Loading...
1107 DALEY PL.PDF11111111111111 10703 1107 DALEY PL ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL BUILDING PERMIT (NEW COVENANTS (RECORDEE CRITICAL AREASi DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required 4Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: V 2D-cb(Rdw45k SF6 C LR 4 -Q0Cca Yi—) DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 4 PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): pq ()0-jq0(4R- PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: '1* G ' SEWER LID FEE $: LID(� #: S( SHORT PLAT FILE: I—• �p �j� LOT: v BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: I I ' `'i' SIDE SEWER PERMITS) # GEOTECH REPORT DATE] STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: i ej eamP0 Aav IrXe (mol LATEMPOSTsTormskStreet File Checklist.doc District Pa, • t4l-� City _of, Edmonds - Water Department TAP CARD Reading:: Date o a. 02 �5 I No. Meter 3 Tap No. {.Size Size SPLIT— Mfgrs. -No. .Z 4 Style Purchaser: s� i . Serv:_'Add. r `778- A6c. Lot IVo. Blk. No. j Add. Residential: Other: Meter. Location Service Material: -Tessure{,'o lbs :Test_— /o iS aye of - fork:~' -=,orernan _1 GG2f�Cp eae Sl"ran t \ . _ ROUTING SLIP I NEW SERVICE INSTALLATION ADDRESS:- I - ` J uj DATE: LOCATE REQUEST NUMBER LOCATES DATE CALLED: FOREMAN./CREW. FUTURE SERVICE: YES NO • I BORE:. �a CUT: . COMMENTS c�. DRAWING LOCK- DATE . !L=OC INITIAL: .�J 1'' ._ C .. - Ll 0 it w • 0 nanime • • GEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 1-864 1 Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Reference: 1) Lot 8 of Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Report by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. dated July 2, 1990 2) Harbor Hills Lot 8 Geotechnical Declaration Edmonds, Washington by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. dated July 31,1990 3) Harbor Hills Edmonds, Washington by Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. dated December 5, 1984 4) Harbor Hills Phase H Edmonds, Washington by Cascade Geotechnical dated May 23,1989 5) Geotechnical Esues 432, 502, and 516 Olympic Avenue and Harbor Hills Subdivision (Lots 1 through 10) Edmonds, Washington • by Landau Associates, Inc. dated June 14, 1990 6) Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Lot 1, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington by DODDS Geosciences Inc. dated July 5, 1992 7) Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Lot 7, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington • by DODDS Geosciences Inc. dated June 15, 1992 Job Number 4030 April 25, 1994 COMSTOCK SFR - LOT 8; HARBOR HILLS Job Number 4030 April25, 1994 page 2 • Dear Mr. and Mrs. Comstock: u We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed Comstock Single -Family Residence to be constructed on Lot 8 of the Harbor Hills Subdivision in Edmonds, Washington. The purposes of our work were to professionally evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the proposed building area, and provide foundation recommendations for the proposed structure. The scope of our services included a site reconnaissance and review of the referenced material. The revised recommendations contained in this report are appropriate as the construction on Lots 6 and Lot 7 has been largely completed. Our recommendations are also based upon our experience and observations during construction of the residences on Lot 1 and Lot 7 of the Harbor Hills Subdivision. This report was prepared in accordance with our understandings of project requirements, Unified Building Code (UBC) Standards, and generally recognized local geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Efforts were made to address City of Edmonds requirements as we understand them. Plate 1 attached, provides the guidelines in the use and application of this report. Surface Description The subject property is a flag lot near the base of a west -facing slope northeast of the intersection of Daley Place and Olympic Avenue as shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 2. Access is provided off the cul-de-sac at the end of Daley Place. The building area is nearly rectangular and is covered with a moderate growth of small trees and shrubs, which had been cut back prior to our visit. There is some surface water in low lying depressions. Most of the lot is generally sloped at about 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical), or flatter. We did not notice evidence of previous construction on the lot. • Subsurface Description Test pits had been excavated on Lot 8 previously by Cascade Geotechnical. Plate 3, Site Plan, shows the approximate location of the test pits. Plate 4 presents the appropriate logs. Test Pit Nos. 1 and 2 of this report correlates to Cascade Geotechnical Test Pit Nos. 10 and 14, respectively. It is our opinion no further subsurface exploration is required. • Although there may very well be subsurface variations between the test pits and conditions not readily apparent from the surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation to be essentially correct: The topsoil is immediately underlain with one to three feet of variable organic • sandy fill and/or soft saturated peat. Below this surficial loose soft layer, both test pits encountered and terminated in a gray medium -dense to