7041 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD.PDF11111111111111
12322
7041 MEADOWDALE
BEACH RD
9 . W.. -..
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL #:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE) #:
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: [] Conditional Waiver [:1 Study Required El Waiver
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: El Conditional Waiver El Study Required E] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORD FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER — list permit #'s):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
LOT:
—BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USEIENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Jana's Street File Checklist 5-14-08.doc
CA File No: CA —01 —1 V4
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/ topograft/ hydrology/ vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: ML�AZ)OwDALC &Ne4t (R060
2. Property Tax Account NumberrAV4� co nan 11 o0o 04 Af Ago
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): do ooc>
4. Is this site currently developed? _)�yes; — no.—.
If yes; how is site developed? 646 OZ-T PCOT - CzMeCaTza OP
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat- less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% an d less than 30 1/0 ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round s tanding water: Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water- Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain 1�0 of a water course.
9. Site cont" a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
—Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;,shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawnshrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: f�o AJE—
db
Revigwe, Air,
Pis
M-MIMMINIMPP-110
WAIVER
--T
Critical Areas
Checklist.doe/3.19.2001
i Lko4os
"D C. I %9V
City of Amonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
deterr ne whether anv notential Critical Are— —
Date Received: '414 o
City Receipt *:j_Z nLs-�V-=�
Critical Areas File #: 7, -61-111F
Critica I Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to ADDlicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application. I I
may be, present on the subject property. The information Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
available from observations of the site or data available at specific piece of property described on this form. In
City Hall (Critical. areas inventories, maps, or soil addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
surveys). information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with.this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of th� ; application agrees
to release, inderrinify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANVAGENT DATE _.flA;L L4:5�1
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attpadant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant:
Name
Fe9e?W "e6AD
Street Address
5 60 '2
city State zip
Telephone: LI�Z,17) 71(-3 c) 5 -3 t
Email address (optional):
Applicant Representative-
- k�wlof-YTIUL 5?
Narne
Street Address
t
city State zip
Telephone:
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 03 /-1 Wtf rf it
ED
City of Edmonds
i",
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
4c. Isgri Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
Date Receivecl:_�Mo
City Receipt #: 12) a �4Z
Critical Areas File #: r..A -c>H?-tk
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to ADDlicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete inforination furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANVAGENT DATE r /,;2
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the *staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attpdpt to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER 4CZ .1 - 1-1 DATE
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant:
lJOLI-A A.) P
Name
'703-7
Street Address
CDM*6,0,DS, 60.2
city State zip
Telephone: 7 Y_3 5 -3t
Email address (optional):
Applicant Representative:
Name
s4oi\e-
Street Address
city State 1 Zip
Telephone:
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.dod3.19.2001 i L / AJ 4 A D den5 -3 /_J jve� rr q Y/V IV40 00 i) 9&:�7
C*al Areas Checklist &A File No: CA -DI -1 V4
Site Information (soils/ topogra--'- y/ hydro ogy/vegetation)
Site Address/ Location: 7-f 014e?�bOLOOALC
1.
I -or
2. Property Tax Account NumberrA04- cc> iiisi 000 2440 4W
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or sq uarefeet): d000c>
4. Is this site currently developed? --�-yes; — no.
If yes; how is site developed? 6 ag, g--r PLA 7c q 3 2 1,,�
tMA 0
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15 % and less than 30 a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain tJ0 of a water course.
9. Site contaftp. a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
N (A- . Flows. are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow Shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawnshrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetIand is present on site:
VIET]EKMINAXION
STUDY REQUIRED. WAIVER
Date:
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
41
") C. 1 sc)o
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
MAYOR
121 5th AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 9802d - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
August 23,'2012
Thomas Reilly
183095 th St SW
Everett, WA 98204
Re: Building Permit Application: BLD2010-0675
Site Address: 7041 Meadowdale Beach Rd
Expiration Date: September 21", 2012
Dear Thomas Reilly,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the above referenced permit application will
expire September 21", 2012. 1 am sorry to say that there are no further extensions to your
application. Upon expiration, if you would like your plans returned, please contact me within 10
days of expiration so I can hold them out for you. We unfortunately don'"t have the space to k6ep
expired application materials.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call our offices at 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
a/ S6
Linda Thomquist
Permit Specialist
City of Edmonds
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS. WA 98020 * (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwd.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
June 17, 2011
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin
183095 1h St SW
Everett Wa 98204
Re: Building Permit Application: BLD2010-0675
Site Address: 7041 MeadoWdale Beach Rd.
Expiration Date: September 21", 2011
Dear Thomas and Sharon:
MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the above referenced permit application
will expire 'September 21", 2011. According to Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 19.00.005(A)(5), applications are only valid for a period of 180 days unless
a written request for extension is submitted to the Building Official. If an application
extension is granted it may only be extended for an additional 180 days for a total period
of one year.
Due to the present economic situation, the City Council has approved a temporary
ordinance which would allow an extension of applications for an additional year. To
extend the subject permit application you must submit a request in writing to the
Building Official.
Please be advised, once a permit application expires, the application materials and plans
on file with the City will be destroyed within ten working days. Also, if you wish to
pursue the project in the future a new permit application and new fees will be required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call our offices at 425-771-0220.
