
and trimming back to shape or by
compaction with dozer or roller.
Planting or Hydroseeding slope face
with a rapid growth deep rooted
vegetative mat will reduce erosion
potential of slope area.
Use of pegged -in -place jute matting or
geotechnical fabric will help maintain the
seed and mulch in place until the root
system has an opportunity to germinate.
Structural Fill should be placed in thin loose
lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness.
Each lift should be compacted to no less
than the degree specified in the site
preparation and Earth Work Section of this
report. No additional lift should be placed
until compaction is achieved.
Final Slope Gradient
(See Text)
H
w F�� -,4-'
. tt* -
FIT
Typical "Bench"
4 feet minimum
width
Existing
Grade
Free draining, organic free, granular material
with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing
no more than 5 percent fines (silt and clay size
particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) or
other material approved by Geotechnical
Engineer.
Key Way Fill is same as Structural Fill described
above. Key Way shouldbe minimum 2 feet deep
and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the
slope face.
- - - - - Approximate original grade.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Earth Consultants, Inc.
COIISW101011 Testing & IC80 / WABO InspeCtiOn Service,
Slope Fill Placement
Single Family Residence, Lot 6 and 7
228XX 96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
DrWn. GAP
Date
Mar. 2005
Proj. No.
11729
Checked SJS
Date
3/31/05
Plate
3
Slope To Drain
- '-
6 inch min.
4inch min.
Diameter
Perforated Pipe
Wrapped inDrainage
Fabric
min-
2chm./4chmax -'—
12 inch
���—''
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soil orother SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TOSCALE
low permeability material. NOT ACONSTRUCTION DRAWING
1^Drain Rock
Drainpipe; or slotted rigid
0 PVC pipelaid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with
positive gradient. Oonot use flexible
corrugated p|aodo pipe. Do not tie
building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with K8imdi 140 Filter Fabric
or equivalent.
Earth Consultants, �� Inc.�~��� v^ � ^^������^�^�«/��`.^, ^
^="te,.".ue y°°u"m"""".wScientists
Typical Footing Placement
Single Family Residence, Lot 6 and 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-1 1729
Our field exploration was performed on March 9, 2005. Subsurface conditions were
evaluated by excavating six test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2.
The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of nine feet below existing grade
using a rubber tired backhoe.
The approximate test pit locations were estimated by pacing from site features depicted
on a preliminary site plan provided by the client. The test pit elevations were estimated
relative to one another based on an assumed elevation of 100 feet along 96 th Place West.
The test pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit
Location Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm, who
classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative
samples and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which is presented on Plate Al,
Legend. Logs of the test pits are included on Plates A2 through A7. The final logs
represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on
field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries
between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil
samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
I
�GRAPH
'LETTER'
MAJOR. DIVISIONS
$YMBOL
SYMBOL-
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION.
Gravel
'=1
_GW
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel-8and
Mixtures,
And
Clean Gravels
gW
Little Or No Fines
Gravelly
(little or no fines)
�gp
Poorly* -Graded Gfavels,Gra�el-
coarse
Grained
Solis
Send Mixtures, Little . 0 1 r No Fin . as
N
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Soils
ore Than
Coarse
�roa%c
Gravels With
gM
Silt Mixtures
t I o 6
Fines (appreciable,
�gc
Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Send -
Retained On
Amount of fines).
No. 4 Sieve
-A
A�
Clay Mixtures
Sand
W
Sw
S
Well -Graded Sands, Grav6I . ly
And
Clean Sand
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
More than
�60%
Sandy
S oils
f in as)'
(little or no fine a ...
SP
S P
�Sp
Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly
Material
Sands, Little Or. No Fines
Larger Than
No 200 Sieve
tizie
More Then
50% Colarse
Sands With
SM
SM
Sim
Silly Sands, S.and - Silt Mi xtures
Fraction
Fines ( appreciable
ciabl,
]nes)
SC
5-- �SC
Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures
Passing No. 4
Sieve
prn unt of f I
0 as
M ML
L
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,,Sllty-
MI
Clayey Fine Sands;.Olayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
Fine
Silts Liquid Limit
CL
L
�ci
Anprganic Clays Of Low lb Medium Plasticity',
Grained
Solis
AAd Less Than 50
Clays
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, 'Clais, Le'a'n
lill-[I
Organic Silts And Organic
,fill
silly' Clays:Of Low Plasticity
MH
inorganic Silts. Micaceous Of Piatomaceous FjOe
More, Than
Mh
s � I .. �: -
and Or Silty Soils�
50% Material
Smaller Than
Silts Liquid Limit'
And
H
Inorganic Clays Of- High
No. 200 Sieve
Greater Than 50
Clays
Ch
Plasticity, Fat Clays.
Size'
H
organic Clays Of Medium. ib High
Plasticity,
oh
Organic Silts
Highly Organic Soils
1, A
Feat, Humus, Swamp Solis
High Contents
With Organic
Topsoil
-4, 4;
'i, . '1, 41
Humus And Duff Layer
Fill
HItphly Variabl.e Constituents
The discussion In the text of this report Is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented In the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil classification.
C
TORVANE READING, tef
2- O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W
MOISTURE, % dry weight
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LL
LIQUID LIMIT, %
Sz DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
11_2�mhkhb
Earth Consultants Inc.
(k"cxiU11CW Ok9h9jers, Q%*40sls & Mvironnwimil Sc*Avlsis
31! SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
LEGEND
Proj..No. 1172JDateMar. 2005 PIStO Al
Test Pit Log
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Name:
96th Place West 1
Sheet of
1 1
Job No.
11729
Logged by:
7SJS
Date:
3/9/05
Test Pit No.:
TP-1
Excavation Contactor:
Northwest Excavating
Ground Surface Elevation:
100,
Notes:
General
Notes
W
cL E
2 >1
U)
E
13 0
CO
-6
L) .0
E
=5 >,
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 5"; Clover, Scot's broom
12.0
9.7
11.2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
-becomes dense
-becomes dense to very dense
-moderate cementation
SP-SM
Light brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, dense to very
dense, moist to wet
Test Pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
was encountered during excavation.
Test Pit elevation estimated from the test pits relative to 96th Place
West that was given an arbitrary elevation of 100 feet.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Geotedu�Engnm---,Ce�s&EnvkmrffaalscimL%s
Test Pit Log
96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 11729
Dwn. ELW
Date Mar. 2005
Checked SJS
___FPlate
Date 3/23/05
A2
QUUbU11c1UU LANIUMUF15 UUPIUMM Mpresent our ouservations at ine time ana iocavon OT inis expioratory noie, mooffiec engineennR tests, analysis
and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility0gr the use or interpretation by
others of information presented on this loq.
Test Pit Log
I
I
I r— I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
17
I
I
Project Name:
96th Place West 1
_T
Sheet of
1 1
Job No.
11729
Logged by:
Sis
Date:
3/9/05
Test Pit No.:
TP-2
Excavation Contactor:
Northwest Excavating
Ground Surface Elevation:
101,
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
.2
= M
cL E
LO >,
— CL
CL
0 LL E
ca
U) 0
0 M
E
CO >1
Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; Sod
17.3
11.6
10.0
2
3
4
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL)
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
-moderate to strong cementation
Test Pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
was encountered during excavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
C-MeOffilcal Enginmm GeolVsts & Envbmy,&ntal ScleMsts
Test Pit Log
96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
No. 11729
L—proi- I
Dwn. ELW
I Date Mar. 2005 ,
Checked SJS
Date 3/23/05
late
ouDsut Usce Oundrucins depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineerinR tests, analysis
and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by
others of information presented on this ion.
Test Pit Log
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Name:
96th Place West 1
Sheet of
1 1
Job No.
11729
Logged by:
1 Sis
Date:
3/9/05
Test Pit No.:
TP-3
Excavation Contactor
Northwest Excavating
Ground Surface Elevation:
101,
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
1! E
0 CO
E
CO
E
5 CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 4"; Scot's broom
12.5
9.4
2
3
4
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL)
-18.0% fines
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist
-becomes very dense
Test Pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
was encountered during excavation.
FZfth ConSultants Inc.
GeotechnlcWEYigkxleMCeologL-AS&Envhonftrriwsclentists
Test Pit Log
96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 11729
Dwn. ELW
Da te M ar. 2 005
Ch ecked SJS
Date 3/23/05
Plate A4 —J
vitiiibexpioratorynoie,moomeoogren neennR tests, analysis
andjudgment t
othe,.Oflnfo�,T y are not necessarily presentative of other times and locations. We cannot acoept responsibility Zuse or interpretation by
.tion presented on this oQ.
Test Pit Log
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
Project Name:
96th Place West 1
Sheet I of
1 1
Job No.
11729
Logged by:
1 Sis
Date:
3/9/05
Test Pit No.:
TP-4
Excavation Contactor:
— Northwest Excavating
Ground Surface Elevation:
103'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
z
CL 'Q
E
:"
0(0
:5 a
CL
E
U_ 0
CO
CO -6
0
Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 2"; Sod, Scot's broom,
blackberry starts
10.4
9.8
11.2
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Gray silty SAND, dense, moist
-31.0% fines
-becomes dense to very dense
-decrease in fines content
Test Pit terminated at 7.5 feet be.low existing grade. No groundwater
was encountered during excavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
C,1Ok'CtM1CW Enghiem. Geok)gLas & Envtrorunen" SctewLsts
Test Pit Log
96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 11729
Dwn. ELW
Date Mar. 2005
Checked SJS
Date 3/23/05
Plate A5
F' 1VOLIV11a, M UK: L1111v dilu luuailu" oi inis expioraxory noie, moomeo oy en neennRtests, analysis
for g
and udi—en—t."f,h"e-y,"ar-e-ln"ot—,n,ec,e,ssadly representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility a use or interpretation by
j m
others 0 Information presented on this loq.
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
96th Place West 1
Sheet Of
1 1
Job No.
11729
Logged by:
1 Sis
Date:
Test Pit No.:
TP-5
Excavation Contactor
Northwest Excavating
Ground Surface Elevation:
99,
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
2 —
0
Z M
CL
E
e >�
C1,
CL .;
0 u- E
CO
M
0
CO E
:5 :11
Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 3"; Sod, Scots broom
13.6
8.9
2
3
4
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL)
-24.7% fines
-trace household debris
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
-moderate to strong cementation
-becomes very dense
Test Pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
was encountered during excavation.
Earth ConSUItants Inc.
Geok-d�EnoteeMGeobgLSM&Exn*wuTrritalsc*mL-As
Test Pit Log
96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 11729
Dwn. ELW
Date Mar.2__�
005
Checked SJS
Date 3/23/05
Plate A6
ULMIL1114VO LAMIUMU11b UVIALaVU FUlnebuf it uur oubewations at ine time ano iocation OTmisexpiormory noie, moomeo Dgren
tgneenonrR tests, anaiysis
and judgmentoey are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot acoept responsibility 0 use interpretation by
others of info tion presented on this loq.
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
96th Place West 1
Sheet of
1 1
Job No.
11729
Logged by:
1 Sis
Date:
3/9/05
Test Pit No.:
TP-6
Excavation Contactor:
Northwest Excavating
Ground Surface Elevation:
91,
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
2-6
'M M
cL E
IX >1
A
CL
D LL E
a M
CO
CO '5
u.0
E
>'
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of topsoil and sod 3"; Sod, Scots broom
10.9
7.6
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (FILL)
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
-becomes dense to very dense
-becomes moist to wet
-occasional cobble, localized light groundwater see age
p
-becomes moist
Test Pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
seepage was encountered at 5.5 feet during excavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
GeOk*chn1CW ErIghem Geologsts & Environn'mW SCIMI%s
Test Pit Log
96th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 1172 9
Dwn. ELW
Date Mar. 2005
, Che Sis
Date 3/23/05
Plate A7 _J
PIVIUV I UPI UMI It VUI VLOQUI VOLIVI Ib 12L Ll IV LIIIIV dF]U IrJUdIlOn UT MIS eXPIOraxory noie, moolneo ogren neennR tests, anaiysis
�Z!��Wert. 'T'h'�'y"ar"e'not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility t Zuse or interpretation by
others of information presented on this ioq.
