20060107.pdfDATE N`ECE1,BO
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
U t tJ
PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMIT
NUMBER
108 SUITSIAIT
FLAT NAMEISUBOWISION NO,
110 M
LID FEE S
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
E5
I
EXISTING PROPOSED
N, a
REQUIRED DEDICATION ___ FT
ME;7�11E
LINE SIZE
NO
,eTURE1
PRV R5111IRID
YES C! No 0 IS
3
REMARKS
OWNEWCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
CITY
PHONE
'ONE
VARIANCE OR CU
S OREUNEORADB#
WSPECTI
R Do
N SERA
COMPLETED EXEMPT
STATE LICENSE NU15P
EXPIRATION DATE
0 YES ENO
A I
A�NANGE
CA' 9d?2j ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
WAIVER CI
—ED PROPOSED
POSED
(61;10 15;
__000 —
/ L� Ll 0
STUDY "f�q F
5 _ ZO
I
NEW
'�4 RE.1 DENTAL
PLUMBINGIMECH
LLLOTCOVERAGE
A OWED PRO
PROPOSED
SETBACKS (FT.)
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
M OF Us.
W7,
2-
Ito, miyl /aeili-o
=71
MIXED USE
LOTARIA�PLANNINGIREVISWEPSY DATE 2i'll 0
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
-1
F SIGN
ED GRANKNG I
R PROVIDED
ot
RE-111
... S x FT�)
71
rl DEMOLISH
F1 TANK
OTHER
(=ET
W
n RETAINING WALL F E
,!R S[AZINKLER
ROCKERY RE A M
(WOO-TR) _M 'bt-- F-e-llAOVr,-V-
XPLAINI
(TYPE O��U�
TYPE OF C
--2—
&-I",
,, f;EUCTION
J�jOt
IOC
up
ERCUPAN1r,-
7N
NUMBER
OF
NUMBER 0
DWELLING
UNITS
SP IALASPvT;ON
CONSU N T
I CONSU
��.A.
OCCUPANT
$TOR IES
REECHRED $ YE�
[GEOTECHREPORT
15r—M
?_-?Rw60
#D-Nul & :L
REMARKS
moi,4- -7 -19 0
�nxi, I— A Ptvf'i VN_Ck-#.zi
I 4le-1, lwv
_
D 'o IT
Description
es c I P
FEE
Description
FEE
C a C k
Plan Check
P a n
State Surcharge
L:50
HEAT SOURCE LOT SUQP1% VESTED DATE
u I cl I B a r m
Building Permit
g
1981;5
City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK 1,10��
I
Plumbing
P u In b n g
Base Fee
IT C a
Mechanical
a C T
A0
Syn
0
rHIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY N1 ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
a ci In
Grading
g
E
ECKMAN (CURB% SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
g
En r R.""
50-
N
PERMIT APPLICATIO SEE EODC 1%A0,001(AkSj
Engr Inspection
LIMBE S
SEE a PERMITPINK PC EE ECDC 19.00,005(A)f6)
SEE BACK OF RMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Plan Chk. Deposit.
Z6
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
TY OF
TY OF
IN INTEREST. AGREES T INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE C1 't
Y AND
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
FB` I n.peDt'.n
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
-CTLY
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
T BE
i FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
C C
OF ANY CITY OROINAN IS
Landscapeinsp.
a S ap.
Total Amt. Due
EEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT
D P �'O.
OR IN ANYWAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE ROVNiION�
C h LIMIT
Recording Fee
Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
VEN 15 CORRECr, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
Tan, PPIL.. 1. n.1 A PA-n und Rig— by In.
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
50tang ha,nhol DIPIty: and F AN, p,,d, and
_�ENOWHER.
.0 � AN IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMP DYED
LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
Pt,s PkI.dg,dS,Ap AOnddOL
FOR INSPECTION
IN VIOLATION OF THE
WORKMEN'S C;,MTSATION INSURANCE AND HOW 18:27.
FICI SIGNATURE DATE
NER RAGENT): IDATE SIGNED
1 (425)
LCrSIGNATUR
4RELA
771-0220
ey
FD BY
KTj_9NT-IdN
EXT. 1333
J�D /,7 1
IT I� UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
ORIGINAL � FILE - YeLLGAF INSkCTJR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBC110 / IRC110.
PINK -OWNER - COLD - ASSESSOR
PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
J0104
z
2
0
C 1TI
MO
0
80
C
M
M Z
C:
> -4
r
� x
Co
0 -n
'n
x
M IT
w C/)
9 Co
M 0
Z r-
z
C/)
z
2
0
in
a
HEIGHT CALCS.
A=308.50'
8=328.00:
' 8 "
D:33'2,3:,9.'
1,298 /4 = 324.5'
AVERAGE GRADE = 324�5'
ACTUAL TOP OF RIDGE 349.25'
MAXIMUM ALLOWED 349.50'
SLT nNM —
2
Zone Comer
—Flag_,)<_
Setbacks Required
Front
Actual
---------------- -R.
1 4-�
D-
ut'e,
----------------
-----------
L--
20.3
--------------- -
-------
APPROVED BY PLAWNG
00
GRADING QUANTITIES:
CUT = 1,423 C.Y 5e?A
FILL = 0 C.Y. 11;,0LA-eC1 11 / 2-'11 12- 0 0 57
TOTAL = 1,423 C-Y. CUT
THE QUANTITIES OF EXCAVATION AND FILL ARE APPROXIMATE, AND ARE
SHOWN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A GRADING PERMIT AND
.— — ,Ccn rr)P rnbdTPAr.-n]A1 PURPOSES.
COVERAGE CALCULATIOW
-I-
= I
---9UjLaN QQ 11-RINT =..2,510.065 SQ. F
1�/F
4) 0
CIS
�^R LEV LIVING ARtA 1,512.5 SQ. FT.
78.0 SQ. FT.
��PORC�
GOA E�� 851.5 SQ� FT.
PjG
2,442.0 SQ. FT.
rA
ECK OUTSIDE,. BUILDING ENVEL
= 5b.125 SQ. 6e--=
DECK AREA #1 -,r�
DECK AREA #2 = 31.940 SQ. FT. -f�V- Mik'00qIINT 0
68.065 SQ. FT.
TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE 2,510.065 SQ. FT.
4b
LOT AREA.
20,170.65 SQ. FT.
MAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE
20,170.65 SO, FT x 35% = 7,059.72 SQ. FT.
MAXIMUM ALLOWED (35�00%) 7,059.72 SQ. FT.
SQ. FT.
