7039 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD.PDFiiiiiiii iiiiii
12321
7039 MEADOWDALE
BEACH RD
C"�
TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER:OL-T:�)MiOW19,410
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:— DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver E] Study Required E] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: —
PERMITS
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE S:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S).#:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LID #:
LOT: BLOCK:
On,
L\TEMP\DSrs\Forn7s\Strce1 File Checklistdoc
( 04
ity
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R1 10
AT: 7039 Meadowdale Beach Road Building Permit #: 2006-0107 1 -
Occupancy established by this certificate:
R3
Dwelling units:
No. Stories: 3 Basement:
Yes
Type of Construction:
VB
Owner of building:
The Sinale Family Residence at 7309Mea(
of the 2003 edition of the International Residential
the proposed occupancy is classified.
By
,nnis Wa"n"661,
Beach Road'.- -",h'a"-s-,,,.b�e'e'n''�'in'spected and approved complying with the requirements
is adopt�-d�.byt�fiiCit�'f6'r:�thiD 'group and division of occupancy and the use for which
Issued this 14 th day of March, 2008
Chief Building Official
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
Y
CITY, -copy (wg,
C E ky E-0
DEC. 9 T RRA ASSOCIATES Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and PERMIT COUNTER
APR Environmental -Earth Sciences
Ms. Star Campbell
City of Edmonds
Dev elopment Services Department
121 — 5th Avenue North
Edmonds. Washington 98020.
Subject: Geologically Hazardous Areas Review
Holland Short Plat
7000 Block Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Ms. Campbell:
1�to
'Z44i P02?,
February 27, 2003
Project No. T-5332
nnmyn
u 20
05
E.ECE
As requested, we have conducted a review of geologically hazardous areas for Lots 3 and 4 (the site) of the
Holland Short Plat in Edmonds, Washington. The location of the site is shown on the attached Figure 1. Our
scope of work included a visual site reconnaissance and excavation of three backh.oc test pits' to depths ranging
from about 13.5 feet to 16.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Our study evaluated geologic hazards
(erosion hazards, landslide hazards, stecp slope hazards and seisrr& hazards) at the site, and included analysis of
slope stability along several profiles on the steep slopes located on the subject site.
Building and site development plans are currently not available fo . r the two re*
sidential lots. We anticipate that
house construction W1UJ=_uirc.mod
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is undeveloped land located on the western terminus of an cast -west trending, rounded ridge. A Slope
Exhibit Map by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. indicates site elevations range from about Elev. 370 at the
top of the ridge in the east -central portion of the site to about Elev. 310 along the western margin of the site.
Overall relief on the northern and souihern flanks of the ridge is down about 45 to 5.5 feet carried over a slope
gTadient of about 50.percent. The axis of the ridge slopes down to the west at a grade of about 25 to 32 percent.
Both the northern and southern flanks of the ridge ternuinate at broad, relatively Pat ravine bottoms.. )kSji�d not
obA9a=AJ]Qw channel or any indications of surface water in the ravine bottoms.
WtAkLacit-obaerve indicadons of grql! �movements or instability on the slopes. We did not observe indications
Of 91QUn4���ft, saturated surface conditions, or Ec�S �ntsign�ificant �erosiqrii The site slopes appearwell
drained, and generally support growth.of relatively straight mature coniferous trees.
ATTACHMENT 2
Ms. Star Campbell
Fe,b ruary 27, 2003
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soils we observed in the test pits are glacial outwash deposits consisting of light brown to gray, moist,
medium dense to dense, fine- to mediu'm-grained sand with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel. We did not
observe groundwa te r seepage, wet soils, or.indications of a fluctuating water table in any of the test pits.
The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P.
Minard, 1983, shows the site soils mapped as Vashon advance outwash consisting predominantly of clean pebbly
sand. The native sand and gravel we observed in the three test- pits excavated on -site is generally consistent with
the mapped classification.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits -am presented on the attached
Figures 4 and 5. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the attached Figure 2.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Section 20.1513.060 (A)(3) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines geologically
hazardous areas as those areas subject to �potential erosion..Iandslide, and/or potential seismic instabil ides, and
include the following:
FAx)sion Hazard Areas
'Section 20.15B.060 (AX3)(a) of the ECDC defines erosion hazard areas as those areas containing soils that may
experience severe to very severe erosion hazArd. * These soils include, but are not limited to, the following when
they occur on slopes of IS percent or greater:
1. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes)
2. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes)
3. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has niapped the site soils as Aiderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to
70 percent slopes. The soils we observed in the test pits are consistent with the Everett component o( this SCS
classification. The SCS considers the erosion hazard for Everett as moderate. We did not observe Alderwood
soils in the test pits or in nearby exposures; Based on our observations of well -drained Everett soils 'throughout.
the subject site, and the definition for erosion hazard areas presented above, it is our opinion that the site would
not be considered an erosion hazard are a,
We did not observe indications of significant erosion at the subject site; however, the soils will be sukeptible to
erosion when exposed during construction. In. our opinion, standard Best Management Practices (BMPs)
employed during construction would provide adequate ff�itigation of the potential for erosion at the site. All
erosion and sediment control BM?s should conform, to City of Edmonds requirements.
Project No. T-5332
Page No. 2
Ms. Star Campbell
F.-.bruary 27, 2003
Landslide Hazard Areas
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(30) of the ECDC defines landslide hazard areas as those areas of thebty o*f Edmonds
that, by reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability or topography, have a risk,
of earth subsidence' and landslide hazard in excess of normal -allowances. The ECDC specifies field criteria for
identifying landslide hazard areas. We used the criteria listed below in our evaluation of landslide . hazard areas at
the subject site.
I Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater, and impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently
interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel), and
springs or gmundwater,seepage.
.2. Any am.that includes significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, and also includes existing
landslide deposits, regardless of slopes.,
3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene. epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present) or is.
underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified -geologist or geotechnical
engineer.
4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream batik erosion.
S. Any area located on an alluvial fan -presently subject to,. or potentially subject to, inundation by debris
Pow or deposition of strearn-transported sediments.
Th onditions we _o�sc
-M��
L
�s-:s s soils
d cussed the ite
groundwater in the test pits or indications of seeps or springs on the site slopes. We obsmed no -areas on -site or
.on adjacent, properties that indicate previous instability or ground movements have occurred.- The site is not
subject to instability as I result of stream incision or stream bank erosion, and is not located on an alluvial fan.
Steep Slope Hazard Areas
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(c) of the ECDC defines steep slope hazard areas as any ground that rises at an
inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet. According to this section
of the code., a slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top, and measured by averaging the inclination over at
least 20 feet of vertical relief. The code does not discuss criteria for determining the top and toe of a riteep. slope.
In our opinion, the toe of a slope is a distinct topographic break that separates slope grades of less than 40 percent
from slope grades of 40 percent or more. The approximate toe of the ste . ep'slope on Lots 3 and 4 is shown on
attached Figure 2.
The topographic information provided to us indicates that the vast m;iJority of Lots 3 and 4-are slopes,40 feet or
more in height, with inclinations steeper than 40'percent an d; the . refore, meet the definition presented above for
steep slope hazard areas. Portions of the site not meeting this definition include the western margin of Lot 3, the
east -west trending ravine bottom on Lot 4, and the crest of the ridge on . Lot 4.
Project No. T-5332
Page No. 3
La
Ms. Star Campbell
February 27, 2003
Stability Analysis
We performed our stability analyses using the computer,.program WINSTABL. The soil parameters used are
shown on the attached analysis plots and output text. These parameters are based- on field and laboratory data,
and our past experience with sim�ilar soils. Analyses of the slope were performed along two section identified on -
the attached Figure 2 as. Section A-A� and Section B-B'. Our analyses of these sections considered. both static.and
pseudostatic (seismiic) conditions for the existing slopes. A horizontal acceleration of 0.20g was used in the
pseudostatic analysis.to simulate slope performance under earthqua'ke loading.
The lowest safety factors for eachcondition are presented in the following table:
Section Analyzed
Minimum S fety Factors
Static
Pseudostatic
Section A -A
1.79
1.17
Section B-131
1.74
1.14
ne results of the stability analyses indicate that existing slopes are stable with'respect to deep-seated failure
under both static and pseudostatic conditions. The standard of practice in the Puget Sound region generally
requires rninimum safety factors of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and psuedostatic conditions, respectively.
Seismic Hazard Areas
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(d). of the ECDC defin es seismic hazard areas as those areas subject to severe risk of
earthquake damage as a result of' seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments, settlement, or soil
-liquefaction.
Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we observed in.our on -site. explorations, and the results of our
stability analysis, it is our opinion that the risk for severe damage resulting from seismically induced landslides,
earth adjustments, and settlement is low. It is also our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential
building areas at this site is negligible. do not exist on the subiect
site.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Steep slope hazard areas, as defined by the City of Edmonds, exist on -site and will be impacted by site
development. Potential impacts to the steep slope- hazard areas due to the planned site development include the
following:
Increasing the erosion potential on the site slopes by exposing soils during grading incidental to
construction,.and from uncontrolled storinwater discharge.
Impacts to slope stability from building surchargesi temporary site excavations. and uncontrolled
stormwater discharge.
Project No. T-5332
. Page No. 4
Ms. Stu Campbell
February 27, 2003
In our opinion, potential erosion.and sedimentation impacts to the steep slope hazard areas may be eliminated or
significantly reduced by applying standard BMPs; for erosion prevention/sedimentation containment, and by
collecting stormwater runoff from roof downspout and drains, and conveying the water to an approved point of
controlled discharge in a closed system.
In our opinion, potential impacts to the stability of the steep slope due to building surcharges can I be mitigated by
adjusting footing elevations to maintain a minimum lateral separation of at least ten feet between the outer edge of
the footings and the face of the steep slope.
Based on our observations, it is our opinion that potential impacts to slope stability from temporary site
excavations can be mitigated by adhering to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations
for sloping of temporary excavations. Based an current OSHA regulations, the medium dense to dense granular
soils would be classified as Group C soils. Accordingly, f6r temporary excavations more than 44eet and less than
20feet deep, temporary slopes in Group C soils should be laid back at a . minimum slope inclination of 1.51
(Horizontal:Vertical). If there is insufficient room to complete the cxc avations in this manner, temporary shoring
may need to be used to support the excavations. House designs conforming. to the contours of the lot will reduce
the required excavation depths, and. further rnitigate potential impacts to slope stability from temporary site
excavations;
DISCUSSION
Exernifflon
Section 20-15B.110 (D) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Steep Slope Hazard Areas) states that no.
dcvelop*ment or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless'the property is exempt under the
provisions of Section 20.15B.110 (D) or ECDC Section 20.15B.040 (Exemptions and Exceptions). Section
20.15B. 110 (D)(2) of the ECDC states that the proposed development or alteration may be exempted if it meets
the following criteria:
a. The proposed development will not decrease the stability On any adjacent property, and the site
following the permitted activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19.OS ECDC, as
demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting the requirements of the State.Building Code as adopted
by this code.