9 0
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
E-1 1729
Earth Consultants, Inc.
t
Fl,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DISTRIBUTION
E-1 1729
4 Copies Regal Homes, LLC
2306— 11 91h Street Southwest
Everett, Washington 98204
Attention: Mr. Marko Liias
Earth Consultants, Inc.
9 0 oft - 106,�
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
April 30, 2001 REOUB
APR 3 0 2007
BI&TCYING PDMA(1:1�TMeVT
Mr. Rob Michel Ca_7 OFOE
th St. -ALE
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 212 S.W., #102 STREET fri
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Foundation Recommendations
Proposed Ten Single Family Residences
9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of 6 geotechnical evaluation of the
eight building lots at 9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
required due to owner/developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
REFERENCES:
• Location and topographic map by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates dated January
17,2001
• Site plans
• Site photographs If
BACKGROUND:
The overall property consists of approximately 3.46 acres and has never been
developed.
. The property consists of a lower zone (proposed Lot Nos. -9 &10) along
Edmonds Way, and an upper zone consisting of the proposed eight (8) lot single family
residence development with cul-de-sac access.
A relatively steep "bluff -face" distinguishes the lower zone from the upper zone.
It is understood that historic gravel excavation and mining occurred north of Edmonds
Way creating the over -steepened apparent "bluff -face" (see survey topographic map for
specific bluff face delineation).
Visual evaluation of the property (evealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: no slides, no settlements, no shifting, no soil'creep, nor any erosional
degradation were observed.
The property im miediately to the west consists of a gasoline service station and
car wash. The service station has utilized a rockery along the base of the "bluff -face" to
SOILS e FOUNDATIONS 9 SITE DEVELOPMENT e INSPECTION 9 DRAINAGE 0 DESIGN& PERMIT 0 LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, I A 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Mr. Rob Michel 0
E
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 2
provide erosion stability. No evidence of any ge6technical distress was observed along
the neighboring rockery.
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to install a roadway access
(from the upper zone) extending 96 th Ave. W and developing eight single family
residence lots (see site plan).
Additionally, the lower zone is to be developed into two lots (Lots No. 9 and 10)
for service station expansion and/or church parking lot expansion (to be determined).
EVALUATION:
in order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test holes
were hand dug by this engineer on April 2, 2001 for the proposed upper eight (8) lots. A
total of eight (8) test holes were dug. All hand dug test holes revealed similar subgrade
conditions, namely:
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt
6" to approx. 14" Light brown/reddish-brown sandy loam.
Grading to sandy silt
14" to approx. 38" increasingly dense sandy silt/weathered
(bottom of test hole) glacial till (hard pan).
No water was encountered in any of the eight test holes. All test hole walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
No test holes were dug in the lowerzone (Lots 9 and 10). This lower zone has
functioned as a parking area on extremely dense, compacted gravels.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically approv6d for the
proposed Michel Construction eight (8) unit single family residences with road access
(upper zone), subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 1p.s.f.
Setback distances (Lots 6, 7, and 8): A nominal setback distance of twenty (20)
feet from top -of -slope may be used for preliminary house siting purposes.
Mr. Rob Michel 0 0
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 3
Specific geotechnical recommendations may reduce this nominal setback
distance once final house plans are provided this engineer.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
P.c.f.
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have ' minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For
G. L. C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of
a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations m . ay be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outsideof the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Mr. Rob Michel 0
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 4
Parameter Design Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure -350 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic Foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils.
can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height which
restrain level backfill:
Parameter Design Value
Active Earth Pressure" 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
Mr. Rob Michel 0 0
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 5
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt,content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not
exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
Aoril 30, 2001
Page 6
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may, be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). fill slopes should not exceed 1;1 (H:V). It is important to note
that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made
aware of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an,
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
The.apparent "bluff -face" reveals extremely dense, glaciaily compacted,
"hardpan" soils. The slope cut is geotechnically stable, and requires no additional
retaining or stabilization measures. Some select grading/trimming is recommended to
remove occasional zones of overburdened soils. This engineer envisions slight
grading/trimming to achieve a more uniform slope face.
If desired, a toe -of -slope stabil lzation wall may be utilized to preventongoing
erosional sloughing. Ecology block, rockery, or key stone block may be utilized along
the base of slope. Specific designs by this engineer recommended.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
Mr. Rob Michel 0 0
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 7
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior toplacement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very importantand must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill. -
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Mr. Rob Michel 9 0
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 8
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
U Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material ' may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the approximately three and one-half (3
1/2) acre site at 9601 Edmonds Way. Surface runoff flows generally southerly following
the native topography. Compliance with standard storm water detention methods in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirements are geotechnically acceptable.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.15B.110:
This engineer has reviewed Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
regarding exemption criteria.
This engineer believes that the property at 9601 Edmonds Way qualifies for such
exemption.
The proposed Michel Construction development will not decrease stabilit on
any adjacent property and the site following the permitted activity. The site itself
and adjacent property will be stable within the meaning of chapter 19.05 ECDC,
as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the state
building code as adopted by this Code. Key geotechnical inspection by this
engineer to verify.
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction,
April 30, 2001
Page 9
9
Inc.
10
The steep slope portions of this property are mapped as the following deposits
on the "Geologic Map of the East and Part of the Edmond's West Quadrangels"
by James P. Minard (Department of the Interior U.S. G. S. 1983, Map MF-1 541):
till.
0 No excavations will occur on the steep slopes.
No retaining structures are necessary nor envisioned on the steep slopes. As
discussed, an erosion stabilization rockery may be utilized at the base -of -slope.
This erosion stabilization structure is not necessary nor is considered a retaining
structure.
None of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the
property classified as a steep slope: impermeable soils inter -bedded with
granular soils, springs or ground water seepage, significant visible evidence of
ground water seepage, previous landslide or instability, or existing landslide
deposits.
The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or soils
exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the standard penetration test (ASTM
D1 586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject
properties classified as a steep slope do not exceed three (3) feet.
Thus, the property qualifies for exemption.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Soil cuts
• Foundation subgrade verification
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 10
SUMMARY:
The proposed Michel Construction, Inc. ten lot development of eight single family
residences at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically viable when constructed in
accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds
approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PLANS:
As discussed, the proposed eight lot development is geotechnically viable. It is
essential, however, that this engineer review final plans for the upper eight houses, as
well as any development on the lower portion of the property prior to permit issuance.
This final geotechnical review will allow for verification of geotechnical criteria to be
made. Recommendations or plan modifications to improve geotechnical compliance
may also occur upon final review.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations.' If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
[ppma,
DMB:abj
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
Jew-lou'-7
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
February 15, 2007
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
City of Edmonds FEB 2 6 2007
c/o Regal Homes, LLC pamcr
2306 119t' St. SW STREET FILE B %wsm N
Everett, WA 98204
Subject: Geotechnical Response — City of Edmonds Comments (November
6,2006)
Regal Homes New Single -Family Residence
2280896 th Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington
�`.'Plan Check No. 05 - 355
This engineering letter presents ' geol
comments (November 6, 2006) for Regal H
address
GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTIONS:
OF
ises. to City of: Ed monds
I new residence at the above
5) Regal Homes has provided additional clarification to City of Edmonds request
for modified / final plans.
6) No soil nailing will occur on this property or in conjunction with construction of
the new Regal Homes residence. This engineer (D. Bruce, P.E.) will perform
on -site geotechnical inspections. No soil nailing for this single-family
residence.
7) Additional report copies: D. Bruce, P.E. has provided additional copies for the
Geotechnical Report dated April 30, 2001.
Regal Homes will provide additional relevant geotechnical copies of any other
reports, as required.
�-Clarification' �--Top�of-slope- issues._� This, engiheer,has performed.an:
additional on -site investigation for the layout of the proposed layout Lot No. 6
hougefodtpTiht.''�
SOILS * FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT e INSPECTION 9 DRAINAGE 0 DESIGN& PERMIT 0 LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Regal Homes, LLC
February 15, 2007
Page 2
The previously submitted Site Plan has the geotechnical top -of -slope
delineated. This delineation has been verified by D. Bruce, P.E.
The proposed new residence will have a concrete patio that slightly
encroaches within 10.0 feet from the top -of -slope delineation. The slight
encroachment of the concrete patio is not geotechnically significant. On -site
inspections by this engineer will verify sub -grade preparation, bearing
capacity and installation of the patio.
This engineer has reviewed the previous geotechnical reports by Earth
Consultants and understands that the 1 0-foot setback is appropriate for the
residence foundation itself.
On -site geotechnical inspections are required by D. Bruce, P.E.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
11 OG 08:4Ga D.,6uce, P.E. 20if46-8442
P. 1
yk� - (
Den.nis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
May 5, 2006
Regal Homes
2306119 th St. S
Everett, WA 98204
!R1 D 0 V1.
Subject: Geotechn Cal view — Proposed Soil Nailing rk
r
K. Elise Plat estgate Hills Development
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
proposed soil nailing stability work on behalf.of Valhalla, LLC (A. D. Shapiro, Architects).
This review was requested by Regal Homes (Marko Liias) with regard to the.
geotechnical impacts to Regal Homes (up -slope) Lot No. 6 and No. 7.
REFERENCES:
0 Geotechnical report for Regal Homes by Earth Consultants dated March 31,
2005
0 Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. for Michel Construction dated April 30,
2001
0 Golder Assoiciates Geotechnical Report for Valhalla, LLC by Golder finc
dated October 4, 2004 Asftlau` B
0 Section Views by A. D. Shapiro, Architects
0 Site photographs JUL 2 6 2006
BACKGROUND:
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
This engineer performed a geotechnical investigation for Michel Construction for
the upper (top -of -slope) lots April 30, 2001. As of the date of this report (May 5, 2006),
some of the upper lots already have new houses completed, and some are under
construction (by Regal Homes).
It is understood that Valhalla, LLC, in conjunction with designs by Shapiro
Architects, proposes a project at the base -of -slope (see Shapiro Designs and
Geotechnical Report by Golder Associates dated October 4, 2004).
This engineer has read the October 4, 2004 Report by Golder and Associates
and understands that the slope (behind / northerly) is considered to be in need of
additional stabilization.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE D'E'SIGN &PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-921'7 - FAX (206) 546-8442
11 06 08:46a D. Bruce, P.E.
0
20G-54G-8442 p.2
Regal Homes
May 5, 2006
Page 2
The geotech inical report recommends the 2stabilizing technique of "soil nails"
placed in accordance with specific geotechnical design criteria and on -site inspections.
In order for the soil nail project to be effective, an easement would be required
(from Regal Homes) to Valhalla, LLC / Shapiro. This easement, if granted would allow
for the subsurface installation of the soil nails (see graphs depiction by Shapiro
Associates). It is understood that the 25-foot setback zone would be utilized for the soil
nails.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW:
This engineer has done extensive review of the Golder Associates October 4,_
2004 Geotechnical Report. The report consisted of analysis of a number of soil test PAS
as well as field observations.
In the "construction considerations" section, the recommendations for soil nail
shoring as well as temporary cut slopes, are provided. These recommendations are
consistent with a professional level of geotechnical reporting — this engineer concurs
with the findings and conclusions of the Golder Report.