R E S U IF,
PROPOSED (24.94%) 5,031.00
jAN 18 2806
15,139.65 SO. FT.
PA
=
RQ
SURFACE COVERAGE CALCULATION
0 -e� ill =
"k,110ERVIOUS
I
'BUILDING FOOT PRINT 2,676.57 SQ. FT.
(INCLUDES ROOF OVERHANGS AND DECKS)
DRIVEWAY 1,891.87 SQ. FT.
WALKWAY 462.54 SQ. FT.
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 5,031.00 SQ. FT. SCALE
20'-
MAXIMUM ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
LOT AREA = 20,170.65 SO. FT. x 50% = 10,085.32 SQ. FT..
p
m
ca
m 0
, 2
c
70g, q ffitad6wda),C-6j,�
mm
0 "n
-4
xm
m
o
C co
M 0
oli
z
z
n
r m
C y copy
IT
L
RESUB
JAN 18 2006
AUILDING DEPARTMENI
CITY OF EDMONDS
Earth Solutions NW LLC
November 28, 2005
ES-0228
-Geotechnical Engineering
Construction Monitoring
f.. Dennis and Julie Wanner Environmental Sciences
ni
14210 — 43 Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98087
Dear Mr. and Mr. Wanner:
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 p 'pared by Terra Associates in February 2003. The City of Edmonds
rp
previously approved a Steep Slope Hazards Areas Exemption for the subject property in June
alize recommendations for
2003. The purpose of this �geotechnical engineering study is to fin
the site, based on the currently proposed site development.
Based on o feasible
ur review and Site observations, development of the site as proposed is
from a geotechnical stand �oint. The site is underlain primarily by dense Advance Outwash
p
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 geotechnical 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
2881 152nd Avenue NE -Redmond, WA 98052-(425) 284-3300- FAX (425) 284-2855 *Toll Free (866) 336-8710
Z
M
V M
C
MO
0
-40
OC
M M
Z
C
> Z
0
M M
0-
6 Fn
C 0)
C ri)
M 0
Z
Z
0
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES-0228
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ................. ......................................... ........
I
General..........................................................................
1
Pro*ect Description ............. .............................................
Surface............ ............... I., ........... ............... I ........ ........
2
2
z
0
Subsu—rface ............ ............................................... ......... �
3
=i
0
i,;
Groundwater................. ...................................................
3
M
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT ........... ..............
4
Critical Area Report Requirements .......................................
4
0 M
C
Development Standards - Geologically Hazardous Areas ...
4
M 0
-40
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................
5
0
C:
General.......................................................................
5
M z
Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................
.6
C 2
Grading Activities .....................................................
6
> -4
r
Erosion Control .............................. ........................
7
X
In -Situ Soils ............................................................
Structural Fill Placement ................ ..........................
7
7
0""
Excavations and Slopes ............... ....................................
7
M M
Foundations ................ ....................................................
8
Slab -on -Grade Floors .........................................................
8
0
0
Retaining Walls .................................................................
9
Drainage ...... ................................... ................................
10
M 0
z -
Seismic Considerations ... I ..................... .. .......................... �
10
LIMITATIONS................................. ............................................
10
Additional Services ............................................................
10
z
GRAPHICS
ca
z
PLATEI VICINITY MAP
0
PLATE 2 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
M
PLATE 3 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration
Soil Logs (by others)
6A
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
7039 MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD
ij 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:
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;
* 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:
Building Footprint and Final Grading Plan, LSA Engineering;
Building Foundation Plan, Section, and Elevations (Sheets A-1, and A-9 through A
13), LOT Design Group;
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Z
0
Ail
151) __4
3:
M
C
MID
0
C
M
M Z
c:
E:
M M
0
0
2 M
Ca
.0) ,
M 0
Cot
Z
0
M
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 2
. Staff Report — Findings, Conclusions, and Decision, prepared by the City of Edmonds,
7039 and 7041 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds, Washington, Dated June 12,
2003;
V1 9 Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. Project No.
I I T-5332, Dated February 27, 2003;
* 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;
* The Snohomish County Soil Survey (SCS).
Proiect Description
i
Construction of a single family residence is proposed for the subject property. The approx mate
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:lV. Cuts on the order often 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
Z
9
0
M
A T,
M
C a
M 0
80
C
M M
Z
c: —
f- -4
4 6; 1�
O"n
MM
a
0 Fn
C 0)
M C)
Z r-
:-I
;U
-4
M
Z
-4
Z
M
bennis'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 conditions
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, and 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 NW, LLC
Z
0
M
rn
-40
0 0
M
M Z
ID -4
0
n;D
M M
a
0
0 Fn
C
0
Z
-1
2:
5
Z
0
M
bennis and juiie 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 property meets the criteria for granting a Steep
Slope Exemption as listed in ECDC Section 20.15B.110.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.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Z
C M
M 0
0
80
C
X M
M Z
C —
01
M M
0
0
a IN
K 9)
M 0
Z
Z
0
0
M
Dennis and Julie Wenner 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
Z
Outwash Sands and the overall characterization of soil stability. In our opinion, the proposed
0
grading related to the site development will not decrease the site stability or adversely impact
F)
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.
a M
C 0
Based on our review of the proposed development and referenced plans, the hazard to the
M 0
C
project with respect to steep slope areas will be equal to or less than the pre -development
-4 K
3: M
conditions. As stated above, however, Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be
M Z
implemented during construction to minimize surface erosion during the grading activities, as
Z
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 q ualified
0 _n
n
engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington.
M M
Based on our review, and to the best of our knowledge, the proposal with respect to safety will
O'_
C
091
not increase the potential for ground movements or severe erosion.
r CD
M 0
Z
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
;a
General
Z
Based on the results of our study and review of the referenced plans, the proposed residential
Z
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the overall site stability
9
can be characterized as good with respect to global site stability. The primary geotechnical
0
considerations associated with the proposed development include site excavations, erosion
M
control, and drainage.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
'7
I
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 Page 6
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 supporL The existing slope to the east of the building site will be contoured
to a 2H:1V 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 NW, LLC
Z
9
0
M
N
L
Dennis and Julie vvonno sS-ocoo
/ November 28.2005 Page
Erosion Control
^=
Temporary
,____
`of minimize v�a�mm�o�om�� provide a firm surface.Surfatruction envelope, and a construction entrance consisting
ce water ' ��uum appropriate, o allowed to flow over temporary or permanent slopes. Temporary
m
be
plastic sheeting. Interceptor drains uwamu should be
slopes —protected
considered— — controlling su' —ter flow patterns, as necessary. The vnn�� -
' J engineereotechnical
"should observe ,~ erosion ..______ __ ____ supplement__
' }recommendations for minimizing erosion during construction, as necessary. Where possible,
existing vegetation should uomaintained mhelp minimize soil disturbance tothe site.