Sincerely
Linda Thorriquist
Permit Specialist
Cc: File
L\Temp\DST's\Master Letters\App Due toe re10/21/00
Ifnicorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
A-D
OV E D
0
City of Edmonds
Permit Application Form
Form A
SiteAddress: 70L11 rb'D 0%,%/ t> P I- F P>F)ICH iZb.Sqite#
E*1>M0wT>S , WA qi�026
Sno Countv Tax Account Parcel #: UU_j I S/ t /X/U I 41�r ( ( Lot #
Business/Tenant Name (if applicable):
PROPERTYOWNER: Tvlomas 1IN
Mailing Address: 15ilo ST - S\j
City:_ EVEAFT-1- W� cl 0 2 0 Ll State: \A1 19 Zip: CT 9 a 0 q
Phone: 10 2-0 FAX:
E-Mail
APPLICANT/CONTACT: DSame as Property Owner 1ASame as Contractor 00ther
Fill out the following information if "Other'.
Name & Mailing Address: SE Q G , j\j _ Votocewy C+( /933t? S- Af'b jo tJb fib.
City:_ 0Rr::c._c?tj 6�, -r,-/ State: OR —zip: ct70Y5'
Phone: ( 603) 530-700Y FAX: ( !;0 1, ) 6 51 - 72 1/ C1
E-Mail: >'E: 9- el -/ \10 L<r-tj A WOO , C9vn
CONTR I ACT, 0 R: DSame as Property Owner I 00ther(Name), NORIV1,W6 S-Tilp NEW, C0jJCTR. WC.
Mailing Address: 12)�) 31 q S. P-GbLJqfJb Rb
City:_ op�ccoo e, State:
KS
,zip: WO�(-5_
Phone: ( SO.5) $90 — 709 Y FAX: ( 903) 6jj_ 709q
E-Mail: <_Z4Ze%Y40 Q:�tY 14 WOO, COA 1A ly & oc N & '/. c
�IAIek)
State License Number: 0 S 0 R H Exp: Date: 121XkR11 City Busines s License No: -
LATEMP\BUILDING\HAND0UTS REVISED IN 2009\2009 updated handouts\FORM A.doc 5/19/2009
d"
I ke. Family Duplex New Com/Apt,�-
:Permit Application for: New S
Addition Interior Remodel E] Garage/Carport F] Repair
Fence Grading-----cyds n Storage/Shed El Sign
Tenant Improvement/Change of Use El Fire System (Specify)
F1 Retaining Wall
Other (Specify)
HEAT SOURCE (CHECK THE PRIMARY FUEL SOURCE FOR HEAT/HOT WATER)
HEAT Natural Gas
HOT WATER Natural Gas
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:
El Propane 0 Electric F] Oil 0 Geothermal 0 Other
R Propane F] Electric E] Oil F] Geothermal El Other
(i.e. VA, VB, III B, etc.)
DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
Please provide a complete detailed written scope of work for the proposed project.
Additions (additional square footage): Specify room use, floor level and square footage and
direction if applicable (i.e. 545 square foot master bed room/bath room addition on the second floor
with 140 square foot deck and 245 square foot kitchen addition on the main floor at south side of
house).
Remodels (interior renovations): Specify room uses and floor levels (i.e. combine bedrooms 1 and
2 on the main floor to create new master bed room/bath room; replace dining room sliding glass door
with new French doors, reconfigure kitchen with new island prep counter and install new gas fireplace
in the living room).
PROPOSED NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THIS PROJECT:
Basement: sq ft
(Select Basement Type: -E�J, Finished _E�tlJnfinished
First Floor: I q 7'1 sq ft Garage:
2 Id Floor: I Ll Ll C7
3 RD Floor:
Contractor's Bid:
sq ft
sq ft
797 - sq ft.
Deck: 3 S,_ 6t sq ft
Other:
sq ft
L.\TEMP\I3UILDING\HAND0UTS REVISED IN 2009\2009 updated handouts\FORM A.doc 5/19/2009 2
Pledis6 note the number of fixtures/appliances that are new or relocated only.
I PLUMBING & GAS FIXTURE COUNT I
Number
Fixture Type
Number
Fixture Type
Water Closet (Toilet)
Refrigerator water Supply (for water/ice dispenser
7
Sink (kitchen, laundry, lavatory, bar., eye wash, etc.)