very dense silty sand with variable amounts of gravel. Groundwater seepage and caving was noted at five feet below existing grades during the excavation of Test Pit 2. We anticipate abundant groundwater in the upper three feet of sandy fill/peat. • The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at each location tested I• COMSTOCK SFR - LOT 8; HARBOR HILLS Job Number 4030 April 25, 1994 Page 3 Foundations The proposed new multiple -story residence may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on the medium -dense to very dense native sandy soils generally available between 2.0 to 3.0 feet below existing grades or on structural fill built up from these competent soils. All foundations should bear at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the adjacent outside finish grade. Compaction or other preparation of the bearing surfaces prior to footing placement may be required. A bearing pressure of two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot (psf) may be assumed for foundations bearing as described above. The bearing pressure may be increased by one-third to accommodate short term wind and seismic loads. To provide protection against shear failure, we recommend continuous and spread footings have minimum widths of sixteen (16) inches and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Any structural fill that is placed under footings should extend out beyond the edges of the footings a distance at least equal to one-half of the fill depth. For example, if two feet of structural fill is placed below a sixteen -inch -wide continuous footing, the total minimum width • of the fill (and the excavation) would be forty inches. We estimate that foundations bearing on the medium -dense to very dense native silty sandy soils will settle one-half inch differentially between building corners or for every forty feet of continuous footing. • Lateral loads such as wind and seismic forces are accommodated by friction between the foundation elements and the bearing soils and/or by passive earth pressure against the foundations. However, passive earth pressure is only available if structural fill is used to backfill against the foundation, or the foundation is poured against the existing soil. A coefficient of 0.40 may be used between the foundation elements and supporting soils. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and structural fill may be taken to be an equivalent fluid having the • density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Slabs -on -Grade • Reinforced slab -on -grade floors are anticipated for the new residence. Slabs -on -grade may be supported on a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel placed above competent soils. All loose soft zones should be repaired prior to placement of the subslab fill. A vapor barrier such as a sheet of a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Any fill placed below floor slabs should meet the requirements for structural fill given below in • the General Earthwork and Structural Fill section of this report. Subslab trench drains may be required, depending upon observed conditions during construction. At this time, we anticipate that if these drains are required, they will be about two feet wide and less than three feet deep (below the finish floor elevation), and consist of slotted PVC pipe bedded in drain rock or pea gravel. Geotextile fabric may be required to line the trench prior to installation of the drain rock. Trench drains must discharge to an appropriate discharge facility (i.e., storm sewer). COMSTOCK SFR - LOT 8; HARBOR HILLS Job Number 4030 April 25, 1994 Page 4 Excavations and Slopes Temporary and permanent excavations and slopes for this project must meet all applicable government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet may be attempted vertical. Excavation slopes greater than four feet in depth should be generally sloped at a maximum • gradient of 1:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Flatter slopes may be required depending upon local variations in soil conditions. Steeper slopes may also be permissible, although we will have to review site conditions during excavation to evaluate the slope if the contractor wishes to cut the slopes steeper than 1:1 (H: V). All contractors working in excavations should anticipate caving of the side slopes. We suggest that the owner, as a precaution, obtain a temporary construction easement from the owners on Lot 7. Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed 2.25:1 (H:V). All permanent slopes should be seeded with appropriate vegetation. Foundation Walls • Foundation walls must be designed to support the lateral earth pressures which abutting soils will impose. The following recommendations are for foundation walls which are less than twelve feet high supporting the adjacent hillside: Design • Parameter Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Unit Weight of Soil 125 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 • *The active earth pressure recommended assumes the wall can deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height. If this assumption is incorrect, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred psf should be added to the active earth pressure. • The values recommended above are ultimate values, and