The proposed nail shoring system would require extensive on -site geotechnical
inspections to verify each key element is performed properly.
This engineer has discussed the proposed soil nailing with Mr. David Cotton, the
geotechnical engineer of record on the October 4, 2004 Report.
This engineer understands that Mr. Cotton is now with the Kleinfelder firm and
that Kleinfelder will be providing geotechnical inspections for the soil nail portion of the
project.
This engineer recommends that Regal Homes allow the proposed subsurface
easement (within the 25-foot setback zone) for the proposed soil nailing project, subiec
to:
• Final review of actual soil nail plans prior to installation
• Geotechnical inspection of soil nail operation with reports to City of Edmonds and
courtesy copies to Regal Homes, or their designee.
• Periodic geotechnical observance by D. Bruce, P.E. to verify proper installation
of the soil nails and verify geotechnical inspections (understood performed by
Kleinfelder).
11 06 08:46a D. Bruce, P.E� 206-546-8442 P.3
Regal Homes
May 5, 2006
Page 3
SUMMARY:
0 The proposed soil nail shoring system will not create geotechnical adverse
conditions to the up -slope Regal Homes lots.
0 When installed properly, and verified by geotechnical inspections, the proposed
soil nail wall will.improve overall slope stability.
0 This engineer recommends that Regal Homes grant the subsurface easement for
the soil nail installation, subject to the specific requirements listed in this report.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
t;' M.
Oir WAS
> Je7'
.16
FEXF4;ES 12.r2,V
DMB:abj
cc: Regal Homes
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
09A - [ 0(11
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. JZ LY � 2� / ?'0 04
M.S.G-E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
-T
�?RE-64L Lo-r RE6.4 L tIOP E-5
(;EOTSCOWA�- �RS\)tE%k) K - E-Z-ISE' FI-A-r "'�S-T'5 A-M
L4 W" t4 LA tJ 6,4�
rolZ Lo-r *4 P_J:re. AL KO&46-S
(A-S
MAY 4L-'l?k0-CE7
J>A0P0SjFk. S-61L ,QA(L1AI6-
L-O-r F'00-rPP1JJ-r
-Ok Atj E\i A I- 1U .6 'rf6 *AJ
LOT
-rq E- roo-r(tj e. AL-16NAC-0-l' ANN LOCATION Wt-rg
-F 7b
At!,,q-AeEfJT oP-0E--51-0PE- A" bF:kJ40AJ".
STATEMENT OF MINIMAL RISK: 72� 1iJSAE6'r(O'J-C P4A, 'Ct" )e- sr(Q T'r'
A(4-h F-T6. LAYOU-r
The plans and specifications' 'for the Lo I
NEW S V. 1�-, have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the
recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and
recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and insl2ected - and
verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be staMil2ii—ed an'd remain
stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to
the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil
instability will be minimal. RESUB
I M's V. E� C--Tto 0 -t
Am t, e— t —re
� J� M0 0i &S
-1 T�'LFA6r (ALL)
ir 0057-s—r(osi-C -
il
� WOAt& N 0 t
ST11EET FILE
11,
6zo& - �6 & -7
JUL 2 6 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
1EXPIRV�_tWU
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITEDEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN&PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O.Box55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206)546-9217 - FAX546-8442
B
Oct,25 06 05:35p D 0 ruce, P.E. 2061W-8442 P.1
�Wb —1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. E., WW,, Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
oc!
SWLW�.iG
C!rr'
t45
I S
. 6110 October 19, 2006
.6,4 -
City of Edmonds
c/o Regal Homes
2306 11 9th St. SW d
Everett WA 98204 nbr
Subject: Geotechnical Review — Approval of Plans
Regal Homes — New Single -Family Residence
Lot No. 6, Plat of K. Elise
22808 96h P11. W, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical review of the
proposed plans for Lot No. 6 new residence, as well as on -site verification of footprint
layout.
• Project Plans
• Geotechnical Reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
• Site photographs
• City of Edmonds review comments dated August 18, 2006
BACKGROUND:
This engineer has provided geotechnical investigation and residence criteria for
the overall development (K. Elise plat). As previously stated, the individual homes must
comply with the geotechnical foundation and setback recommendations with regard to
the adjacent slope.
This engineer directed Regal Homes to layout the footprint for Lot No. 6
residence on -site. -
On -site geotechnical evaluation verified that the foundation footprint is setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the top -of -slope.
NOTE: This engineer has delineated the geotechnical top -of -slope on previously
submitted topographic site plans.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS , SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT * LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Oct ?5 06 05:35p Dfuce, P.E. 206-f-8442 p.2
City of Edmonds
c1o, Regal Homes
October 19, 2006
Page 2
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW — RECOMMENDATIONS:
The slope as indicated on the site plan (delineated and certified by D. Bruce,
P.E.) is the actual geotechnical top -of -slope.
The foundation footings for the new residence are setback a minimum of 10 feet
from the top -of -slope. This 1 0-foot setback is geotechnically acceptable,
provided this engineer - perform on -site inspections. NOTE: The proposed
concrete patio slightly encroaches within the 1 0-foot setback — this location for
the concrete patio is not geotechnically dangerous to the top -of -slope. On -site
geotechnical inspections will assess foundation sub -grade integrity, sub -grade
preparation, construction quality control, and overall grading. It is understood
that this engineer will Worm geotechnical inspections as a. condition of permit
approval.
This engineer has read, reviewed, and understands the geotechnical report by
Earth Consultants, and aarees that the sub -grade soils are stable and allow for
the proposed construction of the house on Lot No. 6, utilizing the 1 0-foot setback
from the top -of -slope, subject to geotechnical inspections.
Mitigation measures to stabilize the top of slope: Normal construction methods
for the Lot No. 6 residence may be followed. Assertive discussions with Regal
Homes indicate that no grading or disruption of the top -of -slope are proposed.
Geotechnical inspections (by D. Bruce, P.E.) will MlEiht the integrity of the slope
is maintained throughout the project. This engineer is always available to meet
with City of Edmonds personnel (on -site) to mutually discuss overall site integrity,
as required.
SUMMARY:
The proposed layout for Lot No. 6 residence has been verified by this engineer
and is geotechnically approved, subject to inspections.
The eAsting slope is stable and will not incur adverse impacts from the
construction of the Lot No. 6 residence, subject to geotechnical inspections by D.
Bruce, P.E.
Oct .25 06 05:35p
City of Edmonds
c/o Regal Homes
October 19, 2006
Page 3
9
D. Bruce, P.E.
0
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
rm-pms- my e),%-
DMB:abj
2061W-8442
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engin eer
P. 3
Am
DE��ARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAI: BUILDING C66-E-1,SECTION III
T"
AT: 22808 96 PI W EDMONDS WA Building Permit M BLD2010-0784.
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling U its
N/A I "o. Type of. Const 11 uction: VB
No. Stories: 2 Basement:
Owner of building: CLEARWATER HOMES V-W*-, - -:�T' ji1;,*1,;Jft--------,--"`, �---
TH �ifts
,W lfasbeiep, , pected and approved complying with the requirements
The . Single Family Residence at 22808 96 PL,
of the 2009 edition of the International Building Code as adopted vI e) -160he,group and division of occupancy and the use for which
Z-1 L
the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this 24TH day of JUNE 2011
Chief Building Official
% 14
'By:
Any change of occupancy or use requires a
U
ng permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
,�;/%JvI,Vlj IV 9,r..�tf
7-c> -,
(9
L-0 -r
Sot
o4t: ,
SOILS
ArTW
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
.E., M. BA
S of Edm
Ko vs ite
2
t-jXN31LLW AJJA.q 00
Lo--r A_ (:��
C"�(C*L �T$cr(js --.
avc-rcretf- OVLOAALL
if15 . 4j�V7-
ylvingftaftent I
J)
—,,Jq �xfz uej
'Re: Po &-n5 AL5VOOSLY
L s evr 7:; et -cy
-Z 4-,Akl Me. A —r5JX40. tTt-0Sl0#Q (26 63 TO L
G
f
bor
.e 9)11 c 4 L l,r T;, Pita 1XV1
w-j7z� Z.4v,( ro
A3G47x. QLtr— b.
IIr.-O . . - . .
MUAV�770JVS 9)rEDrwropmEjvr - mspecncw . DRAINAGE . OESION & pEPmrr 0 L.M4L
-0. Bcx 55502 ShOrellne, WA 98155 - (2ou) 546-8442
MY
OCT 2 2 2010
coo/zoo STREET FILEmVELOMENTSEFIVICESM.,
CRY OF EDMONI)S
I
XVJ 60:VL OLOZ/30M
0
4
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. A
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. GeotechnicaJ / ChAl 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.)/ 7�;8 / -FtD2,016-o-75-�
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: "E'
.Tm ET FILE
• Previous geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce,
• 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 11 Z--Djt
BACKGROUND: BUILDING DEPARo�'MENT
ClTy OF EDMONDS
As previously declared, this engineer has don e 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) —5tft8d4@
0 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 review of the revised plans and has
determined that all modif ications 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.
0 0
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
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. Vecietation Retention:
No removal of the slope face vegetation is proposed. Geotechnically, it is
essential to maintain vegetation on the slope face.
0 0
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.
4�8!7
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
DMB:vIb
cc: Clearwater Homes
E
0
City of Edmonds P-111
Development Services tNASH JONES
Planning Division
BLD20100784 ANDERSON
Lot 6
K. Elise Short Plat ��50 G�ff�
Dear Gina,
All comments have been reviewed and corrected on the site plans.
Mike Johnson
Nash Jones Anderson Architects
Architects & Planners
RESUB
JAN 11 9010
BUILDING DEPAKINENT
CITY OF SIDIVIONDIS
11644N.E.80thSt. Kirkland, WA 98033 (425)828-4117 Fax(425)822-1918
0
P,
K. ELISE
SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DEJDICATIO!�_-
APPROVALS
-W_ ME U11DERSIGNED OWER IN FEE SIMPLE AND
KNOW AllMEA By T��SDE
EXAMINED A DAY OF
7SEN
OF ME. ER'a'W�T
MORTGAGEE ATTED..'00 HEREV DECLARE THIS PLAT AND DEDICATE
�PIS
To ME USE OF Ull PU S
PIR , ME. r .%S;�REIER. A C
OPER NIS Pt.7
PURPOSES. ALSO RIE RIGHT TO,0%lZE ALL. RE
EDMONDS dTqFENGNEER
ME LO AND TRAM SHOW HEREON. IN ABLE GRADING OF. All �4EETSL
%Ar
SHO ESIWE
M HEREON. ALSCF RIC�;TCQ�TAQC OMS. E LOTS AND MkCTS--10
E E U I
nh�
E�
EASEMENTS AT My OFr A TED ;JA
-
EXAMINED AND APPROVED NIS DAY OF
__4t!A
IN W��REOF. WE EREBY�Sef_O�R ANDS'AmCS'EAL'S'�'W': DAY
OF
EOM0k.?&S_P*LAN DIRECTOR
DAY OF dame
MICHEL CONSTRUCTION. INC.
NA'(OR. 0&/OF EDMONDS
ROBIN W. MICHEL. PRESIDENT .... .........
..
CITY EJAN
ATItST. CITY CLERK
BY: Ya 444 Lee
its- ,te
EASEMENT PROVISIONS
AN EASEMENT 15 HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO ALL UTILITIES SERVING ME
SUBJECT PLAT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. UNDER AND UPON
ME EXTERIOR FIFTEEN (15) FE T PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING ME PUBLIC STREET
FRONTAGE OF ALJL LOTS IN WICH TO NSTALL LAY. CONSTRUCT. RENEW. OPERATE
AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS. CABLES. PIPES. AND WIRES WIN NECESSARY
FAD TIES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBEAM90N
AND OMER PROPERTY WIN ELECTRIC. TELEPHONE. GAS. TELEVISION CABLE. AND OTHER
UTILITY SERVICES TOGETHER WTH ME RIGHT TO ENTER UPON ME LOTS AT ALL TIMES
FOR ME PURPOSES HEREIN STATED.