.~
In -Situ Soils
^' � moderate sensitivity to
The native soils generally". o==v be characterized to
mv�"=".°�opinion, ` wet weather conditions, �mm�nueuxxmmavo�umu�/nuohoumconmo ma
' of or mo defined as ma percent
passing �ell �the #20osieve, based onthe minus three-quarter inch fraction.
. _
Structural Fill Placement
fillstripped of organic matter and. . In general, areas to receive structural ~ should be sufficiently _
^ / other's
slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout
material, Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation,
rockery,
` 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
and nno In inches"
othe structural fill �should = compacted ~~ relative compaction —_ least _ percent.
Excavations and Slopes
The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies
soils mterms of minimum safe slope molinomons Based omthe soil conditions encountered
during our fieldwork, the site soils would be classified by OSHANVISHA as Type A and Type B.
Temporary
`steeper than 0J5*1v and IR1v (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 recommendations, If
temporary slopes mmm» be oonmmnmu in ovmnuannn with osyAANISnA guidelines,
temporary shoring may m,necessary.
. .
^ )°
� Earth Solutions NW, uz
, �t"A
'
'
'
bennis and juiie wanner
November 28, 2005
ES-0228
Page 8
Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:lV, 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:
* Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf
# Passive Resistance 350 pcf
9 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
0
Rl
80
a
M
om
n
:r
M M
0
0
M
(1)
ca
M 0
Z r-
Z
Z
2
0
M
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
November 28, 2005 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 E arth Pressure (Yielding Wall) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid)
a At -Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) 50 pcf
Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution)
350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
Passive Resistance
Coefficient of Friction 0.40
Allow, Soil Bearing Capacity (Competent Native) 5,000 psf
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
designed 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
z
96
M
M
MO
3: M
M Z
0
n
M M
0
0
0
C: T
E co
M 0
Z
X
z
z
0
M
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
Noveoiber 28, 2005 Page 10
Drainage
li's
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
1, A 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 donot 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.
Ji t 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 S te C ass
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
ESNW should reevaluate the
sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction.
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
z
0
0
M
A 9i
3:
C M
0
0
C
C
M
M z
C
0 -n
n Ly
MM
a C-4
0
0 M
M 0
z
9
0
M
16
—rT SW
I IITII
RP ST
112ND ST SW
177.40 ST Sw
A,
5
7 4' -
173
1721
175TH sr
s i:
PL 5
ST
SW
lz -
PARK
FHw--g-i SW
I I r� ST SW
K KjR 1815,T ST
SW
Y, I ST
SW
IPIRD
j7ST
:Z,ST
Z"
k w
�
11 R,
-18
...... .....
PL SW
P'
PL
_PL_ _S;
R. . ... .
iE
11
P1.
lqm
A, R
1
ST SW
185T I
PL
Y.N04
17
PPR,
2'
16 186TH
SW
PARK FS I
PERRY U11
189TH PL
19C RiZ f�K STSR --*I.
RT�, , 191ST P L S, -
W - - 188TH
�,R 90 IL I* 189T" PL SW
ST SW
190TH
WPKW PL SW
ST —
189TH ST SW
189� PL, SW
SW
SW
—P F,
, i-, 2 -
-Y�
tiALEWAY
19011
-�92KD PL S� fto
IL
KK MRD
SW PARK
LY W 0
�T a -
W 19JTII
ST SW
--,-.s
1 H
'Mrs *
11, CEN R
-A wnco;��
SW PK
BER I
191P,
KE RI
S�
6TH
LYNIAMD
RE
Rz
IR
197TH ST SW � ARIP L�(FILBERT
&
R RD
4�,,T
'T
201s,
R02ND 262ND
STII SW
COMITY "IT 4
ur----i , 11
'2021
r f I ,
bll-
v
- - STI-
Rim
FA
5
a
PL
2.3RR ST SW
. 9":
a R.
T w
�20
20 s
�30
2NTH
5!,.
SW PL
PARK I
D -i
-W\\ &
�ROE
�k�LEY
CTH
296TY ST SW
--208TH
SMI:
iE 207TH PL
a
SW
.,A
;z
ST
NORTH
Reference: I
Snohomish County
Map 455
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 2006
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for 011Y subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
A
z
9
0
3:
m
C
rn a
0
--40
0 C
m Mz
E:-q
3:
0 -n
n LU
m M
a
0
0 m
C
M 0
z
z
9
0
30 310 320 1
— -- — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
300
Wy
310 360
Proposed Lot 3
Residence -360
FFP-2
360
TP 31
Lot 4
310
340
3�0
vo 1 TP-1
(App�lmte LM110n)
�10
Access 0,,,,
LEGEND
NORTH Approximate Location of
OCIN TP-1- T Test Pit by Terra Associates, Inc,
Proj. No. T-5332, Feb. 2003
F- - - -1
Subject Site
0 15 30 60
1.1=30' "-�J
L S.W. 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 I 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 at color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate,
z
0
t
'0
00
C
On MT
0
F,-
n
M M
0
p Fn
C Co
M 0
M
z
z
0
M
4,0
0 C
m
0
C—
>Z
IM
o"n
mm
a a; ,
.0
0 Fn
c C.
,
M 0
z
ri
M
-4
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
full
ES-0228
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by others in February 2003, Three test pits
z
were excavated on or near the subject site. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on
0
—4
Plate 2 of this report, The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix.
M
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
V;
1
may be more gradual.
a M
C:
0
0
C:
M M
z
C:
:11 z
0 -n
iN
M M
�P'
0
o Fn
C 0)
C CO
N
;a
z
z
0
4
N,
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
v
10-
15—
Ught brown SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
With occasional line to coarse gravel.
Griy SAND, fine grained, dense, Moist..(SP). Wdfi occasional fine to
coarse gravel.
Test ph terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater sWage encountered.
z
0
-4 i�:
0
In
>
o"n
M rn
0
0
C Cn
m 0
r
z
z
0
S
0
In
Terra
TEST PIT LOGS
Associates, Inc.