should be reduced by an appropriate safety factor. As a guideline, we recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The resultant force from the soil (neglecting the passive pressure force) can be calculated by taking moments about the toe of the wall. The resultant force should pass through the middle third of the footing. • The above design values do not include hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads are placed above, or near the walls. Design values can also be exceeded if heavy construction equipment is allowed within a prism defined by a 1:1 (H: V) line extending up to the soil surface from the back end of the retaining wall footing. If any of these conditions exist, then the above design values should be augmented by appropriate additional pressures. If walls higher than twelve feet or steep sloping wall backfills are required for this • project, please contact our office for additional recommendations. 0 r] • • • • • COMSTOCK SFR - LOT 8; HARBOR HILLS April25, 1994 Foundation walls should be baclfilled with clean compacted, free -draining granular soil or an approved drainage composite. This will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The wall should contain no more than five percent silt or clay, no organics, and no cobbles greater in diameter than four inches. The percentage of sand (From the #4 sieve to the #200 sieve) should range from 25 to 75 percent. During compaction of wall backfill, care should be taken to not damage the wall. The top one to two feet of wall backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil. The two not -to - scale drawings on this page present a graphic summary of some of our recommendations. Job Number 4030 Page 5 SLOPE SURFACE TO DRAIN FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET BETWEEN 1 AND 2 FEET APPROVED ATERPROOFWALLS CUT BACKFILL s :' f;• :. ASSPECIFlED SLOPEAe 0000 DRAIN ROCK GEOTE)MLE FABRIC .f .ter •^�,• APPROX 6' SLOTTED4'PVC FOOTING DRAIN MINIMUM 1 FOOT SLOPE SURFACE TO DRAIN FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET MINIMUM 2 FEET APPROVED APPROVED DRAINAGE CUT BACKALL COMPOSITE SLOPE WATERPROOF WALLS AS SPECIFIED DRAIN ROCK GEOTEXTILE FABRIC HE- APPROX. 6' SLOTTED4' PVC FOOTING DUN The drawing above shows a typical detail for a retaining wall which is backfilled with free -draining soil. The drawing to the left is a typical section for a retaining wall which is constructed using drainage composite. 11 • u J � � • r-, L-. COMSTOCK SFR - LOT 8, HARBOR HILLS Job Number 4030 April 25, 1994 Page 6 Rockeries The construction of rockeries is to a large extent an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods and standards. Hence it is imperative that rockeries be constructed with care and in a proper manner. The work should be performed by experienced contractors. The base course should be placed on the native medium -dense sandy soils at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the final adjacent grade. Where there exists retaining cut slopes less than six feet high, or fill slopes less than four feet high, rockeries may be constructed entirely of four -man rock. Rockeries placed in front of six to eight foot high cut slopes should have one course of six -man rock at the bottom. Rockeries with a height of eight to ten feet should have at least two courses of six -man rock at the bottom. For rockeries with a height of ten (10) to twelve (12) feet, there should be at least three base courses of six -man rocks at the bottom. The remaining courses may be four -man rock. Any fills behind a rockery should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557. Rockeries placed in front of fills greater than 4 feet in height should be designed as a reinforced soil wall. The rock should be hard, sound, durable, free of seams and cracks, and broken in cubical shapes. The rock density should be at least one hundred sixty-five (165) pcf. Six -man rock should weigh at least six thousand (6000) pounds. Four -man rock should weigh at least two thousand (2000) pounds. The drawing below is a typical section through a rockery. 2 (or flatter) 1 TO 2 1 in.i6" � � 6 . . (maxAL Free -draining 5% fines) min.11 8" wide layer of 2 - 4" AL - quarry sp Its adjacent HEIGHT (max. 8') A, A Stable cut face . . a I" (or less) diameter washed ggravel: min. 8" over pipe: min. A,2" gravel under pipe. A. (min. height . • MIN. 12" Min. 4" diam. pert. pipe; min. 1 % continuous slope to outlet; pipe and/or cut face lined with filter fabric (Mirafi or equivalent). 0 COMSTOCK SFR = LOT 8, HARBOR HILLS Job Number 4030 April25, 1994 page 7 • General Earthwork and Structural Fill Site construction should begin by stripping and clearing the building areas of all deleterious material. Stripped materials may have to be removed from the site. The contractor should anticipate and be prepared to accommodate moderate to heavy seepage into the excavation. • Heavy seepage may adversely impact cut slope stability, and this office should be notified if heavy seepage is observed out of any of the cut slopes. The site is moderately vulnerable to erosion during construction activities. We recommend a filter fabric fence be installed downslope of any excavation activity. Depending upon the • weather, hay bales placed a certain key locations may also be required. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed below structures and pavements where the fill soils need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill should be placed above unyielding site soils in maximum eight to ten -inch -thick loose lifts and compacted to 95 percent of Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). Foundation wall and subslab backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of Modified Proctor. Moisture -sensitive soils • typically have a significant percentage of fine-grained material. The on -site soil generally has significant fine-grained material (silt), and is therefore moisture -sensitive. These soils will be difficult to place and compact as structural fill if these soils are wetter than the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. During wet weather or under wet conditions, structural fill should consist of a granular soil having less that five percent silt or clay (measured on that • portion which passes the 3/4-inch sieve). Closure • It is recommended we be retained to review the final development plans to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met and our recommendations have been accurately interpreted in the plans. It is recommended that we be retained to provide professional geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during design and construction. This allows us to: 1) confirm that • design conforms to specific subsurface requirements; 2) confirm that subsurface conditions during construction are consistent with those indicated by this report; 3) evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities conform to the intent of the contract specifications and plans, and; 4) provide recommendations for design changes in the event of changed conditions. While on the site during construction, we will not direct or supervise the contractor or the work, nor we will be responsible for maintaining or providing for on -site safety • or dimensional measurements during construction activities. 0 COMSTOCK SFR - LOT 8, HARBOR HILLS Job Number 4030 April 25, 1994 page 8 It has been a pleasure providing you with our professional services. If there are any questions, please call me directly at (206) 867-3297. • • MKD/wd • enclosures: 4 Plates and Legend • u • Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. �K• DO ¢�P�F WAs" cis � o 22508 O'�'��'9FGfSTEP•. �\� �S/ONAL E� I EXPIRES Y/ LT/ 5'V Mark K. Dodds, P.E. E • • • • • • • • DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. GUIDELINES IN THE USE OF THIS REPORT This report for Job No. 4030 was prepared in accordance with local generally accepted engineering principles and standards. No warranty is expressed or implied. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the limited services which you requested. Geotechnical engineering requires the application of professional judgment, as no study can completely quantify subsurface conditions. The owner should seriously consider any recommendations for additional work contained in the report, as it is then our professional opinion that this additional work is necessary to augment and/or fulfill site specific requirements. This report is an informational document, and is not to be used for contractual purposes. Any interpretation of subsurface conditions in the report including the test pit logs, boring logs, and/or text discussions are based upon our testing, analysis, experience, and judgment. Groundwater levels can be especially sensitive to seasonal changes. This firm is not responsible for interpretations others make using this report. The conclusions and recommendations in this report assume that the field tests that were conducted accurately represent subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, significantly different subsurface conditions are encountered from those described in this report, our firm should be notified at once to review these conditions and revise our recommendations as necessary. Also, if there is a significant lapse of time between this report submittal and the start of work at the site, our firm should be allowed to review and verify site conditions. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered during excavation and construction, and simply cannot be fully anticipated by periodic soil and/or rock sampling at widely spaced testing locations. The owner should be prepared to accommodate potential extra costs through the development of a contingency fund. This firm cannot be responsible for any deviation from the intent of this report including, but not limited to the nature of the project, the construction timetable, and any construction methods discussed in the report. This firm will not be responsible for any construction activity on this site, nor are we responsible if others attempt to apply this report to other sites. C • Ci • U [] • • • low DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. 179TH PL SY Tfm � s OYERm PK i Ito R r t o K■ ° Tf]i v 4L Site0 �q- . --�:� a 84TH ST .Sr _ ''<I teslx €€� LTM d" MITT PL SN 186TM PL PK SM i 187TH 1 STgo � = I s 1691N ST = •� BWE PL ST = ST ` nTa • < 190TH SI ' CHERRY ST �� 1°A wln 1/ s s s 192ND ST SY LIM no OR •y i i fa kr.