Water Service Line
Tub/Shower
Drinking Fountain
Dishwasher
Bidet/Urinal
9
Hose Bib
Pressure Reduction Valve/Pressure Regulator
I
Water Heater Tankless? Yes_)C_ No
Backflow Prevention Device (e.g. RBPA, DCDA, AVB)
I
Expansion Tank for Water Heater
Hydronic Heat in: Floor Wall
Floor Drain/Floor Sink
Other:
Clothes Washer
Other:
Number of Outlets
Fixture/Appliance Type
AC Unit ---------- BTUs:_L 0 k Location:
Furnace ------------- — BTUsILSk Location:
ZO kLocation:
Water Heater --- ---- BTUs:- Lz
Boiler — --- ---- ------- BTUs: Location:
Fireplace/] nsert BTUs: 15-k Location:
Stove/Range/Oven:
Dryer
Outdoor BBQ:
Other:
Other:
Number of Outlets
Type of Gas/AirNacuum System
Oxygen
Nitrous oxide
Medical Air
Carbon Dioxide
Helium
Medical — Surgical Vacuum
Other:
Other:
Other:
L:\TEMP\I3UILD1NG\HAND0UTS REVISED IN 2009\2009 updated handouts\FORM A.doc 5/19/2009 4
PREPARED FOR
THOMAS REILLY AND SHARON LIN
August 31, 2010
WAs
, z - Al
Kyle R. Campbell, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
AND CRITICAL AREAS REPORT -
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
7041 MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-1845
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
1805-136 th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Edmonds, Washington 98005
Ph: 426-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711
Toll Free: 866-336-8710
RECEIVED
SEP 2 1 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
CITY OF EDMON6�
I
I
I
I
I
I
E 0
Geolechnical Enoineepin,u Repopt
Geotechnical Services Ape Performed fop
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. Andno one
— notevenyou —should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Repopt
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only. - - -
I
F1
I
I
I
I
I
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique get of Ppoject-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geolechnical engine6rs cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geolechnical engineer-
ing repottwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Ape Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Repopt's Recommendations Ape Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
I
I
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation,
A Geotechnical Engineeping Repopt Is Subject to
Misintepppetation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redpaw the Engineep's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk
Give Contpactops a Complete Repopt and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
Contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficlent time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you.
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Ppovisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks, Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenviponmental Concepns Ape Not Coveped
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Ppofessional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com_
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Youp ASFIE-Membep Geotechncial
Engmeep fop Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASIFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
The 11631 People an forth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MID 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFEs
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11GER06045.0M
I
August 31, 2010
ES-1845
I
I
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin
1830-95 th Street Southwest
Everett, Washington 98204
Earth
Solutions
NWLLC I
Earth Solutions NW LLC
• Geotechnical Engineering
• Construction Monitoring
• Environmental Sciences
Dear Mr. Reilly:
Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study and Critical Areas Report, Proposed Single -Family Residence, 7041
Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds Washington. This study has been prepared to address
the Critical Areas Report requirements prescribed by the City of Edmonds. Construction of a
single-family residence is proposed near the top of a steeply descending natural slope. Based
on the results of our study, construction of the residence as planned is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint.
Based.on our experience during construction of th * e adjacent residence and review of the -test
pit logs prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., the native soils underlying the proposed residence
footprint consist primarily of medium dense to very dense advance sand glacial deposits.
Groundwater was not observed at the test sites during fieldwork conducted by Terra
Associates, Inc. (February 2003).
Geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site devel lopment, foundation design
recommendations and other pertinent geotechnical considerations are provided in this 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
G e Jo
F
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 9 (425) 449-4704 * FAX (425) 449-4711
1
I
I
I
I
I
�'l
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES-1845
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................
General..........................................................................
Pro*ect Description ...........................................................
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface............ ................................................................
SiteHistory .......................................................................
Subsurface.......................................................................
Geologic Map and Soil Review ..................................
Groundwater .....................................................................
CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS
ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................
Site and Construction Plans ........................................................
Assessment of Geological Characteristics ................................
Landslide Hazards .............................................................
Erosion Hazards .................................................................
Analysis of Proposal .........................................................
Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback ...........................
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 4
General ............................................................................. 4
Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................
Temporary Erosion Control .......................................
Excavations.................................................................
Structural Fill Placement ...........................................
Slope Fill Placement ................................................
Excavations and Slopes ...................................................
Utility Support and Trench Backfill ......................................
Foundations .....................................................................
Seismic Considerations ......................... ................................
Slab -on -Grade Floors .........................................................
Cast -in -Place Retaining Walls .............................................
Drainage...........................................................................
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
LIMITATIONS............................................................................... 8
Additional Services ............................................................ 9
l�
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cont'd
ES-1 845
GRAPHICS
PLATE I
VICINITY MAP
PLATE 2
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
PLATE 3
SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT DETAIL
PLATE 4
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
PLATE 5
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration
Test Pit Logs (Terra Associates, Inc.)
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
INTRODUCTION
General
This Geotechnical Engineering Study and Critical Areas Report was prepared for the proposed
single-family residence to be constructed off the north side of Meadowdale Beach Road in
Edmonds, Washington (see Vicinity Map, Plate 1). The purpose of this study was to prepare
geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for
completing this Geotechnical Engineering Study included the following:
• Reviewing past subsurface information conducted by Terra Associates, Inc., and;
• Preparation of this report
As part of our report preparation, pertinent sections of the following documents were reviewed:
• Site Plan prepared by Eclipse Design, LLC, Sheet A;
• The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles,
USGS Map MF-1541;
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. Project No. T-
5332, dated February 27, 2003;
Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared for 7039 Meadowdale Beach Road completed
by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, job ES-0228, dated November 28, 2005;
The USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) of Snohomish County, and;
City of Edmonds Geologically Hazardous Areas (Chapter 23.80).