Building and site. development plans are currently not . available. Our analysis indicates the site is
currently stable under static and seismic conditions. We should review project drawings as they become
available to verify that the recommendations for mitigation of potential impacts contained herein have
been properly interpreted and applied, and to evaluate impacts to slope stability from the planned
development.
b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either:
i.- Are mapped as one of thefollowing deposits on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of
the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, dated 1983: till, advance
oulwash, andlor Olympia gravel, or
Pmject No. T-5332,
Page No. 5
17,
Ms. Star Campbell
Febru ary 27, 2003
ii. Are comprised as fill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits
listed in subsection (D)(2)(p)(i) of this section; provided that thefdl meets thefollowing conditions:
all fill was placed under a legal grading permit, the gradin I g and fill were designed by a licensed
Professional engineer; native soils beneath the fill, were prepared in accordance with the
engineering design; and compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to the specified
percentage Is present throughout the entire fill.
The Geologic Map of ' the Edm onds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by
James P. Minard. dated 1983, shows the site soils mapped as advance outwash. The medium dense to
dense sand with varying amounts of gravel we observed in our on' -site test pits and in nearby . exposures
are consistent, with this mapped classification.
C. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from. the
property lines, unless the excavation is. retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed
-by a registeredprofessional engineer.
Buildi ng and site development plans are currently not available. If it is determined upon review of the
project drawings that shoring may be required, it should be addressed at that time through additional
gcotechnical study and engineering analysis.
d.. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building
Code as adopted by this code, rockeries are notpermitted greater-thanfourfeet.
Building and site development plans are currently not available. We should review project drawings as
they become available to evaluate site grading and the need for retaining structures.
e. Steep, slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or
adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope: ' '
impermeable soils interbedded
with granular soils; springs or groundwater seepage; significant visible evidence of groundwater
seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits.
The site soils consist of well -drained advance outwash sand with varying amounts of gravel., We did not
observe indications of groundwater seepage, springs, or wet soils, indications of instability, or existing
landslide deposits on or adjacent the subject site.
Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot'be aftered,if the thickness of organics, debris,
weathered soils, colluvial soils, or soils exhibiting loose condition's (as measured by the Standard
Penetration Test. [ASTU D-15861 method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject
property classified as a steep slope exceeds threefeet.
Based on our observations, it does not appear that a significant overburden thickness exists on the steep
slope. In general, we observed approximately four to six inches of du'ff and topsoil *overlying the medium
dense to dense native sand and gravel soils.
Project No. T-5332
Page No. 6
I
Ms. Star Campbell
February 27, 2003
9. For commercial deyelopment. A buffer of IS feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition,
measuredfrom the property lines adjacent 1.0 residential propenies.
The proposed development is not a commercial development.
Based on our observations of surface and subsurface conditions on an d adjacent the steep slope hazard areas, it is
our opinion that existing site conditions meet the provisions for exemption detailed in ECDC Section
20.15B. I 10(D)(2)(6, e, and f). The -lots will be develo . ped with single-family residences; therefore, ECDC Section
20.15B. I I O(D)(2)(g) is also met.
(("Because building and site development plans are currently not available, review and additional analysis is needed
to address Section 20-15B. 11 O(D)(2)(a, c, and d) of the ECDC.
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please. call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Encl:
2-a-?-03
tt"Y'41 tion Locadon Plan
HUBME ifierl-Sail Classification System
MU61191W5 Test 99
— JPit LO *
Figures 6 and 7 — GrainSize Analyses
WINSTABL Outpu t Data
I
Project No. T-:5332
Page No. 7
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
MAJOR DIVISIONS
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Clean
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
m
GRAVELS
Gravels
lines.
-GP
Poody�graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or
no fines.
_j im
5 L_ 0
a
More than
(less than
5% -fines)
(1)
N
ra -
50% of coarse
fraction is
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -sill mixtures, non -plastic
0
Ul
0 >
larger than No
Gravels
fines.
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, *plastic fines.
a)
z to .—
E to
. 4 sieve
with fines
R
.4 00
o 04.
in .
SAINDS
Clean
Sands
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
LU
(0
0
r- Z
W
More'than
(less than
5% fines)
SP
Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands. little or no
a:
4:t
50% of coarse
fines.
0
0
fraction is
smaller than
Sands
SM
Silty sands, sand lit mixtures, non
-s -plastic fines.
'No. 4 'sieve,
with fines
SC
Clayey sands,. sand -day mixtures, plastic fines.
ML
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey sifts with slight
_j
M 0
sus. AND CLAYS
Plasticity.
dQ
co
0
0.- C*J
M
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (loan clay).
E d
Liquid limit is less than 50%
OL
'Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
0 a Z.N
LU 0,
z
CO
>
cc
4)
W -.—
MH
inorganic -sifts, elastic.
C-T W
SILTS AND CLAYS
U1
CD 1z
-- E
CH
Inorganic days of high plasticity, fat. days..
Z 0
Liquid limit is greater than 50%
OH
Organic clays of highplas6city.
HIGHLY ORGANICSO ILS
PT_
Peat.
.
DEFINITION OF TERMS. AND SYMBOLS
C0
CO
W
Density
Standard Penetration
Resistance in Blows/Foot
20 OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
SPOON SAMPLER
z
0
Very loose 0-4
2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER
Cn
Loose 4-10
OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
111
Medium dense 10-30
0
Dense 30-50
T WATER LEVEL (DATE)
Very dense >50
Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Pp PENETF40METER READINCA isf
Standard Penetration
W
Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot.
DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot
> .
F5
Ve soft
ry 0-2.