` ? R r T a s a PLa (" ST SW NEW IN PUGET OR WY • North ,� Blb°KNERE O lll• Y EYIIKD .. NT 1 g+ �_ :ASPE ST tav F _ .n f* yl�� 200TH ST S4 i wart i171 i SIERM'< i, m <> 6 E p z �Q� < I�I ` r <' �+N ST Sw .4WI.. I i+ slow 'd sY <� Y' • �_` PAWC s ST : I x • . g > N 201M u ST SI J Y Sis I X HILL PR 206TH !a ♦ °Y • ELL ST, �:[ • • klt $ @ ST Sw P¢ • . I $TI °AR Sd m IAYTW I ST x '' 209M PL 7L6RFNA '� MAPLE 1'^ ST < ALOE � a y S1 � �. y a / f/I � ilf YALNUT i � .. ST ;s 212M YISAMCRAR I NONELL NY H CEDAR Si c¢aw Ip %S ' PIJIK `� 'off F ST 91 ' ,� 'M I HAM r < ' 4 '�Ku 214M PL 9� TI.,�J Si "- PN -• i� g WF°l '" ST 6I-- .. If u a 216M ST F151H 215M E �_ .i <' 216TN -'3 < STga <_SY ;'TM-�► - — —@ - Pt�E S.T.. FL ,rearm i i i [ 217TH ST SY i fn I FIRR ST>ali N' • G0°1J1 I ` m L= r J FIFTH ESN ST E 7B Sw �e > epCy�,. �.6 �. � r Q '�r.I ^}Y FF '�✓% "' All! Job Number 4030 - Plate 2 Vicinity Map Comstock Residence Harbor Hills, Lot 8 Edmonds, Washington 0 MAJOR DIVISI& USCS DESCRIPTION Gravel Clean Gravels GW Well -graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand and (little or no fines) Mixtures, Wide Range of Sizes Coarse Gravelly GP Poorly Graded Gravels. Gravel -Sand Grained Mixtures Soils More Than 50% Coarse Gravels with GM Silty Gravels, Gravel -Sand -Silt Mixtures Fraction Some Fines GC Clayey Gravels, Gravel -Sand -Clay Retained on No. 4 Sieve Mixtures Sand SW Well -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, and Clean Sand Wide Range of Sizes More Than Sandy Soils (little or no fines) Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands. 50% Material More Than SP MostlyOne Size or MissingSizes. Larger Than No. 200 50% Coarse SM Silty Sands. Sand -Silt Mixtures. Sieve Size Fraction Retained on Sands with No. 4 Sieve Some Fines SC Clayey Sands. Sand -Clay Mixtures. Y Y Y Inorganic Silts, Rock Flour. Clayey Silts Fine ML w/ Slight Plasticity. Ash Grained Silts Liquid Limit and Less Than 50 Inorganic Clays of Low to Med. Plasticity Soils Clays CL Gravelly Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. OL Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous or More than 50% Material Silts Liquid Limit Diatomaceous Silty Soils. CH Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity Smaller than and Greater Than No. 200 Sieve Clays 50 Size Organic Clays of Medium to High OH Plasticity Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils PTPeat, Humus, Swamp Soils, Topsoil with High Organic Contents Fill Highly Variable Constituents Boulder Above 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 sieve to #4 sieve Silt or Clay Below #200 sieve Soil Descriplion Guide Percentage Description of Each Component Descriptive Term Percentage Ranee "Trace" 0 - 5% "Some" 5 - 15 % "And" (e.g. sandy, silty) 15 - 35 % d' 35 - 50% Notes: 1) Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. 2) The Discussion of the Text of This Report is Necessary for a Proper Understanding of the Nature of the Material Presented in the Attached Logs. Ring # = 3.0" O.D. split barrel sampler driven with 140 lb. hammer falling 30". Numbers are blows per 12 inches. SPT # - 2.0" O.D. split barrel sampler (ASTM D-1586) driven with 140 lb. hammer falling 30". Numbers are blows per 12 inches. LEGEND Boring and/or Test Pit Logs i �w 7 7 • �m TE!j PIT 1 0 w Cn 0 DATE AVATED:5/4/89 a N w ii a EXCAVATION METHOD: M w � o o a) a¢ ch c co _j LOGGED BY: DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: x x x PT xxx Dark Brown Peat, Loose, Saturated. x x x 2 4 SM Gray -Brown Silty Sand, Fine to Coarse- Grained, Trace to Little Gravel Dense to Very Dense, Moist to Wet. 6 Stopped at 7.0 feet due to refusal. No groundwater seepage noted during excavation. TEST PIT 2 0 v w v DATE EXCAVATED: 5/4/89 e H cn a s EXCAVATION METHOD: n m (U o a) ch O X a u) CC o W _j DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY: 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: ssy s SSS S Gray Silty Sandy Fill with some Gravel & Some Organices (Logs) & Minor Trash (Wire, Rope), Loose, Saturated. SSS S 2 X x PT xxx Dark Brown to Black Peat, Organics, Loose, Saturated. x 4 SM Gray Silty Sand, with Some Gravel, Medium Dense to Dense, Saturated. 6 8_ Stopped at 8.0 feet. Groundwater seepage noted below 5.0 feet. Caving below 5.0 feet. DODDS Geosciences Inc. P.O. Box 6966 LOG OF TEST PITS 1 AND 2 TEST PIT Bellevue, Washington Comstock Residence Tele: (206) 867-3297 Edmonds, Washington REPORT CITY CL K CIVIC CENTER , EDMONDS. WA 98020 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS -Un3er the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by 'the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property �"do hereby covenant., stipulate and.promise as follows: 1. .^-.es:.r?p`.ion of Sub-jact Property. This cGvenana`_ oA notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of 11C1 pQ l-Q!