Proaect Description
The site is located off the northern side of Meadowdale Beach Road and near the top of a
descending natural slope. The project area is an undeveloped parcel designated Lot 4 in the
referenced report by Terra Associates, Inc. prepared in 2003. The proposal includes
construction of a two-story single-family residence and associated improvements. The building
construction will consist of relatively light wood -framing and conventional foundations.
Perimeter and interior continuous footing loads are estimated to be on the order of 1 to 2 kips
per lineal foot. Slab loading is estimated to be on the order of 150 pounds per square foot.
The building will include a daylight basement/garage configuration. The maximum cuts for the
proposed structure foundations will be on the order of ten feet. A rockery facing a cut into
native soil will be utilized along the north construction envelope to create a level back yard. We
anticipate footings will follow the existing grade to the extent practical in order to minimize
disturbance. Given the site configuration and anticipated grading, temporary shoring for
excavations will likely not be required.
I
I
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin ES-1845
August 31, 2010 Page 2
If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review
the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify that our
geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the design.
SITE CONDITIO'NS
Surface
The site is located on the northeast side of Meadowdale Beach Road in Edmonds, Washington.
The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The
property consists of a single tax approximately 0.25 acres in size. The approximate limits of the
property are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2).
The site consists of a roughly triangular lot which is situated near the crest of a slope with a
local high elevation of about 368 feet. The topography across the lot generally descends to the
south-southwest with about 50 feet of total elevation change and about 20 feet across the
building footprint. The gradient across the proposed footprint is about 50 percent. The site is
vacant and vegetated with a relatively mature forest of fir trees.
Site History
Terra Associates, Inc. prepared the referenced critical areas report in 2003, which included
subsurface explorations across the subject and adjacent lots. ESNW prepared a geotechnical
engineering study and provided construction monitoring services for the adjacent parcel at 7039
Meadowdale Beach Road. During construction, site soils remained stable and consistent with
the conditions reported in the Terra Associates, Inc. report.
Subsurface
The site was explored during preparation of the referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas
report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. by excavating test pits within the subject lot (Lot 4)
and adjoining lot (Lot 3). The approximate locations of the test pit are illustrated on the Test Pit
Location Plan (Plate 2). The test pit logs for Lots 3 and 4 are provided in Appendix A. The
following is a general description of the.soil conditions encountered at the test sites.
In general Lot 4 is underlain by medium dense to dense sand consistent with advance outwash
glacial deposits. Soil relative density generally increased with depth. Groundwater was not
reported on the test pit logs.
Geologic Map and Soil Map Review
As part of our report preparation, we reviewed available maps regarding soil conditions for the
subject site. The referenced geologic map identifies advance outwash deposits (Qva) across
the subject property.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin ES-1 845
August 31, 2010 Page 3
The Soil Survey of Snohomish County identifies Alderwood-Evereft gravelly sandy loam soils
(Map Unit 4) 25-70 percent slopes across the site and surrounding area. Alderwood-Evereft
gravelly sandy loam series soils formed in glacial till/outwash and erosion hazards are severe
for these type soils.
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not reported at the test pit locations during the fieldwork conducted
by Terra Associates, Inc. (February 2003). However, localized perched zones of groundwater
seepage should be expected in the site excavations. Groundwater seepage rates fluctuate
depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and
soil'conditions. In general, groundwater seepage and flow rates are higher during the wetter,
winter months. However, zones of persistent or chronic groundwater seepage are not
uncommon, and can be encountered during any time of year.
CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT
As part of this geotechnical engineering study and critical areas report, we reviewed the City of
Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance (Chapter 23.80). Per the City of Edmonds Critical Areas
Report requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are
addressed.
Site and Construction Plans
The attached Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the proposed building footprint area
and local site topography. Construction of a single-family residence is planned for the site. The
maximum cuts for the proposed structure foundations will be on the order of ten feet. The
overall stability of the steep slope areas can be characterized as good.
Assessment of Geological Characteristics
The referenced geologic map identifies advanced outwash deposits across the subject
property. The native soils encountered at the test pit locations consisted primarily of medium
dense to very dense silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt consistent with the geologic
map designations.
Landslide Hazards
With respect to landslide hazard areas, 32.80.02*0 of the Edmonds City Development Code
(ECDC) defines landslide hazard areas as slopes of 40 percent or greater with a vertical rise of
more than ten feet.
The natural slope across the subject site is in excess of 40 percent with a vertical rise of more
than ten feet. Overall stability of the slopes can be characterized as good. Typical indicators of
instability such as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along
the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills were not reported during past site
visits. Therefore, in our opinion the sloped areas of the site are stable with respect to landslide
activity.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin
August 31, 2010
Erosion Hazards
ES-1 845
Page 4
With respect to erosion hazard areas, the slope across the site would be severely susceptible to
erosion, in our opinion. However, based on our direct experience during the construction of the
residence at 7039 Meadowdale Beach Road, the soil will likely remain relatively stable during
grading activities. In our opinion, the planned development will not increase the erosion hazard
at the site, provided Best Ma ' nagement Practices are implemented during the earthwork and
development activities. General guidelines for erosion control are provided in the Site
Preparation and Earthwork section of this study.