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
GeolMand
ErNkonmeriwEarth Wences
Pr0j. No. T-5= Date f`EB 21bW Figure 5
REPORT DISTRIBUTION
ES-0228
4 COPIES
Dennis and Julie Wenner
Id
14210 — 43 Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98087
z
0
9i
0
0
C:
m
C
0
rn
fn
0
0 Fn
M, po
M
z
vim)
z
m
Earth Solutions NK LLC
11
CITY COPY 11-Z IV-- C E � V Tj
SEP 3 0 '2005
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. PERMIT COUNTER
onsultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
R1E(:1e1V1, and
APR - j 2W3. E I nvironmental Earth Sciences
PIRM. — —
Ms. Star Campbell
CityofEdmonds
Development Services Department
121 — Sth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geologically Hazardous Areas Review
Holland Short Plat
7000 Black Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Ms. Campbell:
February 27, 2003
Project No. T-5332
P44411" " "0193
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. Washingroin. 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 backhoe 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, steep slope hazards, and seismic 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 am currently not available for the two residential lots. We anticipate that
house construction wililAquire,moderate .rading of thSAirellopes.
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 cast -central portion of the site to about Elev. 3 10 along the western margin of the site.
Overall relief on the northern and southern flanks of the ridge is down about 45 to 55 feet carried over a slope
gradient 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 terminate at broad, relatively flat ravine bottoms. %ALid not
obserye.AAQ�tchannel or any indications of�surface water in the ravine bottoms.
WtAid4iot4bs_erve indications of gmqq4 movements or instability on the slopes. We did not observe indications
of gmuldwater_seepage, saturated surface conditions, or_�e
.�E nt �signifitcant �crosion. The site slopes appear well
drained. and generally support growth-�Frelati�e—ly straight mature coniferous trees.
ATTACHMENT 2
Z
0
0
C In
M
0
80
a
m m
om
,n
m m
0
0
0
C
M 0
Z
Z
0
Z
0
m
Ms. Star Campbell
February 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 medium -grained sand with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel. We did not
observe groundwater 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 Jams 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 are 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 20.15B.060 (A)(3) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines geologically
hazardous areas as those areas subject to potential erosion, landslide, and/or potential seisinic instabilities, and
include the following:
Erosion Hazard Areas
Section 20.1511.060 (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 15 percent or greater:
1. Alderwood soils (15 to25 percent slopes)
2. Alderwood-Evcmtt Series (25 to 70 percent slopes)
3. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loan 25 to
70 percent slopes. The soils we observed in the test pits are consistent with the Everett component of 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-timined Everett soils ihroughout
the subject site, and the definition for erosion hazard areas presented above, it is our opinion that the sit, would
not be considered an erosion hazard area.
We did not observe indications of significant erosion at the subject site; however, the soils will be susceptible to
erosion when exposed during construction. In our opinion. standard Best Management Practices (BMPs)
employed during construction would provide adequate mitigation of the potential for erosion at the site. All
erosion and sediment control BMPs should conform to City of Edmonds requirements.
Project No. T-5332
I Page No. 2
Z
9
0
m
64
Ms. Star Carripb ell
Ftbruary 27, 2003
Landslide Hazard Areas
Section 20-15B.o6o (A)(3)(b) of the ECDC defines landslide hazard areas as those areas of the City of Edmonds
that, by reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability, or topography, have a ri k
for
of earth subsidence and landslide hazard in excess of normal allowances. The ECDc specifies field criteria
identifying landslide hazard areas. We used the criteria listed below in our evaluation of landslide hazard areas at
the subject site.
Z
1. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater, and impermeable soils (typical ly silt and clay) frequently
0
M
interbedded with granular soils (predorninantly sand and gravel), and springs or groundwater seepage.
2. Any area.that includes significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, and also includes existing
0) 3:
0 in
c:
landslide deposits, regardless of slopes.
in 0
3. Any area that has shown move ment during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years R90 to present) or is
80
underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified -geologist or geo technical
in in
Z
engineer.
c: 2
4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion.
Vi
5. Any area located on an alluvial fan presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris
0 -n
flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments.
m in
Tbe * anditions we obscrveA do not meet th mted above for identifying
Fn
0
0
c: in
V)
discussed. the site soils consist of well -drained sand with varying amounts of gravel. We did not observe
0)
in 0
groundwater in the test pits or indications of seeps or springs on the site slopes. We observed An &I'Ms On -site Or
is not
Z
on adjacent properties that indicate previous instability or ground movements have occurred. The site
-subject to instability as a result of stream incision or stream bank erosion, and is not located on an alluvial fan.
gLe,2!JIoW Hazard A -as
Z
X
55
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(c) of the ECDC defines steep slope hazard areas as any ground that rises at an
Z
0
inclination of40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change ofat least 20 feet. According to this section
0
m
of the code, a slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top, and measured by averaging the inclination over at
for determi ning the top and toe of a steep slope.
least 20 feet of vertical relieE The code does not discuss criteria
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 steep slope on Lots 3 and 4 is shown on
attached Figure 2.
The topographic information provided to us indicates that the vast majority of Lots 3 and 4 are slopes 40 feet or
meet the definition presented above for
more in height, with inclinations steeper than 40 percent and-, therefore,
definition include the western margin of.Lot 3, the
steep slope hazard areas. Portions of the site not meeting this
east -west trending ravine bottom on Lot 4, and the crest of the ridge on Lot 4.
Project No. T-5332
Page No. 3
Ms. Star Campbell
February 27, 2003
Stability Andysis
We performed out stability analyses using the computer program WINSTABL. The soil parameters used are
shown on the attached analysis plots and output text. These parameters am based an field and laboratory da%
and our past experience with similar soils. Analyses of the slope were performed along two section identified on
the attached Figure 2 as Section AW and Section B-B'. Our analyses of these sections considered both static and
pseudostatic (seismic) conditions for the existing slopes. A horizontal acceleration of 0.20g was used in the
pseudostatic analysis to simulate slope performance under earthquake loading.
The lowest safety factors for each condition am presented in the following table:
Section Analyzed
Minimum Safet rs
Static I Pseudostatic
Section AW
1.79 J 1.17
Section B-111
1.74 1 1.14
The 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 minimum 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 defines 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 obs erved 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. E(It exist on the subject
site.
POTENTIAL IMPACrS 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 stormwater discharge.
• Impacts to slope stability from building surcharges, temporary site excavations. and uncontrolled
stormwater discharge.
Project No. T-5332
page No. 4
Ms. Star Campbell
February 27, 2003
In our opinion, potential etosion.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 be Tnitigated 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.