TH PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 8 AND 10. AS SHOW HEREON. IS
HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OMERS OF LOTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7
ME 8 FOR ME PURPOSE OF OPERAnNG. MAINTAINING AND RECONSTIRL) TING STORM
WATER FAD TIES. TOGETHER WTH ME RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH
PURPOSES.
PRIVATE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS
THE SO PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 8 AND 10 15 FOR ME BENEFIT
OF LOTS 1. 2. 3. 4, S. S. 7 AND 8. ME OWERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE EOUALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR ME MAINTENANCE. REPAIR. AND/M RECONSTRUCTION OF ME
DRAINAGE FACIIJITES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT.
TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY AT ALL STATE AND COUNTY
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. ACCORDING TO ME
HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND DISCHARGED. INCLUD
t,�A,unnnI
COUNTY TREASURER
114 ALLURUANCE WITH ILCW MANA9%
AN.Y PELSON RECORMO A PLAT AFTElt
JWlY 3 IU PAUST PAY ADVA14CE TAXES
I'M THE NFxr YFAR.
20U2.
2002.
2002.
.._t4crLD S AGREEMENT
C;�J�%ZR2=S "V.G MY PRESENT OR SUBSEOUENT OWERSHIP INTEREST
IN THESE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF OWERS OR OTHER �ARTIES
HAVNG ANY TIIICLJNlyREST, HEREBY AGREE TV itlE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL BE HELD
HARRICIE31,11,1 ALL RESPECTS FROM ANY !�fL "US FOR DAMAGES FOR JNJUNC11VE
R'�UE'rn. Ayy BE OCCASIONED NCLW IN ME FUl
M a ;g;Me
_kRE TO AN CENT "NO OR
"500f OF TIJE-CO�StRUCIlON WE AT)ON AND MAINTENANCE Of
TWjLDRAINAGE SY541114. �,NEREBY WAJVE W ELEASE ME CITY OF EDMONDS FORM
AL4Y &C�OX LE
S%ACL CLAPA6- OR DAMACE5�. EXCLUDING DAMAGE CAUSED SO Ly By AN
Ac,,� ON -0-SAID CITY. AKO KNAINCnVE RELIEF WICH ME OWEM OR THEIR
SUCCESSORS � ASSGIIS. MAY.FREMSELVES HAVE NOW OR IN ME FUTURE BY REAS
OF ME CpRSTRUCTION..yAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAI ?.RAWWQ�SYSTEM.
RESTRICTIONS
1- SUBECT TO ME TERMS AND CCtqnONS OF NAT CERTAIN -Url� CASEMENT AND
ACREEMENT* AS RECORDED UNDER-SNOHOMISH COUNT�.!�up*a�s
2002M31027Z
2. SUBJECT TO ME TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTZIN BENrnD -RMKERY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. UTILITY EASEMENT AND WEEUENT%49 RECORDE(IZ'UNDER
COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO� 200201310273.
3. SU0JEC TO ME TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NAT CILIRTAIN -EASEMENT' AS RECORDECL� -----
UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR!'S FILE NO. 2027219
4. SUBJECT TO ME TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NAT CERTAIN 'W�ANTY DLTD* AS
RECORDED UNDER SNOHOUISH COUNTY AUDItOR'S FILE NO. 2239035.
5. NO LINES OR WRES FOR ME TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT M FOR TEUFPH�E
USE CAN FIR OR POLICE SIGNALS OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SHAlZ-BE PLACED -Or-%
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ISS
COUNTY OF SNOHOMIS-I)
I CERTIFY TH T I KNOW OR SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE NAT ROBIN W. MICHEL IS THE
PERSON WO APPEARED BEFORE ME. AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWI-EDGED NAT HE SIGNED
NIS INSTRUMENT. ON DAN STATED THAT HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ME INSTRUMENT
AND AC NOWLEDGED IT AS ME PRESIDENT OF MICHEL CONSTRUCnON. INC.. A A INGTON
COR"ORATION. TO BE ME MEE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR ME USES AND
PURPOSES MENTIONED IN ME INSTRUMENT.
DATED:
rr
(SIGN)
N
(MINT) 46WZ;1�'l t. 1OZIC4 SL-7
OT Y
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
WA SHINGTON. RESIDING AT ��UIW
My APPONTMENT EXMRES
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)SS.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
CERTN'Y NAT I KN OR SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE NAT -
'56� ff�
S THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME. AND SWERS ACKAQkEDccD NAT *Af—
SIGNED NIS INSTRUMENT. ON DAN STATED NAT
__Z'e� IffIZED T
=tyj 0 EXECUTE
ME INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED 17 AS ME
I-
OF CITY BANK TO BE ME FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR ME USES
AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN ME INSTRUMENT.
DATED: <QQm a -lop—
(SIGN)
(MIN I) _C�J7
1 0 ,�TAJ9
NOTARY PUBLIC IN NO FOR
WASHINGTON. RESI IN. AT
Rmjc
My APPOINTMENT EXPIRES
PER61TTED'TO BE PLACED UPON My LOT OUTSIDE ME BUILDING NEREON.UNLESS
THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN CONDUIT ATTACHED TO ME BUILDING. ............
6. CONDITION OF APPIROVAL MUST BE MET AND CAN BE FOUND IN ME FINAL APF'ROVAl.
FOR ME SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN FILE P-2001-22.
;ktjDiTt)R'S QERTIFICATE
LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY NAT NIS PLAT OF 'K. ELISE' IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL
SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 36. TOMSHIP 27 NORM. RANGE 3 EAST. W.M..
AS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTES; NAT ME COURSES. ANGLES. AND DISTANCES ARE
SHOW CORRECTLY THEREON; NAT ME MONUMENTS WILL BE SET AND ME LOT. BLOCK
A D TRACT CORNERS WILL BE STAKED CORRECTLY ON ME GROUND AS CONSTRUCTON IS
COMPLETED; D NAT I HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WTH PROMISIONS OF ME STATE AND
LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PLATnNG.
N T
Row
CERTIFIC;��,N 22%9
DATE
Low
0
-------- FILED T JWE'R'-U MICHEL CONSTIRLICTION INC
NIS 5,W;FD
or
�WZ
2002 , AT ONUTES
NIIN� CORD IN VOUU�F_,,,�OF PLATS. PAGES
S OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON.
sNc!�Gutsll COUNTY DEp/?ryCOUNTY AUDITUR
IN NWI/4. NEI/4. SECTION.-96. T.2.7bF:;-8.3E., W.M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & AsSQCI;kT�_:&,--IN0.
19400 33RD AVENUE W., SLItTLe-200
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON
LSA FILE NO. 4211 :S)4'EET_.1-OV 4
0
0
EX� RON PIN.
g6j
ND- p
bA5* N, 0.39' W
I
K. ELISE
N 8a22'40 '
N 8872'4wW
SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E., W.M.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
+
EX. O.V SO. CONCRETE
CITY OF EDMONDS
N 8822*40' W - NORTH LINE OF THE NE1/4 OF
MONUME T WT TH
THE NEI/4 OF SECTION M. T.27N.. R,3E.. W.M.
'PINECREsr
T CX IN LEAD--
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PER NE,PL*T OF AS RECORDED IN
------
EY-9/8' RON PIN
0.05' N. 96.22' E
VOLUME 3 OF PLATS. PAGE 55. RECORDS OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON
"D CAP-
'S =15'2�-
M' E�
227th
R E W 9ft- T--l-PL W P I N E C R E S T
25" 12 Z
25" 1
`2 49 1 w 95 04 03 02
�� N - F
�&EIFEW-fi) DETAIL OVE F
PIN
r ES tn
MATED ON NORTH RTY
EX. CASED CONCRETE 1.1 INFORMATION ON co T8 Fh S EET S.W.
MONUMENT WITH TA�- N cn
VISITED: 10-13-00 N 3827' 3Z 1 92.00** -E '2 -0' -236.65-
30' 68'2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
N 811-22'�- W (M.P)
2 .
2
4
N — — — — — — b Wf. 96th- P,
b 'PLACE -'W. - -
z W-18 9875 18'
8875,18, 9.1o. (m) Do_oa . .. ;
N mw b�
w-las.09, (o 1) xio��
N
w *E
s
SCALE : l'-W
So, 1w 15o
a 80 160'
30
(M) 1314.31- (P)
_�5
3c 31
EX. CASED 4'�4'
CONCRETE MONUMENT
L----
WIN 2- BRASS CAP
VISITED- 10-13-00
NE CORNER OF
SECTION 36
I
Z
----------
EX. CASED �CRETE .4
MONUMENT WN TA EX. CASED CON TE
VISITED: 10-13-00 IONUNI T WIN TICIK
IN LEAD
VSIED; 11-13-OD CASED 2' CONCRETE
-15's WE WITH
FILLED RON
vo. PUNCH MAW
VISITED, 10-13-00
0
125.
25' 00 7
-0
LEGEND
EX. RON PIN WN
CAP NOD. 19&AO-
10
Al MEASURED BEARIN ANO/011 OIMENSIM
0.10' W. 206.98* N
OLEI BEARING AND/OR :MENSON PER PLAT OF -OLYMPIC VIEW ESTATES NO. 1'. (VOLUME 18. PACE 14)
EX, 3/4' RON 'N-
ON BEARING AND/OR DIMENSION PER PLAT OF -BROOKMERE wEsr. (VOLUME 33. PAGE 10)
0.2r W. 150.18' N
P BEARING AND/OR DIMENSION PER PLAT OF -NNECREsr. (VOLUME 13. PACE 55)
ID
bio
... SUM,. EIEAR12NG AND/011 DIMENSION PER STATE HIGHWAY MAP
5.90 TO MP 27.39. EDMONDS: 5N AVE. TO 236N ST. &W'
vll
EAST LINE OF THE
EIS4ft FIN AS NOTED
a. EXTSTUld MONUMENT AS NOTED
E METAL CAP WITH
PAINTED NOTE 'COR*-
5 157r W. 0,70'
/,�EX. CASED I* PLUGGED RON PIPE
VISITED: 10-13-00
z
8
.i
EX. CA 2' CONCRETE
FILLED IR PIPE WN
INVERTED NAIL
VISITED: 10-13-00
STATISTICS
EOUIPMENT. UETZ SET 4 ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION
METHM. FIELD TRAVERSE
ACCURACY. CONFORMS TO WAC 332-130-090
MONUMENTS VISITED: 10-18-2000, UNLESS
OTHERWSE NOTED
I EX. MONUMENT WTH BRASS CAP
FOUND IN OCTOBER 1978
2�i;d�ST. :j�W—.
NEI/4 OF THE NWI/4-
OF THE NEI/4 OF
SECTION 36
LEG A L Q E-S CR
THAT PORTIC� OF THE EktIERLI pATY OF THE NOFI�Enkk OUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
EX- ION -ENT
NORTHEAST QWARTER LYINC TZRTHERLY OF %S. -AGHWAX NO.'� -W (ALSO KNOWN AS EDMONDS WAA
FOUND IN
SECTION 36. TO"SHIP-,V NOFITH. RANgE. 5'EAST Cf� IK �Akl��TTE MERIDIAN: IN SNWCMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON;
oc
H-
: .