Analysis of Proposal
The planned development activity will involve grading and construction of a two-story residential
structure within a geologically hazardous area. As previously described, the slope is stable with
respect to landslide activity. The proposed development activity is feasible in our opinion, and
will not decrease stability of the site or surrounding properties.
Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback
In our opinion, the proposed grading and development activity can be completed as currently
planned without additional setback or buffer requirements. The proposed development will not
result in an increased potential for landslide activity. This opinion does not cover unforeseen or
changed conditions.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our study, construction of the two-story single-family residence as
planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations
are associated with foundation support and minimizing impacts to the slope area. In our
opinion, the proposed single-family residence can be supported on conventional shallow
foundations supported on competent or recompacted native soil or structural fill. We anticipate
competent native soil capable of providing foundation support will be encountered at foundation
grades for the daylight basement or at depths of between two to four feet below existing
grades. Overexcavation may be required under foundation elements depending on the
condition during grading activities. A representative of ESNW should be onsite during
foundation excavations to confirm conditions are as anticipated and to provide supplemental
recommendations for foundation subgrade preparation.
In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the majority of the site may not be
suitable for use as structural fill. Moisture conditioning of the on -site soils prior to use as
structural fill would likely involve the addition of moisture, where dry soil conditions are
encountered or aeration of soils where over -optimum conditions are present. A representative
of ESNW should evaluate the suitability of using on -site soils when grading begins. A
contingency in the project budget should be included in the event on -site soils are deemed
unsuitable by the geotechnical engineer. A representative of ESNW should be on -site during fill
placement to confirm that adequate compaction is achieved.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin ES-1845
August 31, 2010 Page 5
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Thomas Reilly and Sharon Lin and their
representatives. 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
Site preparation will likely include removing existing vegetation from the construction envelope
including, but not limited to trees, brush and topsoil.
Temporary 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 at least 12 inches of quarry spalls should be considered in order 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. Interceptor drains or swales should be considered for
controlling surface water flow patterns. A representative of ESNW should observe the erosion
control measures, and provide supplement recommendations for minimizing erosion during
construction, as necessary. If temporary discharge of stormwater offsite is planned during
construction, turbidity monitoring should be performed, as required by the City of Edmonds.
Excavations
Based on the subsurface conditions described in the referenced reports, medium dense to
dense silty sand and sand soils are anticipated to be encountered in the planned excavations.
The soils anticipated to be encountered in the proposed excavations can be characterized as
having of moderate sensitivity to moisture. During periods of extended precipitation, placement
and compaction of the excavated soils will be difficult.
The presence of localized perched groundwater seepage could be encountered in the planned
excavations. A representative of ENSW should observe the excavations, and provide
supplement recommendations for drainage, as necessary. In our opinion a contingency should
be included in the project budget for imported structural fill.
Structural Fill Placement
In general, areas to receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic matter and
other deleterious material. The majority of the organic matter associated with trees, brush, root
balls, and groundcover should be removed from the proposed fill and cut areas.
Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway
areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility
trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in the building pad areas
should be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and 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).
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin ES-1845
August 31, 2010 Page 6
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
F]
I
I
I
I
I
I
If the on -site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be
necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded
granular soil with a maximum aggregate grain size of four inches, and a moisture content that is
at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported 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.
Slope Fill Placement
In general, fill placement throughout the existing sloped areas of the site is feasible, provided
the existing slope surfaces are benched prior to fill. General guidelines for slope fill placement
are provided on Plate 3 of this report. The project geotechnical engineer should be on -site
during the fill placement to assess the slope fill construction, and to provide supplement
recommendations for the fill placement, as necessary. During the construction of the fill slopes,
the slope face must be compacted.
Excavations and Slopes
The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHANVISHA) classifies
soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. Based ' on the soil conditions described at the
test pit locations, the site soils would generally be classified by OSHANVISHA as Type A.
Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils should be sloped no steeper than
0.75H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with
OSHANVISHA guidelines, temporary shoring may be necessary. Permanent slopes should
maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with a species of vegetation to
enhance stability and to minimize erosion.
A representative of ESNW should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm that the
slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions, and to provide additional grading
recommendations, as necessary.
Utility Support and Trench Backfill
The native soils anticipated to be exposed during utility trench excavations consist of firm sandy
deposits. In general, the on -site soils observed at the test sites described in the referenced
reports should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided
the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction.
Areas of the onsite soils, however, may not be suited for utility trench backfill, and should be
further evaluated by the ESNW at the time of construction. Utility trench backfill should be
placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the
specifications of the City of Edmonds, if applicable. Groundwater should be expected in utility
trench excavations.
I
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Thomas Reilly & Sharon:Lin ES-1 845
August 31, 2010 Page 7
Foundations
In our opinion, the proposed single-family residence can be supported on conventional shallow
foundations supported on competent or recompacted native soil or structural fill. We anticipate
competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will be encountered at
foundation elevations for the daylight basement or at depths of between two to four feet below
existing grade. Loose or otherwise unsuitable soil should be removed and replaced with
structural fill. Assuming the foundations will be supported as described above, the following
parameters can be used for the foundation design:
* Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf
& Coefficient of friction 0.40 (Foundation /soil interface)
0 Passi ve resistance 350 pcf (structural backfill)
0 Wind and seismic allowable one-third Increase
* Total settlement approximately 1.0 inches
0 Differential settlement approximately 0.5 to 0.75 inches
A factor -of -safety of 1.5 had been included in the friction and passive resistance values.