Z
Based on our observations, it is our opinion that potential impacts to slope stability from temporary site
0
excavations can be initigated by adhering to Occupational Safety and Health Administrafton (OSHA) regulations
for sloping of temporary excavations. Based on current OSHA regulations, the medium dense to dense granular
q :9
soils would be classified as Group C soils. Accordingly, f6r temporary excavations more than 4 feet and less than
65
a
20 feet deep, temporary slopes in Group C soils should be laid back at a'minimum slope inclination of 1.5-1
m
C
in
(Horizontal:Verdcal). If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner, temporary shoring
0
may need to be used to support the excavations. House designs conforming to the contours of the lot will reduce
80
C
the required excavation depths, and further mitigate potential impacts to slope stability from temporary site
C
X
excavations,
m
0-1
C Z
::;i
DISCUSSION
U5
"n
-n ;a
-4
Exemption
:r M
in M
Section 20.15B.110 (D) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Steep Slope Hazard Areas) states that no.
0 ca
0
development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property is exempt under the
0
c:
provisions of Section 20.15B. 110 (D) or ECDC -Section 20.15B.040 (Exemptions and Exceptions). Section
in 0
20.15B. 110 (D)(2) of the ECDC states that the proposed development or alteration may be exempted if it meets
Z
71
the following criteria:
X
a. The proposed development will not decrease the stability on any adjacent property, and the site
>
Z
following the permitted activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19.05 ECDC, as
-4 i
demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting the requirements ofthe State Building Code as adopted
,
T
ca
by this code.
Z
Building and site development plans am currently not'available. Our analysis indicates the site is
0
in
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.
1. Are mapped as one ofthefeltowing deposits on (he Geologic Map afthe Edmonds East and Pad of
the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, dated 1983. till, advance
outwash, andlor Olympia gravel; or
Project No. T-5332,
Page No. 5
Ms. Star Campbell
February 27, 2003
ii. Are comprised as Jill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits
listed in subsection (D)(2)(b)(i) ofthis section, provided that the fill meets thefollowing conditions:
allfill was placed under a legal grading permit, the grading andfdl 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 speciTted
percentage is present throughout the entirefill,
z
The Geologic Map of.the Edmondy 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.
Ui -4
C. Aft excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the
m
C
M 0
0
-40
property lines-, unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed
C
by a registeredprefessional engineer.
C
m
Building and site development plans are currently not available. If it is determined upon review of the
C
project drawings that shoring may be required, it should be addressed at that time through additional
geotechnical study and engineering analysis.
0
d. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building
Code as adloptedby this code, rockeries are notpermitted greater thanfourfeet.
m M
a-
to
Building and site development plans are currently not available. We should review project drawings as
0
C) 1;
C in
they become available to evaluate site grading and the need for retaining structures.
r V)
M 0
Z
e. Steep slope areas cannot be aftered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or
4diacentto theporridn ofthe subjectproperry classi*das a steep slope: impermeable soils interbedded
with granular soils; springs or groundwater seepage; signifwant visible evidence of groundwater
seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits.
z
Vi
The site soils consist of well -drained advance outwash sand with varying amounts of gravel. We did not
z
observe indications of groundwater seepage, springs, or wet soils, indications, of instability, or existing
landslide deposits on or adjacent the subject site.
m
f. Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, deb4
weathered soils, collavial. soils, or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the Standard
Penetration Test JASTM D-15861 method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject
property classified as a steep slope exceeds three feet.
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
Ms. Sta'r Carrijibell
February 27, 2003
9. For commercial development. A buffer of IS feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition,
measuredfrom the property lines adjacent to residential properties.
The proposed development is not a commercial development.
Based on our observations of surface and subsurface conditions on and adjacent the steep slope hazard areas, it is
our opinion that existing site conditions meet the provisions for exemption detailed in ECDC Section
20.1511.110(1))(2)(b.., and f). The -lots will be developed residences; therefore, ECDC Section
Z
with single-family
20.15B.110(D)(2)(g) is also met.
Because building and site development plans are currently not avflt able, review and additional analysis is needed
=5
to address Section 20.15B. I 10(D)(2)(a, c, and d) of the ECDC.
ro
0 m
C
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require
In 0
-40
additional infort.nation, please call.
0 C
Sincerel
� y yours,
M
In iz
4
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
I Sid J.
0 -n
-n
Prcj
m In
0
0
e Sch E.
0m
C in
Princ 9 742
Encl:
In 0
Z
tion Location Plan
Classification System
UW611 5 — TestjPit Logs
Z
Figures 6 and 7 — G.rainSize Analyses
NYWSTABL Output Data
Z
0
In
Project No. T-5332
Page No. 7
7
MAJOR DIVISIONS
LETTER
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL
Clean
GVV
?raded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
GRAVELS
Gravels
f�elsl
Ine
G P
Poody-graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or
(les than
0 .9
More than
5% 1 ines)
no fines.
on _'6
W
*r_
50% of coarse
fraction is
GM
Silly gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic
a 0)
W 2
larger than No.
Gravels
tines.
GC
Clayey gravels, gravei-sand-,clay mixtures,'plask fines.
W'
z 5!
:R C
4 sieve
with fines
a: -*
0 C\1
Clean
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
U) 6
SANDS
Sands
SP
Poody-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no
Cz
to
(less than
C
03
More than
5% fines)
tines.
SGIA of coarse
0
fraction Is
Sands
SM
Silty sands, sand -slit mixtures, non -plastic fines.
0
smaller than
4 sieve
with fines
SC
Clayey sands,. sand -day mixtures, plastic tines.
ML
Inorganic silts, rock tour. clayey silts with slight
0
SILTS AND CLAYS
plasticity.
CL
low to mecfiu
Inorganic clays of in plasticity, ilean day)..
0 Sow
(n M
Eg
Liquid limit is less than 501%
OL
�organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
0
z 0 c:
:R in w
a: C .5
to
MH
Inorganic sifts, elastic.
=1
SILTS AND CLAYS
W
2 E"
CH
Inorganic days of high plasticlity, fat days..
z 00
Liquid limit Is greats.
OH
Organic clays of high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
Standard Penetration
Density Resistance in Blows/Foot
2' OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
W
SPOON SAMPLER
0
Very loose 0-4
2.4' INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLSR
co
Loose 4-10
OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
W
Medium dense 10-30
Dense 30-50
3E WATER LEVEL (DATE)
Very dense >50
Tr TORVANE READINGS, tirl
Pp PENETROMETER READING, W
Standard Penetration
W
Consisten Resistance in Blows/Foot
DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic toot
>
Very soft 0-2,
LL LIQUID LIMIT. percent
soft 2-4
Medium stiff 4-8
PI PLASTIC INDEX
stiff 8-16
Very stiff 16-32
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blon" per loot
Hard >32
Terra
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Associates, Inc.