EXCEPT COUNTY ROADSk,!)4O,
EXCEP NAT PORTION OF-THEZAS1 HALF OF rdE-AMTHEAW QUARTER dF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
TDIIIb, 'S% ft.L.AMETTE MERIDIAN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SEC" 36. SHIP 27 N4tTIT'RANGE 3 E4
NO G AT THE NORTHWEST CO AS RLI IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A PONT
CONNIE . ';J-ER OF gAlb THEWX SOUTHE 1K
WHICH 6 35.0 FEET EAST -0 22.0 FEI:7- TH 0 OF $rNNINQ THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE
rD.go'VS'�:.�HVN'T
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SA S 92 ET EAST Of -1HE POINT OF BEGI—G; THENCE WESTERLY
AL PCV_ or BEG.
ONG SAID NORTH LINE 92 FEET TO THE
— - --------
T AFN
IN NWI/4, NEl/4, SECTIOtIl--36. T.2.7N:; -P.3E.. W. M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & J�b§OdIAT.M-'INC.
19400 33RD AVENUE W., SUIrd 200 :Z.
Lam LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON ilapgie-,�25_77d.-1591
LSA FILE NO. 4211 -fii�l E E T -�Z F 4
0
s R9.431�MERE WEST
7 12
EXISTING A
CNMUNK
13 N aa22'�o` W
W 236.65-
72'40 228th STREET S.W. -o
.0.15 IOO.S,*
—am -- — — — — — — — —
0 4':OF TO
ar 2
8.000 S,
-3 -- ---- --
�4— EX. ROCKERI
8.090 SF 'I EASEMENT
3 WOOD SHED
D7' W : PER F. NO�
6 b-78-27-0,- _%S 2002013W273
616,
4
In fth -1
w EXTSM G G" b
6th PL� W
K. ELISE
W*E SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
5 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SCALE : 1'-50'
10'20'30'40' ' 75' Im,
WOOD FENCE is- jmTx --� - — .- '.. . .. . I a, q cb'- 'b' SCALE ; 1 �15'
VAR ES M ocr A
I OM EASEMEN N
< 0.4, W TO FYP,�
417' W 49.78 10' CITY OF EDMONDS NMimi
n 4016 ..Do DRAINA EASEMENT V 4' 10' 15'
SEE DETAIL ON
4 ,.5' SHEET 4 OF 4
8.100 SF
EX,—
N 34118-22 E
WOOD FENCE 7 wal,
�ARIES FRO.
�113' W TO 0.5' W
EASTINC 5 1� m.
CHAINUNK FENCE
W
VARIES FROM 0.4' IN X. 0% All
AT NORTH END TO 5 .1 r tky,
3.0' W AT SOUTH END 11.611 S, c 6,1
END OF 'I
u
SF TOP OF SLOPE
15' SETBACK 10
5
CL 49 f — ,
�SE�ED'ET� 50. Wl.
T_
ON SHEE
DRAINAGE - N 34='22' E
4 OF 4 o
I&V
LA�S -r�8
8
ab' No I
.—EX. 50'
of msm&ws� COUNTY .11 END
OF TOP
EASEMEN1.0
0 OF SLOPE
0 1 PERIA'E
A F. �- 2027210
1t;
Of
EL
z
b1f -z 7
4
10 5
L
47.923 SF "rg
N 5822'40' nL
15' SETBACK
so.00, tp
SEE DE AIL ON
------- SHEET 3 OF 4 10.
SCALE 1'-30'
6
9 0 ... ... 6m-
1. Top
BE
10,293 SF 15' UTILITY 0, 15'
EASEMENT ...... _S LOPE
FYPcAJL
0.
V�
7
I AT sq
STEEP SLOPE PROTECTION EASEMENT
THE STEEP SLOPE AREA AND ITS BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE TO BE PROTECTED AS FOU.O.S
NO LONGS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN 15 FEET OF THIS EASEMENT UNLESS A STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION IS
APPROVED AS PROMDED FOR IN ECDC SECTION 20.158.110.0.2- NO YARM DECKS GRADING OR OTHER
DEVEILOPME T IS PERMIrTED IN ME EASEMENT UNLESS A STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION IS �PROVED AS
DE PRIED ABOW. NO MODIFICATION TO ME LANDSCAPING IS PERMITTED WIMOUT SUBMITTING A PLAN
TO ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL.
NOTE ' A PREUMINARY GEOTECHNICA� REPORT WAS COMPLETED AM ME PLAT TO ESTABLISH THAT
SOIL COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION.
. ..........
T.
- ----- --- -
LEGEND
SET 4' X 4' CASED CONCRETE MONUMENT
%M 1-5/ar BRASS DISK WITH -X- AFN
SSB STEEP SLOPE BUFFER IN NWI/4, NEI/4, SECTION-1 . 6, T:,27W..'13.3E.. �V.M.
NOTE:
ALL LOT CORNERS AND ME INTERSECTIONS/CORNERS LOVELL-SAUERLAND III A&&GtiATrxS;, INC..-.- .. ;z
OF THE 1 5' SETB CK MOM ME STEEP SLOPE SUFFERS 10400 33RD AVENUE W., SUfTt 200
WILL BE MARKED WIM 1/2- X 24- IRON PINS WITH LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON
PLASTIC CAPS NO'D. 22969. AS CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED
LSA FILE NO. 4211 AdHEET.,S'OF 4
0
1pj
R&OO'
L-7.54*
7.5'
o lo ?a7so 40 50'
124.64'
N 89'29*5r W
-1194
�o' a
11
cx -a;Mmos
L
NB9W57'W
1.72'
50'
r1o,
K*jCt EASEMENT_-
N89�'57'w
6 P,
10
7_
So,
. . ......... oL-m �w ..TEP,
ER DSTRCT
� 'I ' '
ZD' MATE
:%M *_
D'.NAGE EA ENT
TO eENEnT
LOTS 1-8
...... ... .
'SCALE
___ X1-7
R-1388.89*
�9
�73--50'
L-59�49'
%21 C3tr
-
217'15-
10
Olil 0"' 4.i"
I.- __ .- .-. " -
1 56 .. . — .- _."T
SCALE : 1'-20'
1%il%�
0' 10' 20'
10
TOE OF SLOPE
N 88-22-'40- W-Som'
N 82100'27- E
15' SETSBAl
8818'Zr E
T
Los
1-1.
K. ELISE
SECTION 36, T.27N., R.3E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON
SCALE : 1'. 50'
0' W'20'30*�0'50'
15' uluw
EASEMENT
lo
15' u"LITY
EASEMENT —
10
El 10�.P UjS� NO- I
ff SN . .
TPANSMISSON LINE EASEMENT
PER A-F. NO� 2027210
�O
�00-
fNtr 'cTF N 40'36'D9' E 8
TOE OF SLOPE 10.70' 1.
END OF
7 TOE O�
10, s SLOPE
SL
OPE QUFlU
------ -- --
TOE /'\—N 2rOr39' E
OF SLOPE
SCALE : 1'-30'
6 6mw!%�
0' '5. 30,
'01
TOE OF
SLOPE
. ..... ... . .. ...
N W'22'40' A
ED 22�7 65
AFN
IN NW1/4, NEI/4, SECTION. -SO, T.ZTlN:;-R.3E., W.M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATF-S,--INC.
.00. e
10400 33RD AVENUE W.. Stjl:Fg*200
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 8`80:16--42a�,7-ns'159i
LSA FILE NO. 4211 SIH E ET.4 -61W
10
1 Inch 20-fL
HE7GHT
A: M& I'
B. W&2' LO
C. 10
0: M4. 8'
TOTAL. 1,547.314 = 366.83 MEAN
+ 25.0
= 411.83 MAX.
PREPARED BY'
DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E.
6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD.
SNOHOMISH, WA 98290
PHONE. 425-334-9980
W425-334-7380+
!r;lail: breske0consultmoore.com
F, 11/05/07 1
SrrE TBM
PROXCT INFORMATIOUL CM UD OF SANITARY SEW WNWLE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 22809 96TH PL W, EDMONDS, WA CIJ-DE S4C ELLV* M6,49'
OMER. REGAL HOMES LLC 2JO6 119TH STREET SW, EVERETT, WA 98204
ATTN. MARKO UIAS, PRESIDENT, 425-299-5038
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTON 36, TOWNSHIP 27, RANGE 3. NE QUARTER,
K. ELISE 6LK 000 D-00 LOT 6
TAX PARCEL 10:00937900000600
SITE PLAN
LOT 6
nif TnRPR Q 2006
popW"uCi- FOR
-R DRAWAGE
EROSION
mEET FILE
r �Cv) 0 0 � 5 �,tf Atf�-
LOT COVERAGE:
BUILDINGLOT. 11,007SF C
PROPOSED SFR 254J SF Sr
Y�j
v L
w Ain 0
DA TUM
SIZ��E 1=40
E X P 0 S ED), CES
OVERED WITHIN YS
t? 11TAL A aro m4c4 "2- +Z'O
APPROVED BY PLANNING
KVVV--
Qj
N6%
C,
013
S
OPE I N R
-77. 22
N�
-�e- 19*
I
1-1
..-- IN
OCT 30 26196
C A) C-1v
4AV
V
-if;
lar Lim
N
X
PROP
\N-
GARAGE FF=387
SLAB.ON GRADE
GRA .8X
k
BOTTOM OF GARA
i(MIRL'
F007ING--365
Zone Comer Flag_
C
�A-j f
Setbacks Reguired Actual
\--4�>gww hA hill
6e
�12 1
Front
SidesEj
---------
0- —
1 1, 1 *
Rear
DIREC77ON OF
DRIVFWA Y SURFACE
STORM ORAIN
77Cq XINE
C-
Odier TO.S. I t)
SID&, SEWR
RUNO'F'OUTING LRAIN' ih�-IT
M Or 11171.1 IN10
DETENTPOINI -S-YSTUA
Dr- per ID/1-110(0
itefoVir A j?6Wf1t4Av* -t'O
2'. - Lto 2a 0
I 96th PL. W.
_19Cb 20 10 0-7S 4
MONUMENT
SET A CENTER OF
02510 20 30 50 100 CULDESAC PER
z PLAT ENGINEERING
ELEV. 385.58'
J_j
W.M.
N -UTILITY/ DRAINAGE PLAN ell),
15r=f=- Cvr=NEERAL NOTr=S
Al:�>DREE-55
TAX f=>Af;Zr.E=-L No
LE= -&AL
F_>E=_5C:,RIPTION:
5C,ALr=: I" = :20'-0"
22505 cf&TH PL. Vq.
OOci5-7(1OOOOO&OO
SEC:,-TION 56, TOINN5HIF- 2-7, FZANC7r= 3 AD
NE OLIAfRTER, K. ELI�E BLK 000 r->-00 LOT & C h
REOUIREO 5EPERATION OF UTILI I t=5 5HALL BE MET
PER CITY OF EOMONE>5 AND INr>U5TP_Y 5TAN00AR01S
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
BE COVERED WITHM 2 D&S
.- OWNERICONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
TEMPORAFW CONSTRUCTION
F.NTFLANGE REQUIRED
MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE
ALLOWED 140/9
FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO
fyl,Z)VING aERIMM SYSTEM
'�foRm'4mm
ACCEPTABLE TICNiTLIKE
MATERIAL
SDK 35
9CH 40
N -12
F610 HANCOR
ov
i - ;y'
E
_ZqLq_st
DRIVEWAY.
SLOPE
GARAGE
SLAB @
387.00'
Iv
RESIDENCE
FF MAIN @ 387-50'
X
Cv
1
4" E;10P*�OlLrr
clot I F=r-TOFZ TIrR.