Soft
LL LIOUID UMIT, percent
W
2-4
X
0
Medium
stiff 4-8
PI PLASTIC INDEX
Q
stiff 8-16
Very stiff 16-32
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
Hard
>32,
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
EgoTerra
Associates, Inc.
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
CortsultantsinGootachnicalfngineedng
Pr0j.
No. T-15332 I
Date FE13 2003 1
figure 3
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sckinces
Test Pit No. TP-1
'o' �el � ics Approximate Elev. 327
2
Date jr 3
Depth Moisture
(ft.) Soil Description Content
0— . N
6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL.
Light brown SAND with gravel, Ii ne to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel.
medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
5-1
Way NAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium
Gray SAND, fine to medium grained, dense, moist. (SP) With occasional
10— line to coarse gravel,
20
Test pit terminated at 113.5feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Test Pit No. TP-2
Logged b7: JCS
C Approximate Elev. 340
Date: 216 03
Depth Moisture
Soil Description Content
N
0— 4 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL.
- Light brown SAND with gravel fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel,
- medium dense to dense, moisi. (SP)
5—
. Gray gravelly SAND, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium
. dense to dense, moist. (SP)
10 Gray SAND, fine grained, dense, moist. (SP) With occasional fine
coarse gravel.
15
20
Test pit terminated at 16 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Terra
Associates', Inc'
Consultants In GeotechnicalEngineening
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
TEST PIT LOGS
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-5332 I Date fEB 2003 Fig u re 4
Test Pit No. TP-3
Logged by: JCS Approximate.Elev. 325
Date: 2/6/03
Depth Moisture
Soil Description Content
N
Ught brown SAND, fine grained. medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
With occasional fine to coarse gravel.
5—
Gray SAND, fine grained, dense, moist..(SP).Wlth occasional fine to
coarse gravel.
10
151 Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
20
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Enginoefing
Gieology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
TEST PIT LOGS
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. Date -FE-43 2W3 1. Figure 5
mi�=.
76
61
45,
30.
15:
A -A' Static
0.4D %13v.ou 40. lb ULM
Ilk
76.25 91.50 106.75 122.00
Safety Factors
1.79
1.79
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80.
1.81
1.81
1.81
1.81
PREPARED FOR
DENNIS AND JULIE WANNER
November 28, 2005
1/09-
?
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
7039 MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-0228
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
2881-152 "d Avenue Northeast, Redmond, Washington 98052
Ph: 425-284-3300 Fax: 425-284-2855
Toll Free: 866-336-8710
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
November 28,2005
ES-0228
Dennis and Julie Wanner
14210 — 43dAvenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98087
Dear Mr. and Mr. Wanner:
L L
Earth Solutions NW LLC
• Geotechnical Engineering
• Construction Monitoring
• Environmental Sciences
Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Single -Family Residence, 7039 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds,
Washington". As part of this study, ESNW reviewed a Geologically Hazardous Areas report for
the site. This report was prepared by Terra Associates in February 2003. The City of Edmonds
previously approved a Steep Slope Hazards Areas Exemption for the subject property in June
2003. The purpose of this geotechnical engineering study is to finalize recommendations for
the site, based on the currently proposed site development.
Based on our review and site observations, development of the site as proposed is feasible
from a geotechnical standpoint. The site is underlain primarily by dense Advance Outwash
Sand deposits. In our opinion, the proposed residential structure can be supported on
conventional foundations bearing on competent native soil or suitable granular structural fill, as
appropriate. In general, native soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered
near the proposed foundation subgrade elevations. Specific geotech ' nical recommendations for
the planned development are provided in this geotechnical engineering study.
The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the
content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Principal
I
2881 152nd Avenue NE 0 Redmond, WA 98052 0 (425) 284-3300 * FAX (425) 284-2855 a Toll Free (866) 336-8710
I
ITABLE OF CONTENTS
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ES-0228
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
General........................................................................... 1
Proiect Description ........................................................... 2
Surface............ ................................................................ 2
Subsurface....................................................................... 3
Groundwa—ter ..................................................................... 3
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT ........................... 4
Critical Area Report Requirements ....................................... 4
Development Standards — Geologicaliv Hazardous Areas ......... 4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................
5
General..............................................................................
5
Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................
6
Grading Activities ......................................................
6
Erosion Control .......................................................
7
In -Situ Soils ............................................................
7
Structural Fill Placement ...........................................
7
Excavations and Slopes ....................................................
7
Foundations................................. I ...................................
.8
Slab -on -Grade Floors .........................................................
8
RetainingWalls ..................................................................
9
Drainage...........................................................................
10
Seismic Considerations ......................... ................................
10
LIMITATIONS ..............................................................................
10
Additional Services ............................................................
10
GRAPHICS
PLATE.1 VICINITY MAP
PLATE 2 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
PLATE 3 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration
Soil Logs (by others)
I
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
7039 MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-0228
INTRODUCTION
General
This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the single-family residence to be
constructed at 7039 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of this
geotechnical engineering study is to finalize recommendations for the site, based on the
currently proposed site development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical
engineering study included the following:
0 Reviewing a previous Geologic Hazard Areas study prepared for the site in February
2003;
Reviewing the site plan, building footprint, and pertinent cross section and building
elevations for the development;
• A site visit to observe surface conditions throughout the proposed development areas;
• Reviewing subsurface conditions at the site, and providing a site geologic description
and characterization, including test pit logs prepared by others for the site;
• An assessment of erosion potential and measures to mitigate erosion, as appropriate;
0 An assessment of the steep slope areas with respect to the proposed development, and
review of the pertinent chapters of the City of Edmonds Land Use Code;
• Foundation recommendations including soil bearing capacity, subgrade preparation, and
other geotechnical recommendations, as appropriate.