Seismic Considerations
The 2006 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 pit locations,
Site Class C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction
susceptibility at the site can be characterized as low. The relative density of the native soil and
lack of a shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this opinion.
Slab -On -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on a minimum of one foot of structural fill. 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).
Installation of an approved vapor barrier should be installed below the slab. The vapor barrier
must be a product specifically designed for that purpose and installed in accordance with.the
manufacturer's specifications.
Cast -In -Place Retaininq Walls
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:
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin ES-1845
Page 8
August 31, 2010
• Active earth pressure (yielding wall)
• At -rest earth pressure (restrained wall)
• Passive resistance
• Coefficient of friction
35 pcf (equivalent fluid)
50 pcf
350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
0.40
Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be
included in the retaining wall design. 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. ESNW should review retaining wall designs to confirm
the recommended 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 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall
backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be
placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical
retaining wall and drainage detail is illustrated on Plate 4 of this report.
Drainage
The presence of groundwater seepage should be expected in the building site excavations and
the utility trench excavations. Temporary measures to control groundwater and surface water
runoff during construction will likely involve the use of interceptor trenches, sumps and
associated conveyance systems. Interceptor trenches should be installed along the cut slope
areas as necessary during the mass grading of the site. A representative of ESNW should
observe site conditions during the grading and utility installation and provide supplement
recommendations for drainage, if necessary.
Water must not be allowed to flow over the top of the adjacent slopes. Provisions should be
included in site designs to either tightline drainage elements to the base of the slope or convey
runoff to an approved discharge point away from the slope area.
In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building
footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 5 of this report.
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 pit
and test pit locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should
reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered.
I
Earth Solutions NW, LLG
Thorhas Reilly & Sharon Lin ES-1845
August 31, 2010 Page 9
Additional Services
ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical
recommendations provided in this study. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and
consultation services during construction.
I
7
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IEarth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
At
6-
V EADOWDALE 2 W
LU Sc 5
JW I oth 11 168th PIg.-
j 0 q*\� I 167th PI SIN sw
2 60th Av W M A : D D,�LE 169th PI SW
5 I'l IN PARK 70th PI - SIV 99
St SW 4 581h I'l ro
oo PI 171 P�1- �4-111 i
I nz Z�Jj jW 15, 5bth. Fl W
kill
-Si-c g.� 2nd St 3:
-17311rd SIN 173rd t W � -1 72nd PI
/Jrd
774 vi 172nd
PI 'Ist 174th St G 1711A SW
I '174th st PI
I 4-A . 9 174th �FSW
0'�t�- St W 75t Sw
175t -3: PI S
7Sth St, U
PI Sy;, W 175th Pi Sw E:L77RItSt E:
176T < z
ST S
7 t
SOUTHWEST 1:2 S R! 1 3r > 177th
I �176TH
'COUNTY P, T, '_7
X 5W
0 - 78th 3: 177th S pml L
: Z; SIN 7-8-F
, 78t 1
PI SW M I th St SW PISW
7
13t
17 P W
> -3'17
< S1 5W
0
PI SIN 70th 180th
i8list E —T 490
Pi I 815t StIsw
2nd PFSV-y I Still PI If PI - Sw -51 oti�)
'Pill, 182r 1'82.d -Z Isist Sw,PI W
P1 SW
JdZnd St SW St
St SW 183rd S S T-
ri S ----i
P1 SIN ri S
j 183rd =183M- nd PI sw
1 &2,d
18- 183rd 183 183rd
it P1 SW
v 1�14 1 Pi 3: I'l Sw
;EAVIEW18
861P ro a I 85th PI SW -
th
5t Sw H19 z - , -
t6th st C-
S
j—aj�_A85 ORTH
Z? 11�gk 1 A 8 P1 SIN
7t PI Pi LYNN 0
186t RK
3>';--` �LYIN&11. P1. SW
PARK P
t� P SW _�_PARK,
ZZ: .
PI 189th fob
8 89th St Sw _qW
kv Z2�1' PI S 189th �4
'; API
D -W4 Oth
�I) �ESWIIAY Ipql' 1.89th PI
re.
RA vv St �--'.,IrNEI HBORHOO Poth %I" Sw
I St SIN PARK =Ivumsr, .1 1
SIN st,
92 91st-st- ---D� -zx,
A412 -St.SW- -1-SW -Sw
�w
_EL_Z192nd N 2nd SW
- M SW 0
rd
191rd P ,
193rd -PI <
r 192ndP SIN
Siet -1 Dr d t Sw
,h < > 6600
19.6� S-t t
III 94th S'
.