4" FOOTIN& VRAM
CIOLL-Ee-TOR TIrp.
ull
w
P 0
:3
11)005,
SF
GE 379;90
IE 372.37"
YD. f7
GE 378.80',
AE 375.8.0'
01!
4w,
> 010.0
/0<
X\
APPROVED AS NOTED
x,
N NG
DRAIN #4
ID A
YD 4
GE 987.43-
IE 384.43'
TRENCH FOR GAS, CABLE,
POWER & PHONE
TO PROPOSED RESIDENCE
(ALL NEW UTILITIES MUST BE UNDERGROUND)
0 too
15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
SEWER
CLEANOUT
SEWER
CLEANOUT
AT EASEMENT LINE
[6" NTH 12' CAST IRON
OCKING LAMPHOLE
COVER W/ 1/2-
HEXBOLTS, TYP.)
i5ZO 61-olo
35' UTILITY
EASEMENT
TUF T F! F
lMFER\/joU5 r-0\1ERArE,
M451 lw;'ENC��.,h '—AllE FEET
,"i,ding . onge
1:;'F;ZlVr= NAY 6a5 E�aUARE I FEET
NAL<J`qAy/PATlC> 2a5 15GUARE FEET
-415c:> 501JA9ZE
I T �= i �___ --
E=xEmF-r
2. FZEFlLAc-,ED
3. NEN
4. 1 TC?T^L . 1 :2-72C, 1
w M-6A — 0 v vo 5-D
5Tb9otwA-TF,rp,
76 sl firm t t-4 Sr4 L-L e 1)
w IT-h -puavr
RESUB
FEB 14 2011
0-"hpy BUtLDING DEPAFOWENT
CITY OF EtIVIONDS
LIDT L'o
J �j lt�v j pq q e
,j,u ?/q k7
96-th PL. W.
�3i_b z=67-z�
MONUMENT
SET A CENTER OF
02510 20 50 50 100 CULDESAC PER
PLAT ENGINEERING
ELEV. 385.58'
w.m.
N -UTILITY/ DRAINAGE PLAN - s
Sr=r= CS.,ENIERAL NOTr=!5 15CALr=: I" = 20'-C"
AI:>DRE-=55
TAX FARr�E=-L_ No
LE=-(�AL
DE=_Sr�RIFTION:
.22aOa cI&TH FL. N.
5E=-r-TION 36, TONN5HIf- 2-7, f;ZANOE-= 3 tlo
NE OUARTEP-, K. EL15E BLK 000 1:?-00 LOT rb Q
REOUIP-r=r-> 51=_F'f=-RATION OF UTILI I E=5 5HALL E3E-= tlt= I
PE=-R r-ITr OF I=_I:)I11OND5 AN00 INDU5TF;ZY!5TANr,>AFZl:;I5
ALL LXPOSED SURFACES TO
BE COVERED WITHIIN 2 DKi"S
OWNERICONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
J'EMPORAFV�*' CONS"ifiUCTION
SUFLANCE REQUIRED
MAMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE
ALLOWED 140/9
FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO
oj,jVIN� WW90M SYSTEM
t-fow\qmm
�ZCEPTABLE TIGiTaLhE
MATERIAL
son 35
9CH 40
N -12
F610
C'Iv
6
11)005 SF
X/ \x/
<
0 J�D
x/
V�
-WA)L
5PE
DRIVEWAY,
SLOPE
GARAGE
SLAB @
387.00'
RESIDENCE
FF MAIN @ 387.50'
4" VONNSPOLM
clol-i-EcTorz Typ.
r--C4" ZMTI=VP_AIN
'0 T Typ.
.0
RIJ&A%k*-Te-VAft
DR
/YD AIN #4 5 Lq C -) 114C wri -lb ID
GE 14
87.43'
IE 384.43'
TRENCH FOR GAS, CABLE,
POWER & PHONE
TO PROPOSED RESIDENCE
(ALL NEW UTILITIES MUST BE UNDERGROUND)
No ca\lz5
1 JI U ILITY
EASEMENT
SEWER
CLEANOLIT
SEWER
w
CLEANOUT
w
AT EASEMENT UNE
[6" WITH 12' CAST IRON
OC KING LAMPHOLE
no
COVER W/ 1/2-
10
HEXBOLTS, TYP.)
GE 379.9,
0
6)CO)b
7 lE<,372.3Y1'
<,372.3
5
isZo
c py
�OVERtA01H, .
FZESIDE=t�_E 1,74-7 SWAME FEET
q—t-9.)
�FZIVEV4AY e,55 5l5fiJAFZe FEMT
pqALr_k4A-r/pATIa 288 SOIJAAM FELT
TOTAL 2,15a SGIIJA�E PrET
LINE I
TYPE
ARIMA (SOFT)
Exm�FT
FlLePLACeV
NE"
:2-7:20
TOTAL
:2720
Ix tT>c9sLwA-TLrq,
TO S� lt>T`6* t t.1 6-4 L'L E t)
APPR,.:)V'L*:'D AS NOTED
jgy kcINNIQ'il *-4IE:_:E.W','lGi
[ oat'.
,35' UTILITY
EASEMENT
RESUB
FEB 14 9011
crr_v BUILDING DEPAR7MENT
CITY OF EIDMONDS
boT L'a
MONUMENT
ADDRESS
TAX PARCEL NO
22505 q&TH PL. P4.
OOq5_7qOOOOO&OO
LE&AL SECTION 56, TOk4N5HIP 2-7, RANC7E 5
DESCRIPTION: NE OUARTER, K. ELISE BLK 000 D-00 LOT
SITE AREA: 11,005 SOUARE FEET
LOT SLOPE
NORTH -SOUTH 555.00' - 5-70.00'= 15.00'
15.00 \/ERTICAL FEET= 10.096 SLOPE
150.00 LINEAR FEET
HEI&HT CALCULATION
A 5955.1
5= 585.2
C, 586.2
r,3= �RJPJIA As
154-7.5/4= 556.85'
A\/EF;ZACvE C;pF;ZADE= 556.55'
ACTUAL BUILDINC7 HEIC7HT=
MAXIMUM BUILDIN& HEIC7HT=
LOT CON/EF;ZA67E-
IMPER\/IOUS, CO\/Ef;ZA&Es
Zone P--5 -1� Corner
— Flag_
Setbacks 1��red
Actual
Front N - 2_!� . --
- ;�ptp
Sides E� 7-5
-7-5/7-6
Rear c, 1-5
+D
Other
Height 7-5 1,b - 1-7 6
APPROVED BY PLANNING
L/TV� 0 20 2.. 11 00
ry
RESIDENCE 1,541 50UARE FEET
(Inclucling ovarhongs)
DRIVEP4AY C7455 501JARE FEET
P4AL<PqA*Y'/PATIO 2'7a SOUARE FEET
4,G)e,.4&_- 410 TOTAL 2,720
411-85' 5�10WVI LINE TrPE AREA f--ezF
RESIDENCE 1,74-7 50UARE FEET
INC. COVERED
PORCHES, CPARA&E
TOTAL 5
1;74-7/11�00x= 15.596
1,14-7 5mCWAF;zE FEET
55% HA�XIHUM
LOT aCIVERAC7E
T)
1.
EXEMPT
2.
REPLACED
5.
NEpq
:27:20
4.
TOTAL
:2-7:20
z02 5 10 20 50 - 50 100
Q �__l F_�
L-i I I I I
N SITE PLAN
SEE &ENERAL NOTES SCALE. I" - 20'-0"
REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED OF ANY PLAT IMPROVEMENTS
THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION
SEE GRADING J /TES_Q_ AND QRANAQEZ_UTILITY PLANS
FOR MORE INFORMATION
APPROVED AS NOTED
,Y ENji NEE , G
'4
D&,:
ft
Q5
All)
11900
96th PL.
CUrb ,
0 �85
W. SET A CENTER OF
CULDESAC PER
PLAT ENGINEERING
ELEV. 385.58'
Sj�', Ar -----
Xg
GARAGE
SLAB 0
.387.00-
UK OF -
UK OF 1W STWXTm
O%fjmmc
RESIDENCE
FF . MAIN 0 387-5D'
BOTTOM OF FOOTING 0
383'
'TO BE BUILT ON
Top OF ExtSTING
FOUNDATION)
TIO V/ UNE OF
- 00 �t
0000
"o
'r -
m EWA
CURRENT AS -BUILT
- CONTOURS
(ALSO ORIGINAL
PRE -DEVELOPMENT
CONTOURS)
00
1.
A?
U1
0-)
00
15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
,35' UTILITY
EASEMENT
00001-- %1
0001�_r_ 11
0000< 0 T(O RESUB
(0-15 - CITOR Is RESPONSIBLE FOR JAN 112010
NEIR/CoNTRA %., C
DRAINAG-f-'4M jj'Y
EROSION C014TROL AND BUILI)ING DgAR-41WNT
CITy OIF MOND$
Ztz 2-c 10 - 0,7,9
-6 Lb 2010 01<65 q
ADDF;ZESS
TAX PAF;ZCEL NO
LEC7AL
DE5CF;ZIPTION:
224505 qC2TFf PL. N.
ooq5_7qoOOOo&OO
STORM P4ATf---F;Z
CATCH BASINS
DOPSINSTREAM FROM
THE SITE k4ITH
FILTER SOCKS TO
PFZE%/ENT Sl 1 =
RUNOFF FROM
ENTERINC7 PER
EDMONDS STANDARD
DETAIL EI.2
MONUMENT
SET A CENTER OF
CULDESAC PER
PLAT ENGINEERING
ELEV. 385.58'
ANY STOCKPILES
ON SITE TO BE
COVERED P41TH
VISOUEEN PqITHIN7
24 HOURS !
d%
51=—C,TION 56, TOPsINI5HIP 2-7, FZANC7E 5
NF_ CRUAF;ZTEF;Z, K. F-LISEE BL< 000 0-00 LOT C2
co
C7F;ZA0IN0 CALC�ULATION5
N GRADING/EPRO SION CONTROL
SEEE Cwr=Nr=FZ^L NOTr=9 20'-0"
ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE COMPOST
AMENDED TO MEET REOUIREMENTS OF BMP T5.13 IN THE STORMWATER
MANUAL. VOL V. CHAPTER 5
ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CONSISTENT IMTH CITY
OF EDMONDS STANDARDS PROVIDED AS NEEDED
ALL EXPW-,FJD SURFACIS '10
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
OWNERICONTRAOTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
0v
c")
illoo
00 �rl
(0-
96thPL. W. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANC,E. 2-4" OUAFZFZ*Y' 5PALLS
cjr" 12" THICK P41TH FILTER FABRIC
3815. UNDERNEATH- ENTRANCE TO BE
15'-0" P411DE X 50'-0'* DEEP
CURRENT AS -BUILT (, Ify
CONTOURS $+lylqbhRD
---(ALSO ORIGINAL De:MLEI-1
PRE -DEVELOPMENT
CONTOURS)
T
SL op"" FKA y
*2.8.t
OWNERICONTRAOTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
GARAGE
SLAB 0
387.00' PTV --
15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
RESIDENCE
FF MAIN 0 .387.50'o
BOTTOM OF FOOTING U4
383' V6 0
Astr_^ op
oevr
sl�;r-FENCE
PER CITY OF ED46NDS J�Q
STANDARDS (,n
Cy)
35' UTILITY
EASEMENT
00000
1�1 0-11
APPROVED AS NOTED
BY EN�IEEJING
A
.7 70. - _ M4_'�_-kll
JAN 112010
c7
8UfLDiNG DEPARUMENT
CITY OF 9DMONDS
&Lb 2-416-078q
N
&D zolo o-aq
ADDFZE59
22508 q6TH PL. Y4.