As part of our report preparation, we reviewed the following documents or resources:
0 Building Footprint and Final Grading Plan, LSA Engineering;
0 Building Foundation Plan, Section, and Elevations (Sheets A-1, and A-9 through A-
13), LOT Design Group;
Earth Solutions NK LLC
Dennis and Julie Wanner
November 28, 2005
ES-0228
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Staff Report — Findings, Conclusions, and Decision, prepared by the City of Edmonds,
7039 and 7041 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds, Washington, Dated June 12,
2003;
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. Project No.
T-5332, Dated February 27, 2003;
0 The City of Edmonds municipal code for ECA geotechnical report requirements;
The geologic map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangle,
Minard, 1983;
0 The Snohomish County Soil Survey (SCS).
Proiect Description
Construction of a single family residence is proposed for the subject property. The approximate
location of the proposed residential structure is depicted on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2).
The proposed finish floor elevation for the garage level slab -on -grade is currently elevation
314.5 feet. To achieve the building and driveway grades, a series of cuts will be completed
throughout the building site. Based on our review of the referenced plans, grade transitions will
be achieved through construction of a permanent 2H:1V slope and engineered retaining walls.
Throughout the building pad, cuts on the order of approximately twelve (12) to twenty-two (22)
feet are currently proposed. At the location of the building structure, engineered foundation and
retaining walls will support the excavations. The retained height of these structures will be on
the order of ten feet. The existing slope to the east of the building site will be contoured at
2H:1V. Cuts on the order of ten feet tapering to one foot or less are planned for the permanent
slope construction.
The building construction will consist of concrete foundation walls and relatively lightly loaded
wood framing supported on conventional foundations. We anticipate perimeter footing loads for
the residential structure will be on the order of 2 kips per lineal foot and slab -on -grade loading
on the order of 150 psf.
If the above design estimates are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the
recommendations in this report.
Surface
The site is undeveloped and partially to heavily vegetated. Based on our review, surface
conditions do not appear to have been recently altered. We understand the site has not been
altered since the referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas report was completed.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
r_1
I
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 3
The site generally slopes downward from east to west at an overall grade of approximately 45
percent. Localized areas that exceed or are less than 45 percent grade are present throughout
the site. Overall relief across the property from east to west is on the order of sixty (60) feet. A
residential development is located to the west of the subject property. Undeveloped areas
surround the remainder of the site. The property is accessed from a private drive along the
south side of the site.
In general terms, surface conditions can be characterized as moderate slopes associated with
an east -west trending ridge that extends into the limits of the property. Based on our
observations during a site visit performed on September 12, 2005, the slopes throughout the
site exhibit good stability. We did not observe indications of severe erosion or deep seated
slope movements.
Subsurface
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored as part of the referenced Geologically
Hazardous Areas Review, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. Project No. T-5332, Dated
February 27, 2003. Three test pits were excavated on or adjacent to the subject property. The
approximate test pit locations are illustrated on the'Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2).
Based on our review of the test pit logs previously prepared for the site, subsurface condition's
consist primarily of medium dense to dense fine to medium grained sand deposits. The
referenced geologic map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangle identifies
Advance Outwash Sand deposits throughout the site and surrounding areas. The Soil Survey
of Snohomish County identifies Alderwood Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam (25 to 70 percent
slopes). Runoff is characterized as rapid, and the erosion hazard is high. Based on our review
and observations, the soil conditions encountered at the site are consistent with the geologic
map and soil survey classifications.
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not observed at our test sites, at the time the test pits were
excavated (February 2003). However, groundwater seepage could be encountered in the
deeper site excavations. There is also a higher potential of encountering localized zones of
perched groundwater seepage during the wetter winter months. Perched groundwater seepage
zones are common along the contact between permeable soils such as sand and lower
permeability soils such as silts. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending
on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, an . d soil
conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. The
geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations for the building pad and slope areas to
assess soil and groundwater conditions. Supplement recommendations can be provided for
drainage and groundwater control at that time, as appropriate.
Earth Solutions NK LLC
I
I
I
d
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page, 4
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT
The City of Edmonds previously approved a Steep Slope Hazards Areas Exemption for the
subject property. The referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas Review prepared by Terra
Associates, Inc. concluded that the subject prope.rty meets the criteria for granting a Steep
Slope Exemption as listed in ECDC Section 20.15B. 11 O.D.2 of the previous City of Edmonds
Municipal Code. In accordance with the newly adopted Municipal Code (Section 23.80.050D) a
valid critical areas study completed within the last five years can be incorporated into a critical
area report, provided the proposed development and site conditions are unchanged. Based on
our review, the site conditions are unchanged and the findings in the referenced report
prepared by Terra Associates (February 27, 2003) can be incorporated into this geotechnical
engineering study.
Critical Area Report Requirements
As discussed -above, the findings in the referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas Review can
be incorporated into this geotechnical engineering study, per Section 23.80.050D of the
recently adopted City of Edmonds Municipal Code. In conjunction with the referenced Terra
Associates report, the referenced Staff Report approved a Steep Slope Hazard Areas
Exemption for the subject property under the previous municipal code. Based on our review,
the referenced Terra Associates report more than adequately satisfies the critical area report
requirements per the newly adopted municipal code (23.40.090). Based on our review of the
proposed residential development, and observations of the property on September 12, 2005, it
is our opinion conditions with respect to the site and proposed development are unchanged.
Development Standards — Geologically Hazardous Areas
In accordance with Section 23.80.060A of the City of Edmonds Municipal Code, the following
general requirements must be met with respect to activities that will result in alterations of
geologically hazardous areas:
Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre -
development conditions.