E09
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Gootachnical Engintiering
Proj. No. T-'5332
T Date FM 03
fl�Wr-3
Geology and
Envimnrnenlal Earth Scierces
z
0
M
M
ca
m 0
80
C
In m
z
0 n
3:
1m m
0
0
0
C co
M 0
z
7-1
z
z
m
0
Test Pit No. TP-1
L ID JCS Approximate Elev. 327
Date�6'V6
Moisture
DO 11 Content
(X) Soil Description ON
V
5-
10
is
20-
6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL.
Light brown SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel.
medium dense to dense, moist. (SP)
7�ray SARD with owel, fine to -medium sarid, fine to coarse gravel, modium
Gray SAND, fine to medium grained, dense, moist. (SP) With occasional
fine to coarse gravel.
Teat PR terminated at 13.5 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
z
0
a
In
C
MO
0
1,
80
C
M
m
Cn
0 -n
171
Test Pit NQ. TP-2
Logged b7: JCS in im
C Approximate Elev. 340
Date: 2/6 03
0
0
Depth Moisture C
Content r
Soil Description (ON In 0
4 Inches DUFF and.TOPSOIL.
Light brown SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel,
medium dense to dense, moist (SP)
Graye9troavelln
ySAND, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium
deris de a , molst. (SP)
Gray $AND, fine grained, dense, moist. (SP) With occasional fine to
coarse gravel,
Test pit terminated at 16 feet.
No groundwaterseepage encountered.
Terra TEST PIT LOGS
Associates', Inc. HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
consultants in Gedochnical Crigiree,ing EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geoiciltyand
Environtrentat EArth Sciericxis Proj. No. T-5332 I Date fEB
�i�
Test Pit No. TP-3
Log d by JCS Approximate Elev. 325
Moisture
Depth
Content
(ftl Soil Description
V-
10-
15—
Ught brown SAND, fine grained, madi um dense to dense, moist. (SP)
With occasional line to coarse gravel.
Gray SAND, line grained, dense, moist. (SP), With occasional fine to
coarse gravel,
Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater seepage encountered.
z
0
F
0 im
m 0
0
-4 m
X r.
mz
C -2
X
0
-n
MM
0
0 Fn
C (a
M 0
z
M
z
z
M
Terra
TEST PIT LOGS
Associates, Inc.
HOLLAND SHORT PLAT
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Cormultants!nGeotachnkalenginweing
Goologyand
Environmental Earth 56ences
Proj. No. T-5332 1--Date fESF-221603 FFig.re 5
September 23, 2005
ES-0228
-Geotechnical Engineering
Construction monitoring
Dennis and Julie Wenner
Environmental Sciences
14210 — 43rd Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98087
Ece,,VEED
Z
0
Subject: Critical Area Geotechnical Report
';EP 3 0 2005
0
M
Steep Slope Exemption
7039 Meadowdale Beach Road
_RMIT COUNTER
:4
Edmonds, Washington
CA
Reference: LSA Engineering
0
Site Plan and Building Footprint
V coln"17
C
Proposed Single Family Residence
rn
7039 Meadowdale Beach Road
Z
Edmonds, Washington
City of Edmonds
Vi
Staff Report — Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
0 _n
-n
7039 and 7041 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
M M
Dated June 12, 2003
0
0 rn
Terra Associates, Inc.
a Cn
rn 0
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review
Project No. T-5332
Dated February 27, 2003
Dear Dennis and Julie:
Z
I A —;+h our request Earth Solutions NW (ESNW) has reviewed the referenced site
n acm a Y I Z
plan and documents. As indicated in the referenced Staff Report (dated June. 12, 2003), the 0
-4
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,
property meets the criteria for granting a Steep Slope Exemption
Inc. concluded that the subject
previous City of Edmonds Municipal Code. In
as listed in ECDC Section 20,1513.11 O.D.2 of the
accordance with the newly adopted Municipal Code (Section 23.80.050D) a valid critical areas
into a critical area report,
study completed within the last five years can be incorporated
provided -the proposed development and site conditions are unchanged. Based on our review,
the conditions are unchanged and the referenced report prepared by Terra Associates
report.
(February 27, 2003) can be incorporated into this critical area
2881 152nd Avenue NE -Redmond, WA 98052 -(425) 284-3300- PAX (425) 284-2855 -Toll Free (866) 336-8710
Dennis and Julie Wanner
September 23, 2005
ES-0228
Page 2
Critical Area Report Requirements
As discussed above, the referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas Review can be incorporated
into this critical area report, 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 tinder
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 is unchanged.
Development Standards — Geologically Hazard2us 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, site grading activities will not decrease
site stability. 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.
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 Sno-King Geologic Map
of the Edmonds 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.
Earth Solutions NW, LLG
Z
M
C
M a
0
80
C
M
M Z
0-4
C —
Z
>
0
.n
—4
:C
M M
0
0
C
Q C)
Z
M
Z
Fn
Z
M
Dennis and Julie Wenner ES-0228
September 23,, 2005 Page 3
Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal
-development conditions.
to or less than pre
Based on our review of the proposed development, 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.
and safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified
Are certified
engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington.
with respect to safety will
Based on our review, and to the best of our knowledge, the proposal
not increase the potential for ground movements or severe erosion.
Concl
In our opinion, the proposed development satisfies the above criteria and conditions for
granting a steep slope exemption. Based on our review of the referenced site plan and
documents, and our recent observations of the subject property, it is our opinion the proposed
construction will not decrease the site stability or adversely impact adjacent properties. The
rt I
geotechnical engineer should observe site conditions during the grading and ea hwork activ ty
to verify soil conditions, and to provide supplement geotechnical recommendations, as
appropriate.
We trust this geotechnical report meets the requirements of the Staff Report with respect to site
specific development. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please
call.
Sincerely,
LILC
I f:)" P I rn'. "� 7 72_�Ckl �-iw�qo 6 �
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Principal
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Z
0
M
C
MO
80
C
M
Z
Z
0 _n
hirim,
0 _C)
0
0
C
M 0
M
Z
__4
3:
55
Z
0
M
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineen, PS
PO Box 523
01alla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
253 857-4151
Fax 253 857-5759
To: Theresa Umbaugh 2n12006
City ofEdmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
i
Re: Warmer Residence
z
14210 43d Ave W
MICROFILM
0
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Plan Review#: 05-453
EECE #: ED 05-63
m
This project is approved for the Structural Ordinance, Energy and V&IAQC only permit.
m 0
The drawing review has been completed and accepted for permit with the approved
80 "K
C
stamped drawings returned to the City ofEdmonds.