TAX PAFZCEL NO ooq3,7q00000&oo
STORM Y'4ATER
CATCH 5ASIN5
DOWNSTREAM FROM
THE 51TE 041TH
F LTER SOCKS TO
P"NT SITE
RUNOFF FROM
ENTERIN& PER
EDMONDS STANDARD
DETAIL EI.2
MONUMENT
SET A CENTER OF
CULDESAC PER
PLAT ENGINEERING
ELEV. 385.58'
ANY STOCKPILES
ON SITE TO EIE
COVERED P41TH
V1592UEEN P41THIN
24 HOURS 7!
LECvAL 51=-CTION 3ro, TOPSINSHIP 2-7. FZANeE 5
OESC,fZIPTIONt NE C2UAFZTEFP., K. EL15E BLK 000 0-00 LOT
Cd
VC
tl-.
C7FZA0INe CALCULATION5 C'v
Le66 -ThPN i;Oqa:5
GRAD IN G/EPRO SION CONTROL
SF-r= Cvr=Nr=FtAL N0Tr=5 SaALr=t 'I" = 20'-0"
ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE COMPOST
AMENDED TO MEET REOUIREMENTS OF BMP T5.13 IN THE STORMWATER
MANUAL. VOL V. CHAPTER 5
ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CONSISTENT VATH CITY
OF EDMONDS STANDARDS PROVIDED AS NEEDED
AU EXpxED SURFACEES To
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
'6VNERICONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
96th PL. W.
H
SLOPE 'WVAY
GARAGE
SLAB 0
387.00'
A -
RESIDENCE
FF MAIN 0 387.50
BOTTOM OF FOOTING 0
383'
("IV I ly,
Boca Gary
11,00
0000<0 lb�
\A bo- t5 Tb
PER CITY OF
STANDARDS,
oho 0 0 1 (e)
SO
INSTALL STA51LIZED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE. 2-4" OUARF;Zr SPALL5
12" THICK HITH FILTER FA5RIC
UNDERNEATH- ENTRANCE TO BE
15'-0" P41DE X 50'-0" DEEP
CURRENT AS -BUILT Ct+-i gwnama
CONTOURS
-(ALSO ORIGINAL
PRE -DEVELOPMENT
CONTOURS)
(14
0
Ul
00
7.
EROSION
()WNER/CONTF?A(' 'TOR IS ReSPONSIBLE FOR
CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
)MONDS
APPACDVED AS WED,
Ul
N I EEI NG
Cy)
35' UTILITY
EASEMENT
#ft"TEET FILE
ti I
JAN 112010
13UILDING D t NT
CITY Or: lg;��
NDS
li�-ad / n,� P,:1-L61 2-6 An- C-70V
13 Lo Z.0 10 O-R T
ADDRESS 22505 q&TH PL. P4.
TAX PARCEL NO OOq5_7qOO000&OO
LE&AL SECTION 56, TOV4N5HIP 2-7, RAN&E 5
DESCRIPTIONt NE OUARTER, K. ELISE BLK 000 0-00 LOT C2
SITE AREA: 11,005 SOUARE FEET
LOT SLOPE
NORTH-50UTH 385.00' - 5-70.00'= 15.00'
15.00 \/EF;ZTICAL FEET= 10.096 SLOPE
150.00 LINEAR FEET
HEIC7HT CALCULATION
A = 555.1
f5= 555.2
C 556.2
154-7.5/4= 556.55'
A\/EFZAC7E 6-RAPE= 556.55'
ACTUAL EWILPIN& HEI&HT=
MAXIMUM EKJILPINC7 HEI&HT=
LOT CO\/EF;ZAC7E:
Zone Corner Fla&�
Setbacks R2quirtd
Actual
Front W 7-15
— lb �5 -
Sides el
7. 0 /'7.6'
Rear
Wier
HeigLt
APPROVED BY PLANNING
00
11b
Iry
IMPEFZ\/IOU5 CO\/EFZAC7E:
RESIDENCE 1,54-7 5OUAF;ZE FEET
(Incluellng
Df;ZIVEP4A'ir 655 5OUAFZE FEE-1,-�
;OqALKP4AY/PATIO 2*75 501JARE FEE- I
Lk -ID TOTAL 2,720
411-55' 5�10\Pdn LINE TYPE AREA (SOFT)
RESIDENCE 1,74-7 SOUARE FEET
INC. CON/ERED
PORCHES, &ARAC-E
TOTAL G7 1,74-7 5GUARE FEET
1,74-7/11 15.5% 55% mAxlr-�
LOT CO\MFZA,9r=
1.
EXEMPT
V>Wt-90T
NON-EXEMPT
2.
REPLACED
5.
NEk4
2`b:20
L 4.
TOTAL
2i20
z02 510 20 50 50 100
Q r__I - I I
Lj I _j
N SITE PLAN
SEE CpENERAL NOTES SaALE: I" m 20'-0"
REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED OF ANY PLAT IMPROVEMENTS
THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION
SEE GRADIbIG.ZTESQ AND QSAI LAQEZ�ITILITY PLANS
FOR MORE INFORMATION
OiROVED AS MOTED
,my q,11Gal '-EiRlIffim
A16
0
v
11200
0000"- '11
000
0000. T10-
bl�
MONUMENT
96th PL.
W
SETA CENTER OF
CULDESAC PER
r_urb.
385
PLAT ENGINEERING
ELEV. 385.58'
CURRENT AS -BUILT
CONTOURS
(ALSO ORIGINAL
PRE -DEVELOPMENT
�0
CONTOURS)
A-Y -----
st Ay
OPE
2.
.25, ax
?T
kj-
22
GARAGE
SLAB 0
387.00'
15' UTILITY
'40,
EASEMENT
tM OF
Lft OF Ur S71ttC��,
11 1
OVIERKMC
RESIDENCE,
FF MAIN 0 387.50*
BOTTOM OF FOOTING 0
via
383*
(TO BE BUILT ON
Ul
TOP OF EXISTING
FOUNDATION)
I", LW OF 24'
PATIO, C"TLt'"
0000000 �hj
'00 lov -
�l I-,
OWNERICONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
35' UTILITY
EASEMENT
,S-4 plc4r)
Cf)-
L;-A
:30
rn
-"n
rn
RESUB
JAN 112010
BUILDING pgAR_tjWNT
Cily Olt MONDS
2" MIN AC PVMT
2" CSTC
4" - 1 - 1 /4"CSBC
PAVEMENT DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
NE 1/4, SEC.36, TWN.27, RNG.3, W.M. 224 TH S T sw
EDMONDS
MEMORJAL 2287H
CEMETARY sr sw
wy
TE] k
GRADING QUNA T1 TIES:
CU T.- 150 C Y
FILL: 50 CY
GRADING QUANTATIES ARE ROUGH
CALUCLA TIONS THAT DO NOT A CCOUN T
FOR SOIL SWELLAGE AND SHRINKAGE.
CONS TRUC T117N SEQUENCE#
1. CALL ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE (425-771-0220, EXT. 1326) TO i �SET UP A PRE-CoNSTRUCTION REV. #
MEETING WITH OWNER, CONTRACTOR, DESIGN ENGINEER AND CITY ENGINEER.
2. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY 1
CONSTRUCTION DR SITE CLEARING.
3. REVIEW EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES. 2
4. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE DUST CONTROL MEASURES AS REQUIRED INCLUDING STREET SWEEPING.
5. ROUGH GRADE, INSTALL UTILITIES & STORM SYSTEM PER PLANS. 3
6. DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT KEY PROJECT ASPECTS DURING 'COK TRUC TION.
Z FINAL GRADE, PLACE AND HYDROSEED PER NOTES & DETAILS, 4
a REMOVE T.E.S.C. FACILITIES PER CITY APPROVAL.
5
DESCRIPTION
ADD NEW TOPO LINES, FF, AND DRNG ARROWS
N 0 TE:
TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY. -
Pacific Coast Su' ryey,�, In c.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING
P.O. BOX 3286
EVERETT, WA 98Z13
PH. 425.508.4951 FAX 425.357.3577
Pes-lnc@Comeast.net
UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE:
DATE
CAUTION:
— THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BL'RESPONSiBLE FOR VERIFYING THE
11-3-05 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
LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE
CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN
POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR
LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY
05
WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID
UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE
UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO
VARIATION.
901
VICINITY MAP
ERDSIDN & SEDNENTAIMN CLUTRUL --NDTF-St
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, STRAW OR EITHER MATERIAL TO COVER EXPOSED EARTH SHALL BE ON LOCATION AND
READY TO USE. IF THE NEXT WEATHER DAY FORECAST IS RAIN, THE SITE SHALL BE C13VERED AT THE END OF
THE DAY. THE SITE SHALL BE COVERED IF THE NEXT DAY IS A NON -WORKING DAY.
2. SOIL STOCKPILES ARE TO BE COVERED WITH VISOUEEN WITHIN 24 HOURS.
3. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH GRADING, FINAL LANDSCAPING IS TO BE INSTALLED OR HYDROSEED OR MULCH
AREAS OF EXPOSED EARTH.
-INSPEC TIDN ND TEt
CALL THE CITY ENGINEER INSPECTION LINE (425-771-0220, EXT. 1326) 24 HOURS
IN ADVANCE FOR ALL ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS.
2"x4" DOUGLAS FIR
(NO.1 GRADE) OR STD.
METAL FENCE POSTS
4' O.C.
48" WIDE FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI 10OX OR
EQUAL. LAY FILTER FABIRC IN TRENCH.
BACKFILL W/lPEA--GTWE
3�> G CA %,t C- e- 2
PEA GRAVEL�
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
DONNA L. 1113RESKE, P.E.
6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD.
SNOHOMISH, WA 98290
PHONE: (42,5) 334-9980
FAX: (425) 334-7380
PH
31-011
SITE ADDRESS
ZZOUO 'JUIM VL W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
GRADING & TESC
FOR
REGAL HOMES LLC -
TAX ID: 00937900000600 PFN:
DEVELOPER: REGAL HOMES LLC, 2306 1 19TH STREET SW, EVERM, WA 98204
LOT 6
SCALE: I = 20 1 ISSUE DATE: 8-3-05 1 SHT NO. I OF I
J
NE 1/4, NW 1/4, NE 1/4, SEC. 36, T. 27 N, R. 3 E., W.M.
385-
EXISTING 8"
SANITARY SEWER
8"D.I. WATERMAIN
93' 12" PVC 0 8.871 PC'
P'RETAINING WALL
4-j HENDERSON, D
3 SMITH, CHRISTINE
497 -000-009-0006
-000-012-0001
CN ROBERTS, CARL E
N44 &A 4507-009-000-0308
41" OTA rat EX. C8
TOP=390.90
INV=389.05-12" N&S
INV=389.05-8"W
EX. MH_#3-43
7 8 TOP=384.06
INV=378.00
CARTER, MARY T INV=383.8121
LEVIN, MARC S. 4973-000-008-0007 SET MONUMENT
4973-000-007-0008 N54*59'06"W -15 (TYP) EX LUMINAIRE
328.64'(CALC'D) 328.57'(PLAT) HAIN LINK FENCE EX
92.00' 88*22'40" W 328. GUY -I\.
10 .1 -- - 1.
99.57' GU
r
F-
7.5' BSBL (TfP) No p
#1 71 *0
JOY L yor 385.75
iE W175
GILMORE, DANIEL P EIT 2
53ra5-000-003-0005 1,000.47 SF
R to 8, .34 S
psv - PW 0 z
10 8,0 37 SF 25- BSB r" 11
2 3 14
0,
IWEE Z!��
CT3
5.23
SET j5rMT
4 L-CENTRAL.
.05
b C8
9 1- G12
P�mcu y 3
BERTO, LOUIS A 8, .20 SF A 0 P .03
%GO CO.