Based on review of the referenced site plan and report prepared by Terra Associates, it is our
opinion the proposed development will not decrease stability on adjacent properties, and the
site will be stable following the permitted activity. In conjunction with our review, ESNW visited
the subject property on September 12, 2005. Consistent with the findings of the referenced
Terra Associates report, we did not observe any indications of slope movements or severe
erosion. Based on review of the referenced site plan and proposed alterations, site grading
activities will not decrease site stability, in our opinion. Consistent with the conclusions of the
referenced Terra Associates report, Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be
implemented during construction to minimize surface erosion during the grading activities, as
appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should observe the site grading activities and provide
supplement recommendations, as appropriate.
1 11
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 5
Will not adversely impact other critical areas.
Based on our review, the proposed grading activities and residential development will not
adversely impact other critical areas. Based on the referenced site plan, the proposed building
finish floor elevation will be established at 314.5 feet. To achieve the building and driveway
grades, a series of cuts will be completed throughout the building site. Grade transitions will be
achieved through construction of a permanent 2H:1V slope and engineered retaining walls.
Based on our review of the Terra Associates report and review of the geologic map for the area,
we are in agreement with the Terra Associates conclusions regarding the presence of Advance
Outwash Sands and the overall characterization of soil stability. In our opinion, the proposed
grading related to the site development will not decrease the site stability or adversely impact
other critical areas.
Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal
to or less than pre -development conditions.
Based on our review of the proposed development and referenced plans, the hazard to the
project with respect to steep slope areas will be equal to or less than the pre -development
conditions. As stated above, however, Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be
implemented during construction to minimize surface erosion during the grading activities, as
appropriate. Permanent landscaping should be installed to - minimize surface erosion for
permanent slope areas.
Are certified and safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified
engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington.
Based on our review, and to the best of our knowledge, the proposal with respect to safety will
not increase the potential for ground movements or severe erosion.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our study and review of the referenced plans, the proposed residential
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the overall site stability
can be characterized as good with respect to global site stability. The primary geotechnical
considerations associated with the proposed development include site excavations, erosion
control, and drainage.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 6
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
l�
I
I
I
I
Throughout the building pad, cuts on the order of approximately twelve (12) to twenty-two (22)
feet are currently proposed. The proposed residential structure can be supported on competent
native soils exposed in the building excavation. Where necessary, structural fill can also be
used for foundation support. The existing slope to the east of the building site will be contoured
to a 2HAV slope. Cuts required to construct the permanent slope will be on the order of ten
feet, tapering to one foot or less. In our opinion, the proposed excavations are feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Recommendations for site excavations, erosion control, and drainage
are provided in subsequent sections of this report.
This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dennis and Julie Wanner and their
representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in
a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area.
Site Preparation and Earthwork
The primary geotechnical considerations during the proposed site preparation will involve
grading activities, erosion control, and drainage.
Grading Activities
The cuts for the building pad will be on the order of twelve (12) to twenty-two (22) feet. Medium
dense to dense sand deposits are anticipated to be encountered throughout the majority of the
excavations. Based on our review of the test pit logs and the overall characterization of the
geologic setting, we anticipate overall site stability will be maintained during the site grading
activities. The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations for the building pad- and
permanent slopes, and provide supplement recommendations for maintaining site stability, as
appropriate. With respect to the proposed grading activities, the following guidelines should be
observed:
• Supplement recommendations for sloping the excavation should be provided by the
geotechnical engineer, following the initial excavation, as appropriate;
• Temporary slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting following excavation and
observations by the geotechnical engineer;
• Drainage above the temporary and permanent slopes should be controlled, such that
runoff is not concentrated onto the slopes;
• Where possible, existing vegetation along the margins of the excavation should be
maintained to help minimize the erosion potential;
• Temporary drainage at the base of the excavation should be controlled such that runoff
is not allowed to pond or discharge onto neighboring properties;
As appropriate, periodic observations by the geotechnical engineer should be performed
to assess stability of the temporary slopes.
Earth Solutions NK LLC
11
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 7
Erosion Control
Temporary erosion control measures should include, at a minimum, silt fencing placed along
the downslope perimeter of the construction envelope, and a construction entrance consisting
of quarry spalls, as appropriate, to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a firm surface.
Surface water should not be allowed to flow over temporary or permanent slopes. Temporary
slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting. Interceptor drains or swales should be
considered for controlling surface water flow patterns, as necessary. The geotechnical
engineer should observe the erosion control measures, and provide supplement
recommendations for minimizing erosion during construction, as necessary. Where possible,
existing vegetation should be maintained to help minimize soil disturbance to the site.
In -Situ Soils
The native soils can generally be characterized as having a low to moderate sensitivity to
moisture. In our opinion, the native sand soils are suitable for use as structural backfill for the
project. During wet weather conditions, soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a
well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent
passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction.
Structural Fill Placement
In general, areas to -receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic matter and
other deleterious material. Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation,
slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout
rockery, retainingwall, and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils
placed in structural areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based
on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1 557-02)
and placed in maximum twelve (12) inch lifts. In pavement areas, the upper twelve (12) inches
of the structural fill should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. -
Excavations and Slopes
The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies
soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered
during our fieldwork, the site soils would be classified by OSHANVISHA as Type A and Type B.
Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A and Type B soils should be sloped no
steeper than 0.75H:1V and 1.H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical), respectively. The geotechnical
engineer should observe the temporary and permanent slope excavations to verify that the
inclination is appropriate, and to provide additional grading recommendations, as necessary. If
temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA/WISHA guidelines,
temporary shoring may be necessary.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 8
Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an
appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structure can be supported on
conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill.