� Pi �� (insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: oW orT 70 3 �n M !n mLEF C -) m, zz CD D D ! T1 -� 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have 'been 'evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the -process to obtain a building permit for the,subject site., The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/klt 02/08/90 a0 13UILDING VOL. 2959PAcE1213 FEB9-1"0 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations,. or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The .conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect, and/or structural. engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any otherperson acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest. in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 505 Bell Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020_ 3. Indemnification and Hold -Harmles§:" The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all, risks associated with development of the property and do' therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City. of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -2- WSS/klt 02/08/90 VOL. 2959phu121.4 arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, - heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability .or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out- of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the. issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants -in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. Insurance Requirement.. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has -/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: (insert insurance requirements and time period, if any --if no insurance required, so state:] WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3- WSS/klt 02/08/90 VOL. 29-5 9 PaGE 1215 ON • S. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating .and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, .successors and interests or any.other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may. appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. ,/,4 DONE this -� day of ��r� , 1994 OWNERS) . BY �✓IiLtw�. By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: . COUNTY OF 5titiNr�.'•-,-u_o I cert'ly thatI know or have 'satisfactory evidence that Signed this instrument and acknowledged WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -4- WSS/klt 02/08/90 l 9 4 9 U V 2 50 YOL. 2 9 5 9 PAGE 1216 it to be (his her) free and voluntary act for the purposes melf '140 _ in this instrument. , T( A D' his day of(/ iA 199 q VU, NOTARY PURL C/ C •° , My commis' ri xpires: l ' o--`'q _ STATE.,OF WASHINGTON ) ✓ ) ss: COUNTY OF� ���k)' I'. certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that t„ l W��.c gned this instrument and acknowledged 3. o be. (his/her free and voluntary act for the purposes t'iohed in this .instru ent. p, .A.'D%ATED:".this`% day of sti � t V d o ___STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) NOTARY PU My commis ires: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the (title) of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument was executed)- .to be the -free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. , DATED this day of WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/klt 02/08/90 , 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: -5- VOL. 295.9PAGE1217 _�� GEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 1-864 1 Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 _ Subject: Final Letter Single -Family Residence Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Olt .TlSFiE ✓ "o . ' j_LE 1 Job Number 4030 July 25, 1995 Dear Client: A final inspection of the site and property was held on July 21, ,1995. In addition, we have reviewed our files and inspection reports completed during the construction of this project. Based on our review and site visit, it is our opinion the project was completed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. In our opinion, the structure is ready for occupancy. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please contact the undersigned directly at (206) 867-3297. MKD/wd 0� Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. !/2flvS . i. M f �. le- Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM 10 April 1995 Street File (1104 Daley PI) APR 101995 Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector tl�6�1_ Comstock SFR at 1104 Daley PL- Guardrail issue At 1100 a.m. this date I met with Brian Comstock, homeowner at the subject address, to discuss whether or not a guardrail is required now the grades between the driveway and walkway are less than expected. Brian explained they wanted to. install a two tier rockery (not to exceed 4 feet) parallel to the existing walkway, extend the concrete driveway curb to the garage and raise a portion of said walkway.. He asked what drawings were needed to accomplish this and how long it would take to review. I told him we would need a cross -sectional drawing of the walkway/driveway showing the rockery and grade differences. Since they are wanting to raise part of the walkway, Brian asked what needed to be done to the walkway., I suggested, since it is a private walkway, steps could be put in to make the transition between the upper and lower portion of the walkway. I did tell them if they constructed steps, they must be concrete, standard size and a handrail installed along the south side of the steps. A detail of the stairs and handrail would be needed also. Should the Comstock's install steps in the walkway, they will provide a wooden handrail that conforms to applicable standards The other portions of the walkway could remain asphalt. In addition, I also. mentioned a drain pipe needed to be installed behind the rockery and tied to the outfall side of the detention system. Brian asked if I was the only one