t
0 S, 194 h St SW S I 193rd PI SW
Sw; 3:5W-5 19Ah t Sw
Sw - , _;t
IS - 0 1
9 195th
.195th St 5 i - r SW Swo 100 %;itti.60k
>
TH IND H RK
Sw I -, t I QrTu
SW 97ih St Sodn 15j'�Iultill RD)
3:1 Priv-At S WER :7 SeRl
��E�PARK� .51 ,)vy
-S
198th St
198th cd 1 SIM St
St SIN 198th GOi - -, will
W Fir
*i St'Sw WSVF tK 1 5
PA K
F
20 1,
ft_St,;z_S IN w M — - -
3�. - --- . A- -
01'st St sw' nth St SIA in i. A
201st St SW 1 -4;-_>— . . L nmLoi
� Edmond 44oc
201 St PI Sw Commun 4VI51 I MINV
202nd St % S�M.. 3: -
k2! College FAM
28- 202 Moist-
--i0-2ndPI SW -1 Sw 4 6 P Sw SCRIBER
S 203,d S SW 2 3r
)V St` G.0 CREEK
I-- L204� Sw 203rd St sw PA K
_j 204th St Z
203it
2 -,Q,4i*h P
PI Sw S, SW 204th Si SW z I
W
2D5th 76, -
— �: ]�2(
I
P' LYNNWOOD
14th; 6
M MUNICIPAL st G a: -S Scrib 65
er
2 thFI 9 S' SA -�GOUF IN Lake HS
th t SW
�-COUR�E'�
07t 207th PI S
PI 5 S 7z
208th
TL5W - �208TH Si Sw-
U
1-1Y;N
St.
!09th
�PGHBO 091
SWI -7 a, =§W210th
NORTH
Reference:
Snohomish County
Map 455
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Vicinity Map
Dated 2009
7041 Meadowdale Beach Road
E�.monds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
bate 08/24/2010
Proj. No. 1845
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
Checked SSR
Date Aug. 2010
Plate 1
I
�7
I
I
I
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
300 310 �20 330
—7 — — — -- — -- — — — — — — — --
300- --- — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — -350
310- 1
I/ L
Lot 3 —360
Li I
TP-2
Lot 4
TP-3,
ROCkIR
P18ining Wall
3,o— L
TP-1'
360
'1-350
310—
c
0ncrete.Dnv-.y
ASO
74 Driv;�.
320-,1— Y
340
330
LEGEND
I
—m— Approximate Location of
TP-1 Test Pit by Terra Associates, Inc.,
Proj. No. T-5332, Feb. 2003
i Subject Site
Proposed Building
Existing Building
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.
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
NORTH
;��h6'
4 10
0 20 40 80
1 " =4 0' M
Scale in Feet
Test Pit Location Plan
7041 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date 08/24/2010IProj.
No.
1845
Checked SSR
bate Aug. 2010
1 Plate
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
11
I
I
11
F-1
L
I
I
I
I
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Final Slope
Gradient
Compacted Slope Face
Bench and Keyway Fill to
consist of suitable granular
material approved by the 2- X,
Geotechncial Engineer. 'Existing Grade
Typical "Bench"
Keyed into Existing Slope Face
Geotechnical Engineer to Verify
uKev"
(Minimum 2'Deep by,6'Wide)
NOTES:
Slope should be stripped of topsoil and
unsuitable materials prior to excavating
Key Way or benches.
c3 Benches will typically be equal to a dozer
blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a
minimum of 4 feet.
o Final slope gradient should be 2
(horizontal : vertical).
o 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.
o 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 12 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.
SLOPE FILL DETAIL
7041 1�eadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington,
Drwn- GLS Date 08/26/2010 Proj. No. 1845
1
Checked SSR I 6ate Aug. 2010 Plate 3
I
18" Min.
00 0 0
Cr do 0 �0 0 _O
00 ..4k) 0 0
000 0.'o 00. 0 00 0 0
bo eqz�r bo
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00. 0 00 0
N . , . .0..� 0, . �
0 0
O� 00 0 0 0 0
00 0
'q 0 . 0 —0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 00 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00.co 00 00 0
2. 0 0 -C Q, -0-
C 000 0-0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0
- 0 0 . 0 0 0
00 0 0 Cr � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
00� 0 . 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 C
0 00 . .
0
0,; C� 0 100'0- - - 10 0 0 6 .
0 C--, 0 00 0. 0
0 0 1
0 0 0 0 00
4C . 00 .90
0
0000 00 0 0 0 00
0
0 0
00� 0 0 0 00 0 - 00
0 0 . . 00 0 0 0 C9 0 0
& 0 0 0.9. 0
. e 0
00
.0 0 0
ej
.0 %
'00 q
C5*
NOTES:
• Free Draining Backfill should consist
of soil having less than 5 percent fines.
Percent passing #4 should be 25 to
75 percent.
• Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu
of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW
recommendations.
• Drain Pipe should consist of perforated,
rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1
Drain Rock.
LEGEND:
1 00 -'0-00'- 0001 Free Draining Structural Backfill
i%5%i
1 inch Drain Rock
Structural
Fill
\ Perforated Drain Pipe
(Surround In Drain Rock)
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
PF
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
7041 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
1 Qate08/26/2010IProj.
No.
1845
Checked SSR
I' Date Aug. 2010 1
Plate
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D�
Q
...........
...............
n
-6 - ----------
�c
V
2" (Min.)
Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe
(Surround with 1" Rock)
NOTES:
Do NOT tie roof downspouts
to Footing Drain.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
Surface Seal to consist of
NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
12" of less permeable, suitable
soil. Slope away from building.