Based on the subsurface data acquired at the site, we anticipate competent native soil suitable
for support of foundations will generally be exposed at the proposed building pad elevation.
Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are encountered at foundation subgrade elevations,
compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement
with structural fill may be necessary. The geotechnical engineer should observe the building
pad prior to foundation construction, and provide supplement recommendations for foundation
support, as appropriate.
For design the following parameters can be used for the foundation design:
e Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf
0 Passive Resistance 350 pcf
0 Coefficient of Friction 0.40
The passive resistance value provided above assumes the foundations are backfilled with
structural fill. A factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been applied to these passive resistance and friction
values.
For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing
capacity can be assumed.
With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with
differential settlement of approximately one-half of an inch. The majority of the settlements
should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied.
Slab -On -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors for the residential structure should be supported on competent native soil
or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or
overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A
capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel
should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5
percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch
fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the
slab should be considered.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 200 5 Page 9
Retaining Walls
Site retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge
loads. For design, the following parameters can be assumed for retaining wall design:
Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid)
• At -Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) 50 pcf
• Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution)
0 Passive Resistance 350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
• Coefficient of Friction 0.40
• Allow. Soil Bearing Capacity (Competent Native) 5,000 psf
0 Allow. Soil Bearing Capacity (Structural, 'Fill) 2,500 psf
Where desired, retaining wall foundations supported on crushed rock or recycled concrete structural fill can be
d*esigned using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 5, 000 psf
Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be
included in the retaining wall design, as appropriate. Drainage should be provided behind
retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided,
hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. The geotechnical
engineer should review retaining wall designs to verify that appropriate earth pressure values
have been incorporated into design, and to provide additional recommendations, as necessary.
Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of
the wall, and a distance of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The- upper one foot of
the wall backfill can'consist of, a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. A rigid,
perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an
appropriate discharge location. Where desired, the use of a sheet drain in lieu of free draining
backfill can be considered. However, the geotechnical engineer should review the proposed
use of sheet drain on a case by case basis, and provide supplement drainage
recommendations, as appropriate.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Dennis and Julie Wanner
November 28, 2005
ES-0228
Page 10
IDrainage
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the test sites excavated in February 2003.
However, groundwater seepage could be encountered in the deeper site excavations. The
geotechnical engineer should observe the building and permanent slope excavations to assess
groundwater seepage conditions. If necessary, recommendations for controlling groundwater
seepage can be provided at that time. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage
and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps
areas, as necessary. Based on the results of our study and conditions observed at the test
sites, we do not anticipate extensive dewatering of excavations will be necessary.
In our opinion, perimeter drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footing
foundations. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 3 of this report.
Seismic Considerations
The 2003 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for
seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class
C, from table 1615.1.1, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at
this site is low. The medium dense to dense relative density of the site soils and the absence of
an established shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this conclusion.
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are
professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members
in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not
expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test
sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the
conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered.
Additional Services
ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical
recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and
consultation services during construction.,
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J -1
PL SW
43 1
69W 9�
MEADONDALE MID
L1 I In SW t I
3c; 168TF
(167TH PL
i
16M
PiAYFIELOS
SNI
69
I
70TH
PL S.
P SW
SW
% ST
172�j
St - SW IZ
170TH
ur�_ ME40004LE
SW
�Z: HS
171ST 57 SW
—
IIIST
-- ------ EPjLr sk,
9-:1.
:Z, 9
I RIVER ROCK DR
2 GRAYSTONE OR
3 GRANITE OR
4 FIELDSTONE OR
173
L 7.3- jj
Sv
D ST SW 49, 172
Q1 m
- -----
No 172NU 9"�
__Ialo
172ND
SW <
_�7 SW
174TH S SI
-
174TH ST
173ALEk
_P� _Sw
172H
�L S,
1�5TH
�W
C\j
176TH
IL—L—ST
�SNOHOHI S�.
'COU'Z
7eL
SW
iz IN
177
177TH S7
178TH ST
520D
7 SW
ARK P L SW=
Y�
)I 9TH ST �u
W
3t Sw-
I8DTH _L i:
SIM
WTH P1 sm
T
__�,W
ST SW
1
PL SW ST
C
�,P� SW
1181ST 4SUT
L81-ST z
D� 11\ 1 "
jr
jr'
SW
31
181ST
IL SW < 2.
SW
4zMkW_L,W_ I"Ir
3C
182ND
IMED ST
181ST PL SW
F) T
� lem z
I ,
Ell DEPT
a
- 1
00
PL SW
SW
181ST
���
-18
I
PL w PL SW
-
LOF
Ima
hs PL
on 184DI W , I
I
83RD
182ND
SW sr�
1851"
185711 PL Sw ST_�W�
-IBM SW
5WW
-
PL S1,
186TH
PL
_184TH
Pt SW
<
J
g. Cm
186TIi
T S;�:
187TH 1
($ITT;
185TH
PL
"M
SW
BMI PL SW NNPA
1y
WON ST $10
187TH PL
p SW
16
18
SW
Li go
189Tti PL
rH.-- g: 31 aw
89TH Pt $A - 189TH
PL SW
ST
189TH ' ST SW
520'
ISM ST
600
PAW
<
IS
W
-ii-S—W
190TH
182D� PL SW
�ST -SW
Te
W,
ST
PL S
6000
S DALEWAYL�; PK-
PL Sw,
OR
gis,
90TH-ST SW
cr,
9,
I ST ST � SW
PL SN
x 92ND.PL SW` I 192ND
,D 193RD
�93
PL _Y �DP
ZD If PL SW 4 193RD
L SW PARK . W�y
ST SW CD
192ND
tY 0
'd
SW
AM 7
P J9,
PL
I ST SW
!