I z
In
z
0 q
The following information has been redlined on the drawing:
C: -2
Sheet S-1.0, 48 FND/SHEARWALL CONNECTION:
n
3X6 min for shearwall , per note 2.
-n
2X6 only for shearwall mark I
m In
Sheet A-1:
0
0
PT 6X6 HF #2 wICB66 (a,) base.
C ch
C co
4X6 HF #2 w/CCQ5 6SVS 0a GLB,CB46 Oa base typical.
In
z
Sheet A-3:
4X4 PT post typical @ stairs w/CB44 0a base and AC 4 0a top.
z
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Planning
Department, and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional
(n
corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department review, when
z
comments are received from the other concerned departments.
0
m
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please call Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857-
4151 between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
By:
Hoyt Jeter, PE
President
Oct. 2006 2:25DM Struchral Design Associates No. 2401 P. 2
Structural Des�gn Associates
Lnginvvrif�g Structures to Last
October 16, 2006
Dennis Wanner
Subject: Substitution of a PHD8-SDS3 holdown of Wo nner Residence:
SDA Ref. # 3425
To Whom It May Concern:
z
At the request of Dennis Wanner, this office has reviewed the lateral design of the
subject structure in order to define possible substitution for the PHD8-SDS3 holdowns
at wall to header connection.
0
M
M 0
After reviewing the structure, this office come with following conclusion;
-to
0 0
C
The PHD8-SDS3 holdowns above the garage headers can be substituted with an 82"
M M
long CMST14, coiled strap.
z
C
Please see detail 5/S- I for a holdown over header installation.
Please contact this office with any questions regarding this letter,
0
M M
0 ra
POSZ4oK.0so"
0
Project Engineer
r. CD
MO
Z
;0
%343
z
LL
-4
7--a 70-n
z
0
0
M
R EIVF—r—l'
E
NOV 0 1 20M
0EVELopm9NT SERVICES
--My OF EDMONDS
www.strucdes,coni
OCT-16-2006 15:58 1 425 252 0916 96% P.02
17—
Height Calculation Worksheet
Date ('407
Permit Number Z00(p 010-7
Address-10:51 mmaowk 6n�A
lnspector__,C�V—�.
`2
Average Grade 32 q,
Z
0
0
Max Height (25'+Ave.)
Actual Height (A+B+Q :34.3S
a M
C
MO
0
0
M7
IC) -1
-70
-z
1,51
12-
0 -n
Id, �4
3: C
M M
Oro
0 r-
=(C I
cc M,
10(9
Q 0
2; F
�4
-4
X
z
3:
z
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
Datum M Elevation (A)
theinp/building/forins/height worksheet
September 20, 2005
ES-0228
Dennis and Julie Wanner
14210 — 43d Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98087
Subject: Critical Area Geotechnical Report
Z
Steep Slope Exemption
7039 Meadowdale, Beach Road
M
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: LSA Engineering
Site Plan and Building Footprint
M
Proposed Single Family Residence
0
7039 Meadowdale Beach Road
0
C �a
Edmonds, Washington
M
City of Edmonds
Staff Report — Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
E: yj
7039 and 7041 Meadowdale Beach Road
Vi i�:'
Edmonds, Washington
o -n
-n
Dated June 12, 2003
M M
Terra Associates, Inc.
0
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review
Project No. T-5332
M 0
Dated February 27, 2003
Dear Dennis and Julie:
In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW (ESNW) has reviewed the referenced site
plan and documents. As indicated in the referenced Staff Report (dated June 12, 2003), the
City of Edmonds previously approved a Steep Slope Hazards Areas Exemption for the subject
property. The referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas Review pre pared by Terra Associates,
Z
Inc. concluded that the subject property meets the criteria for granting a Steep Slope Exemption
0
as listed in ECDC Section 20.15B.110.D.2 of the previous City of Edmonds Municipal Code. In
rn.,
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 repo rt
provided the proposed development and site conditions are unchanged. Based on our review,
the conditions are unchanged and the referenced report prepared by Terra Associates
(February 27, 2003) can be incorpora ted into this critical area report.
Dennis and Julie Wanner
September 20, 2005
Critical Area Report Requirements
ES-0228
Page 2
As discussed above, the referenced Geologically Hazardous Areas Review can be incorporated
into this critical area report, 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, site grading activities will not decrease
site stability. 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.
Will not adversely impact other critical areas.
Based an 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 Sno-King Geologic Map
of the Edmonds 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.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Z
M
-40
C
rh M
Z
0-1
0 -n
,n
-4
X
M M
0
0 M
C
To
X
3:
CA
Z
9
0
M
Dennis and Julie Wanner ES-0228
September 20, 2005 Page 2
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,,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 (BMIP's) should be implemented during
construction to minimize surface erosion during the grading activities, as appropriate.
Permanent landscaping should be installed to mi nimize surface erosion for permanent slope
areas.
Z
Are certified and safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified
0
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.
C m
0
Conclusions
C
C
In our opinion, the proposed development satisfies the above criteria and conditions for
X M
rh
10
granting a steep slope exemption. Based on our review of the referenced site plan and
�'- Z
documents, and our recent observations of the subject property, it is our opinion the proposed
C:;l p"�
construction will not decrease the site stability or adversely impact adjacent properties. The
Vi
geotechnical engineer should observe site conditions during the grading and earthwork activity
O'n
to verify soil conditions, and to provide supplement geotechnical recommendations, as
M
appropriate.
rh
0_0
We trust this geotechnical report meets the requirements of the Staff Report %With respect to site
0
0
C
specific development. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please
Ca
0
call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Z
Z
M
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Principal
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Earth
LSolutions
NW...