228th PLACE W. 5365-000-004-0004 MN 0 ----
3(r
IE IS:
N 88*25'18" W N 88*25'18" W It
el. Vr.
8
189.10'(MEAS.) 1013-08'(MEAS.) 16,6 .31 S E
189.09'(PLAT) VO 1 00-00'(PLAT)
to CP
Visiaq to
0
00' MICKEL, ARTHUR P IE 385.ag
<\ 5365- 000- 005- 0003
/ / yo 307.43 18.6 .49 F 0
\A IE 3a4.43 tE 21
W UD
11,611.20 SF im IKE 20 --
36 .
11,005.4 F
uj IE 3
7 t OR
6 0 C.4 yu DETENTION VAU
to
MO. I I so CMP 0 &qmx-
SWAIN, RICARDO & LUCY E rp tn OE 311.75 0
IE W4.15 -01
5365-000-006-0002 C) IV 2
a emy a* CMp 0 1 .8"s
z 15 BSBL (TYP)
j'4� CUP 0 6.431$
3,91.
IE 3
so\
75 UTILITY
370- POLE
365-
360-
35
ROCKERY 345 1 r) ly
P I N E C 1R E S T
(V 0 L. 1 3, P G. 5 5)
EXISTING ASPHALT EDGE
94
calla
IF 384.75
IE 380.80
-ce
384.25
IE 380.75
INSTALL SIMT NAME SON
Ut3 STREET NAMES - 28th Avg W,
h
Pl*m W, & 228th SUM SW
INSTALL 3 STOP SMS - I
IN LOCATMS INDUTEI) Cv
h�
12"CP
cat2
377.30 Z
IE 373.
80 43.17' 12* cmp ILI 1 3 26X
-MT T2 74 5-VF- -
8+h--S-TRE E-T --S.-W.- -
BY CITY
%-R2 511.541 12' CMP 0 1&40X
372.50 (371.50) (3.50)
0)
% .10
.00) Fe p evj,%r#4 cr,>j
GE 364.47 (303.47) (7. MAITAIVO
tt,(02,
.20 (362.20) (7.80)
380.,"(359-00) (6,00)
7.60 (3M.60) (3.40)
CE 355.00 (355.00) (0-00)
0 39.93XO
37
80 CMp I I LAMMERSDORF, H P
518, 7 0 30.MX 362703-1-015-0005
-:��E>'- 50' P.U.0. NO. 1 0'
q SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TRANSMISSION LINE
EASEMENT
.34J .
ui
380
375
37(
t fr��-
85
6TIN
375
370
36 - 50 10865
SECTION B-B* 96th PL W
TREE LEGEND_
* CONIFEROUS TREE TO REMAIN
. VO 170.
X
390
A$
385
AX MH#1-2
>r- L -/\ -
IYA 6.0, =
0 '"IYA/V TOP
10 BSBL (TYP) 47,923 SF INV=330.95 (PER DESIGN)
LANDSCAPING FOR DRIVEWAY
EX. EXTRUDED ADJACENT PROPERTY CUT
CURB 15' BS13L (TYP)
z & UTILITY ESMT
CD A- 9
W LUMINAIRE
CD > VACUUM WITH 10,293 SF
< CONC. BASE
CL EX. EXTRUDED RAILROAD
CURB TIES
TO BE REZONED
MEYER, RICHARD A VACUUM WITH TO BN
CONG,. BASE
362703-1-157-0003
(L DRIVEWAY
EX. EXTRUDED CUT
tn CURB
< VACUUM WITH
CONIC. BASE
EX. EXTRUDED
LANDSCAPING CURB
ISLAND
WATER
METER
1L1
�Ek MHttl
'N
..............
TOP=330.69
INV=323.30 (PER-OtSIGN)
ka
).70 P
04 0
to
,- z
EX. C13
TOP=335.82
INV=328.39-(?)" E. & W.
Ile"
007
1-01
GRADING QUANTITIES
CUT 4,690 CU YDS
FILL 1,279 CU YDS
E X C B
TOP= 331.55
INV=329.95-8"S.
><__�X. C B
TOP=331.98
INV=328.83-8"N.
INV=322.48-?" E. & W.
W-101
37E
37(
3&
0
0
3:
Of
W
co
APPLICANT/OWNER
MICHEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
7907 212TH STREET SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026
TELEPHONE: (425)776-2211
CONTACT: ROB MICHEL
SURVEYORS
LOVELL- SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.
19400 33RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WA 980-36
TELEPHONE- (425)775-1591
PROJECT CONTACT* JEFF TREIBER
SITE ADDRES
TAX ACCOUNT #362703-1-074-0i::03
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE EASTERLY IIALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER LYING NORTHERLY OF S.S. HIGHWAY NO. I-W
(ALSO KNOWN AS EDMONDS WAY). SECTION 36. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF
THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; IN SNCHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT ROADS;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF TPE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NO-9THEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH,
RANGE 3 EAST, MLLAMFTI'- MEIiICIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCEING AT THE NOr, OF SAID SUBDIVISION: THENCE SOUTHEAETERLY
-�611F- 11CH IS 33.0 FEET EAST AND 22.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE
IN A STRAIGHT I-W-4i" TO A � I
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE
NORTH LINE VMICH IS 92 FEET EAT. OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WESTERLY, ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE 92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRIC-IONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD.
BENCH MARK
INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MAMOLE #3-43 LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST PROPERTY
CORNER.
ELEVATION : 378.00
DATUM : OLYMPIC MEW WATER DFRICT (M.L.L.W.)
T.B.M. SPIKE IN POWER POLE AT �HE. NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY - ELEVATION 391.10
T.B.M. "0" IN OPEN ON FIRE HYDRrINT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY - ELEVATION - 340.59
4 �f%f % It, rml vr Q),
fin)
1
00
-/u
v%j
7
i
+
C'q
<
EXISTING
GROJND
LINE
to
lip
A?
Q
Ap
tK
V
69
CIO
'969
A
`3
EL
0
0
Irj
10
tw I --T)
b
3 'r4.40
370.03
APPR
VEn ;=�r)R
i-vaill
z!� 71-
Elty Enginee
Date
CID
N
W
to
Al
%n
In
i t-
5-0in 2+00
1+50
A
1+00
0+50
0+00 -0+50
-1+00 -1�
0
Road Profile 96th Place W -, Storm and Sewer Utilities
scale: H 1"=40', V 1"=4'
go
go
1=6
375
SM,
36
50
f
-222 8 -th -ST7E E T S. W.
SET NAONUMENT
EX LUMINIA11"
P
-15 BSBL (TY
N54059?06"W EX PP-----...,. FU T� �1� 5' S ALK BY CITY
A. FT. CHAIN, LINK FENCE
3' N. G; [i 'It/ V R25'
92 `2 W 328.6,'D' V if I -
N 88
2'
9 9.5 7'.
100. GUY 372.50 '371.50) (3.50D)
0 \3 W Q JD
Q)
NO PAR IN IGN
7.5' BSBL (TTP) X GND 366.7-0 (365.70) (10-00)
9-
00 .1
YD#1 386.1-7 -b
GE 38&-45
T-
-A EX GND 364.4-7 (363.47) (7-83)
I E 3&a.-7-5 2 b
35-3-5-7
000.47 SF ro
�0 1 87
UJ 04 q. P
VC
00
! +:10
820 .37 SF 25' BSB TYP) rn 0 X C 363.20 (362.20) (7.80)
GE 0
IE
�f.+ 11-11 40 A
IE 380.28Z 4e--ee PVC
/VO EX CND 050.00 (359.00) (6.00)
@ '5x)fQ%84.07-
GE,
/1V0 ------------ 0
G.
99'---_
13.
0 .1 0 6#1 X D 357.60 (356.60) (3.40)
40 y
N 8 3 C
LO EX GND 355.00 (355.00) (0-00)
00 q0
5r.
SET MONUM ENT 7.5'
AC CENTRAL. C %
!CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC MAILBOX P @
2-�o 8#3
1,4218,
3)
C8#2
GE
�-P L GE
-110 Q 6) : , 1. - .04- 1
IE
ALUMINUM POCE w/BR KAWAY tAG
8 0 20 SF BASE; WIRED TO ACCOM TE '511. Qi I CMP cc I
5 1- ----
8 CM 30.36%
G 0
0 RA HEAD; M UNTING HEI MH#1
30, 3.
IE 5.
#4 0 7t\-Ek 50) P.U.D. NO. 1 OF
GE COUNTY
C� .3 35. .6 .31 SF(�) 0 Ln SNOHOMISH
cc
f6)69 IE
40.6- to ') - (_0
A)
6- Pyc Q0 TRANSMISSION LINE
0
-20T CN EASEMENT
A5
YQ#3 3 -77- @ x to
GE 10
IE
10
(0�1
YD#
876 .49 F YD#1
GE 38-7-.+3 W-'ql 9 � 2
30.k(. GE " 0 \
-4- LA
(0
IE 38+ 0 IE 368.00
_U IE LLJ
YD#5-W OLI CKI LID MH#1 0 .10
:x 8(ozl 4,;C
11)611.20 SF GE E 34 0 0
-5-79A-7 3 0.7 -
CP IE
d% 0
CD
0 #9
N10. 0 GE
6 Ln 0
3.-A 9
CN4 0
M 10 Q0
11 1005.4 IN E 360. z
C. IE .60
E 379.
1E ..7
x DETENTION VAULT
YD#8 M
GE -61 169.35 f 8" CMP @
C.O. �p 10
L0 GE 391.75/
1E 384.16
19.846% @
61.13' 8 C M P @
10 15 BSBL (TYP)
1 4 93' 8" CMP @ 6.431%
@
(No-r Ms 41
0\
A\
38 3,40
........... ....... .... "
UTILITY
POLE
D AY
10 45
k-
0' 477923 S F C', 2
10 BSBL (TYP) EX. MH#1
DRIVEWAY T 0 P
LANDSCAPING FOR CUT
ADJACENT PROPERTY 5) BSBL (TYP) INV=330-95Axr-'--'ER DESIGN)
"1z
UT�LITY ESMT
EX. CB
1�� @ TOP=335.82
01
? E. W.
INV=:328.39A.)
10,293 SF 10
\10
RAILROAD
TIES Ito
TO BE REZONED
NOTE DRIVEWAYS:
'TO BN
N
LOTS 1-8 SHALL
RIVEWAYS TO
DRIVEWAY D
LAI.>
a 61 CENT.
CUT
-�5D- -* NOT EXCEED 14 PER
, �1- PC-
C1
IN 100-5
ro
EX. C B
TOP=331.55 7)S.
INV=329.95r--B
E X C B
M TOP=331-98
INV-\328.83,--3"N-
W.
INV==322.48r--?" E
Z
DRAWN By
.............
SHEET NO. 10 Lot Plot Entrance to plot is on DRAWN By
Exten tion of 96th Ave W at the REVISION
2 Intersection with 228th Street SW Z�
OF 10 SHTS-
HORIZ. SCALE Owner - Rob Michel (Michel Construction)
1 " = 20' 7907 212th SW, #102, Edmonds, WA 98026
VERT. SCALE Office (425)776-2'Z"11) FAX (425)778-9086
DATE
DATE
DATE DESCRIPTION
7/V-1/02- ks - so % --r
, ',N. M 4�
As - Su � L--F
plot including Plot Road ':7
10 Lot
Storm Drainage System)
Sew er & Water Locations) a n d SSI I
Rockery (east side PIct road) E)(PIRES 2/24/03
DATE:--EZL4/-02
MELLOR & ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
60r. SATER LANE
EDMONDS. WA 98020
(425) 775-5317