1. 7
7-Esr
194TH sT SW
< 195TH ST SW 91
< SW
L 194
St
rH
S,
Ll
r
f
JAMES 00
��S-N ILCOX
g SW 1�
]%'IN PL SW 73 (V
.(FILBERT
197TH ST Sw
RD)
W
SCRIBER% - - 1
6TH
HEI z
L.A, ',,,pA SW
L YNNk*00D
19M
199TH ST ST SW
yNNk=
CENTER
8TH,- ,,pA
T S
SQUARE
200TH
ST SW
I ST, ST SW. -
'Y'
MiUN17 jE
201ST
CEM
UK W
ST2
SW
ST F� S- SW,
, ., , __
PL SW
20
D
M = HIN
P.
201 P
SCRISER
CREEK =
d m
L
OD
203RD ST SW
C61.LEGE" 220
3C 203 sl
204TH ST
SW
202ND
PL SW
A
PARK
-19, .1
ACWTH4,
;IP
SW
RIDE
zc Z
MID
t.WICIPAL Cni'
C;,O.LFA MiIRSE-; po
C*T
WAL
206 Si
S
LEY
20 BTH
. ! �� . �, I
., . 207TH 'PL-S
R Z
6900
=:_j)
-63001
181A
NORTH
Reference:
Snohomish County
Map 455 Vicinity Map
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 2006 Proposed Wanner Residence
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date Nov. 2005 jProj. No. 0228
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked RAC Date 11/9/05 Plate 1
I
L�
I
k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
300 310 320 �30
- — - - ---- — - - — -- — -- — - -
300- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
310-
-350
Lot 3
Proposed
Reside/nce
-360
TP-2
360
TP-3
�50 Lot 4
310
340
L
330
TP-1
320 (Approximate Location)
31b
Access Drive — —
LEGEND
NORTH TP-1-1— Approximate Location of
T Test Pit by Terra Associates, Inc,
Proj. No. T-5332, Feb. 2003
Subject Site
J
0 15 30 60
V=30' M
Scale in Feet
NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design
purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the
approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of
existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated
is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our
study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes
or interpretation of the data by others.
Test Pit Location Plan
Wanner Residence
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date Nov. 2005 [Proj. No. 0228
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked RAC I Date 11/9/05 1 Plate 2
I
0 0.0
09
D.!
0
-77 Slope
7-73, 707
...................
' ' * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............
......................
............ ..........
......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
0.0
. . . . . . . . . .
a
0
Cb 0 R. R.,
0ab 000
0.. (�M 0 0
. I . oo . . . . . .
*00 0 0 06
2" (Min.)
Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe
(Surround with 1" Rock)
NOTES:
• Do NOT tie roof downspouts
to Footing Drain.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT OT SCALE
• Surface Seal to consist of NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
12" of less permeable, suitable
soil. Slope away from building.
LEGEND:
Surface Seal; native soil or
other low permeability material.
�Lf;f;f�- 1" Drain Rock
6VA
, L6
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
Proposed Wanner Residence
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS Date Nov. 2005 jProj. No. 0228
Checked RAC I Date 11/14/05 IPlate 3
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
ES-0228
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by others in February 2003. Three test pits
were excavated on or near the subject site. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on
Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix.
The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs by others. The stratification lines on
the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions
may be more gradual.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
lest Pit No. TP-1
�ed %3'CS Approximate Elev. 327
2
L�?e J61
D
Depth Moisture
(ft.) Soil Description Content
.0— N
6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL
Light brown SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coa
medium dense to dense, moist. (SP) rse gravel.
5
%3ray bAmu wnn gravel. We to medum sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium
to dense, molsL (SP)
10 Gray SAND, fine to medium grained. dense, moist. (SP) With occasional
no
tff to coarse gravel.
15
20
Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Logged b : JCS
Date: VIAC03
Depth
Test Pit No.. TP-2
Approximate Elev. 340
moi�ture
Content
Soil Description 10/_1
4 kxfts DUFF
anCI.TOPSOIL
Light brown SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel,
medium -dense to dense, moist (SP)
5 1 GraY gravelly SAND, me to medium sand, nne to cparse gravel. medium
dense to dense, moisL (SP)
10 1 GraY SAND, fine grained, dense, moisL (sp) with
occasional fine to
coarse gravel.
15
K171
Test Pit terminated at 16 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Terra
Associates', Inc.
Oormftft in Gwtediniw eVkmft
. C"Olowwo
En"forimmial EAMSC;MM
TEST PIT LOGS
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
..Proj. No. T-S= I Date FEB 20031 Figu re 4
Test Pit No. TP-3
L dZ CS Approximate Elev. 325
Tte'�2 2'
D
Depth Moisture
Soil Description Content
.0 (%
Ught brown SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
With occasional fine to coarse gravel. I I - I
5
Gray SAND, fine gra ined, dense, moist.. (SP). With occasional fine to
coarse gravel.
1.0
15 1 'TeSt pit terminated at 14 feet
'No groundwater seepage encountered.
K171
Terra
Associates
Inc.
rxw9oVand
amfonfrMWEAMSMIces
TEST PIT LOGS
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-5332 I Date f E43 -tW I Ficlure' 5
I
I
IREPORT DISTRIBUTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ES-0228
4 COPIES Dennis and Julie Wanner
14210 — 43rd Avenue West
I nmArt%f%rI Wmahin ff%ncmnR7
Earth Solutions NW,'LLC