_M111111111
Earth Solutions NW LLC
February 25, 2008
ES-0228 - Geotechnical Enoneering
* construction Monitoring
- Enviromnental Scienm
Dennis and Julie Wanner
14210 — 4e Avenue West
z
Lynnwood, Washington 98087
Subject Final Report
R1
Geotechnical Services and Observations
7039 Meadowdele Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
0 M
Reference: EarthSolutions NW, LLC
rCn
0
--10, 141'
Geolechnical Engineering Study
C
Single Family Residence
3: m
M Z
7039 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington
C: 2
>
LSA Engineering
She Plan and Building Footprint
0 -n
A
Proposed Single Family Residence
7039 Meadowdale Beach Road
M M
Edmonds, Washington
0
0 M
C Co
Dear Dennis and Julie:
M 0
In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW (ESNW) prepared the referenced
M
geotechnical engineering study for the subject property and provided geotechnical services
during construction. During development, ESNW observed excavation and grading activity,
z
foundation drainage, tempora ry and permanent slope construction, and temporary erosion
control measures. On February 21, 2008, an ESNW representative visited the subject property
to observe the final erosion control measures.
z
3eneral ac rdanc� with
The perma nent slope adjacent to the development has been graded In 1 r'
0
M
ded and exhibits goc he building
the approved plans. The slope has been hydrosee �dfion
foundations were placed on competent and dense native soil deposift. drains
Permanent erosion control consisting of
were installed around the building perimeter.
hydroseeding of exposed earth surfaces has been completed. In our opinion, based on our
observations, the site development activities were performed in general accordance with our
geotechnical recommendations and the approved plans.
2881 152nd Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 284-3300 FAX (425) 284-2855 Toll Free (866) 336-8710
Dennis and Julie Wenner ES-0228
Page 2
February 25,2008
We trust this letter meets the final report requirements for the geotechnica I services. If you
have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Y
0
MO
0
C-)
C
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
M
Principal
0 �15
to
3:
In M
0
0 m
M 0
Z
M
52
z
m
Eaft SWIft" MV. LLC
A
77777"
S
city Of
certftcae of occu
pancy
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R110
d Building Permit #: _2006-0107
AT: -
occupancy established by this certificate: _R3 Dwelling Units: -
No. Stories: 3 Basement: _Yes Type of Construction:
owner of building:
pproved complying with the requirements
The Single Family--ResidOnce at 7309 Me.dowd.le �Bqach Road has been inspected and a
of the 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as adopted by the City for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this __L4L_ day of March, 2008_.
Chief Building Official
By:
Ificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
Any change of Occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now Carl
Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060107
PERMITF!
16101 - site VIjit - Complaint
Co implilirte?
y
11116120 1 06 Sib.[
30 This Is the second site visit regarding contractor loading unloading
excavators In the soft
Y
roadside shoulder at 7120 Mead. Beach Rd. The area Is currently being Stabilized and cannot
handle that kind of pressure, Contractor directed to restabilize.
Total Time:
30
J6j4.E-Storm.Coirmhectt0SI1ub
corylpWo?
y
11/151200 6 Hawk ins
15 Storm connection ok to b/f.
Y
Total Time:
15
0
101 5.m 6-stdrim, Detention Systeiri!
:104511111 ?,
P1106
0
Il/IW2006 Hawkins
30 ok to bit the detention system.
Y
M
Total Time:
30
107T -, E-krigineteringlFiri
ist a. ?
:;Y�-
62/I'4j20(i6
4 rrection Notice. See Attachments.
Car
N
0212512008 Store]
30 Approved.
Y
M
C
Total Time:
75
rn
0
1106 qt1da k
0
C
0410712OD6 Snook
25 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES
Y
Total Time:
25
IT1
1171 Z
0 frigIS
c 01
CZ
0410712006 Snook
25 APPROVED
-4
Total Time:
25
f3+6tinclationVali
0 -n
04/14/2006 Snook
25 APPROVED
Y
-n
Total Time:
25
IT1 Im
612006 Snook
20 APPROVED
Y
0
0
Total Time:
20
C
20 ttjtjjb� Giourpd,Work�
c
T
05/16/2006 Snook
20 APPROVED
y
20
0
PiumbRoug ri,.�
1126 hk
Total Time:
dimplete?
y
X
11 0 1 9/2W20 . 06 Snook
25 A P PROVED
Y
Total Time:
25
Z
1128 .'B-Ges Test/Plpe'
Jll::��' X.
1p
'Y
10/23/2006 Snook
20 APPROVED
Y�
Z
Total Time:
20
1130 - B-E4ulpment-lillech
0
0620/2007 Re'adwin
10 APPROVED
y
ITI
Total Time:
10
1132 - B-Extiaricir sheathing
,Complete?
Y,
10/012006 Snook
25 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
N
11101/2006 Snook
25 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
50
1136 - BrShear Nalling
Completei
06/2012007 Readwin
10 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
10
1140 - BmHeight Verification
co pie
061201200 R-dwin
30 APPROVED
Y
61512009 3:19:43 PM
Page 1 of 2
Total Time: 30
m ng
1142-B-Fra I
:'C "Y
06/1812007 Readwin 30 WROTE CORRECTION. OK TO INSULATE,
N
06129/2007 Readwin 30 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 60
1144. S-Wall Insulation/Caulky
0
0612012007 R.adwin 10 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 10
1146-8-Floorinsulation/Caulk
'C tj
0io, � . ......
06/2912007 Readwin 10 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 10
11148 - B- all ng Insulatl6nifCaulk r
C
z
6211 v2008 Readwin 10 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 10
i 15o. �B4 e t c Nal J
'A
ol
M
07/10/2007 Readwin 20 APPROVED
y
9n
Total Time: 2D
-4
B-Bu Ifto�F na.
M
Readwin 30 WROTE CORRECTION
IN
C
M
02/li/2008
y
02/27/2008 TEMP- 30 APPROVED
NATOLA
Total Time: 60
M
M z
Total Inspections: 25
Total Tlmw. 680
C z
0 1
"n
M M
0
0
M 0
z
M
Page 2 of 2
615/2009 3:19:43 PM
7777777��'
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
-7
Wall ................. yv')'�'
Pier/Porch .. ...............
Retaining Wall ...........
k
Slab Ins ulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough
-4
x
ITI
-in ............
C
M 0
Commercial Final
0
0
HEATING:
C
M
M Z
Gas Test ...............
Gas Piping
10—d3—
-q
...........
Equipment . ...........
0
Commercial Final
"n
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
V\n%
TR M
NAILING .............
Zel-Q 7
co
0
0
FRAMING ...........
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
C
M 0
INSULATION ..........
Floor Insulation
Wall insulation
>
z
Ceiling Insulation
-4
CA
SHEETROCK NAILING
z
0
SP IAL INSPECTION
MISCELLAQEOUS
-4
0
ITI
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
smosewer
_i�Outpajd$2ZZ'Z -Reedpit
Ddehold fe V.�Im
Watermel—al—
Amountvkyi��emlpvl__��I(-
DatePUrCh__
___010p000l
r'01v #
'A00b
Ajn0untpajd$_ReceIptfi_4
Ddelssucd rcs---