LEGEND:
Surface Seal; native soil or
other low permeability material.
1" Drain Rock
F60TING DRAIN DETAIL
7041 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
b ate 08/26/2010
Proj. No. 1845
Checked SSR
I Pate Aug. 2010
Plate 5
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
ES-1845
Subsurface conditions at the site were previously explored by excavating a series. of test pits.
The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan. The logs
are provided in this Appendix. 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
Test Pit No. TP-1
LTby
ter2J6%3JCS
D
Depth
Approximate Elev. 327
Moisture
(ft.) Soil Description I Itrzi IL
0— 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL
Light brown SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand. fine to coarse gravel,
medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
5—
Gray SAND with gravel. fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium
Is.,dense to dense. moist. (SP)
ained
10_1 Gray SAND., fine to medium gr dense, moist. (SP) With* occasional
fine to coarse gravel.
15 � TOM Pit terminated at 13.5 feet.
No groundwater seepage,*enoountered.
20
Logged bb : JCS
'61
C
Date: 21, 03
Depth
'0 A
ic
15
20
Test Pit No.. TP-2
Approximate Elev. 340
Moisture
Content
Soil Description 101-1
DUFF WW.TOPSOIL
.
-
Light brown SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel.
medium dense to dense, moist (SP)
'Gray gravelly SAND. fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. medaim
dense to dense, molsL (SP)
Gray SAN D. fine grained, dense, moisL (SP) With occasional fine to
coarse gravel.
Test pit terminated -at 16 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
Terr a
Associates', Inc.
Camftwft In GwWWcW &Qkwwft
. GeokWarW
Envkawmrft Emm Sderms
TEST PIT LOGS
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-S= I bate f8B 20031 Figu re 4
Test Pit No. TP-3
LT dZ CS
D ter2
Depth
(ft.) Soil Description
.0
5
1.0
15
20
Approximate Elev. 325
Moisture
Content
Light brown SAND. fine-grained. medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
With occasional fine to coarse gravel.
Gray SAND, fine grained, dense, moist'.. (SP). Wdfi occasional fine to
coarse gravel.
. TOW Pit WM*Uded at 14 feeL
'No groundwater seepage encountered.
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Conwhards inGwWdmkal ErQlnwrbV
GeolaWarw
&NkVrvrw1WEmMSder=s
TEST PIT LOGS
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-5332 I Date IFEB aW I Figure 5
REPORT DISTRIBUTION
ES-1 846
I COPY Thomas Reilly & Sharon Lin
1830 _ q5th Street Southwest
Everett, Washington 98204
4 COPIES Morningstar New Construction, Inc.
25827 — 13th Place South
Des Moines, Washington 98198
Attention: Alex Gossen
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
so-
IMPERVILIOS SURFACE CALCS.:
BUILDING ROOF OUTLINE 2,376 SQ.FT.
Cw FRONT DECK 243 SQ.FT.
REAR PATIO 60 SQ.FT.
DRIVEWAY 2,201 SQ.FT.
TOTAL 4,880 SQ.FT.
HEIGHT CALCS:
IMPERVIOUS 5vRvACt CALCS
'A'= 355' 352
'B'= 361'
1C. = 332'
'D'= 336' 354
AVG. GRADE = 34r,.' 356
ACTUAL = 371'
MAXIMUM ='1,71' 358
360
On back y#jt-0
3 6 4,
LOT SIZE: APPROX. 20,671 SQ.FT. 366
HOUSE LOT COVERAGE: APPROX. 2,428 SQ.FT. (11.75%)
V%Q T E CONCRETr- 'D p ivewis,( scopE V0 m0eE. jjj�
' 11 CjA-r r 368
we wl 20 TITIEF-S.
"E W&Y OF ballubloc, .35
T'He- Hokst
T
368
Se\lJ E f, CLIE A tl Lke ml ri,
1%, Clk-
366
364
�D 60'
0 6'0"
FENCI
362
bOTUM p T.
358
EXIST'G. TDP ' of:- SFORM 33
bP,Rlg COVER 35.6
TRANSFORMER
N79
.02'59,,,W,
(15,00,) 354
4C 352
A
SILT
0 ING
P 348
46
top 44
p
LT
'322 p
?
3 4 2
1201-1,,
3 2 6 338
..... . ............ D'RIVIF
328
336
_2
w
E14 C)
334 N79. Lo q
02, �q c)
(170 9" --- C\1
.00)
z
rrimpr
STIDIZM
Zone___--.
Setbacks au Li� e d ctu
Front E Is ul
Sides
Rear g I've NOV -10 2010
Other --------- ---------- SITE PLAN QUILD11111 DEPARFIIENT
lTy oF EDMONDS
SCALE: 1/20" = V-0"
FREET FILE ZqZ 2.0 1
ECLIPSE DESIGN, LLC REMID: BY: MORNING STAR NEW CONSTRUCTION, INC.
----------------- REME.: BY: PROPERTY ADDRESS:
16912 SE 4th St. THOMAS REILLY & SHARON LIN
VANCOUVER, WA 98684
(360) 281-4131 DRAWN: BY: 7041 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD. EDMONDS, WA 98026