that needed to review the drawings and I suggested he contact the building official, Jeannine Graf, to see if she required anything for the rockery since the area is classified as sensitive. Brian also asked about removing the radial concrete gutter installed for the neighbors driveway (see civil drawings) so they could have a smoother transition to the existing shared driveway. I told him the reason for the curb was to keep water from the upper driveway draining down his and into the detention system. He agreed to keep the gutter as is, and work on the transition point. Another concern of Brian's was connecting to the existing curb. I suggested his contractor saw cut the concrete curb and sidewalk at the angle point in the curb. They did not have a problem with that. I reminded Brian, the maximum driveway slope could not exceed 19% and before final inspection, verification would be required. Brian stated he would contact his civil engineer and have him do the necessary drawings for our review. After that point, I left the site. City of Edmonds S Engineering .Division ^COMSTK.DOC Based on the grades observed in the field, the Comstock's plan to terrace a rockery along the walkway -and -install a 12" vertical curb along the south side of the driveway,—_ <�:guradrail willnot-be-required) With the curb along the south side, terraced side slope and -the on -site turn -around on the opposite side of the driveway, we do not see a need for a guardrail. The only reason there was any requirement for,a guardrail was based on the drawings for the Hanchett residence at 1111 Daley Pl. It appeared there would be a substantial drop between the driveway and the walkway and for safety purposes, the City Engineer thought it a good idea to provide a measure of safety. cc: Jeannine Graf, Building official k MEMORANDUM II Date: March 17, 1995 To: Jeannine Graf, Building Official From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector Subject: Comstock SFR at 1107 Daley Pl- Unmountable curb versus guardrail After looking at the subject file, I seem to recall a conversation with the engineer who did the retaining wall design, and he asking if, instead of a guardrail, a 12" unmountable curb was acceptable. I believe I told him that would be acceptable but would need to see a drawing. He asked if it could be part of the retaining wall and I recall telling him that would be okay but needed a drawing for the file. To my knowledge, at no time did the discussion of a handrail come up. All discussions have been with regards to a guardrail. Also, I do not recall any conversation with Ms Comstock regarding a handrail. Normally we would not comment on the need for guardrails/handrails on private property, but since there is a walkway below the driveway, we thought for safety purposes, some sort of barrier be installed to keep cars from backing over the side and possibly injuring any pedestrian. The 12" curbing can be tapered to meet the existing 6" curb and gutter. At that point there isn't sufficient grade difference to be any less hazardous than the existing curbing. If the engineer for the Comstocks will submit a revised retaining wall detail we will be glad to look at it and resolve this subject. City of Edmonds 6 Engineering Division AMEMO.DOC N h William and Arlene McCormick 502 Olympic Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Hulda Humola 516 Olympic Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 August 25, 1994 City of Edmonds 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds,, WA 98020 Attn: Jeff Wilson Re: Appeal of MDNS or 1107 Daley Place File No. 94-88 Dear Mr. Wilson: Please consider this letter a formal withdrawal of the appeal of the mitigated determination of nonsignificance which was issued for the above -referenced property. This withdrawal of the appeal is contingent upon the issuance of a building permit to Brian and Erin Comstock which contains conditions for construction. A copy of the letter written by the Comstocks requesting these conditions is attached hereto and is incorporated herein. In order to accommodate the condition of allowing the Building Official to inspect the pizzometers on the properties owned by both the McCormicks and Mrs. Humola, the undersigned are granting a right of access to the City of Edmonds and to Dave Peterson, the Comstock's builder. Said access will be limited. to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. OE - C:\WOJWORD6KPHU EITERS MMOCrrY.DOC M City of Edmonds August 25, 1994 Page 2 Access is further limited to only that which is necessary to conduct the pizzometer reading. If you have any questions in regard to this matter, please feel free to contact us. r r William McCormick STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 5rupL"'I&-) ) ss. COUNTY OF•-. 1994. .7 ^• A i? ,w t� \ • ;• 5 e -� _ • • i . t, .7, r. • � U v ^ C :ram!^��v••��N g Arlene McCormick STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ryyj,7 y ) ss. COUNTY OF-YER4G) 1994. p7ARy�"N'Oyy r � s r �9 *�;G 2� 1�•'c=; p �F ••.. •..%. , r Sincerely, to before me this /`',� day of Notary Public in -And for the state of Washington residing at My app't expires:O to before me this 1164 day of \' v ame: Ali &,I XvA j-, L! t Notary Public'ifi and for the state of Washington residing at CP.d' r10r,Z j My app't expires: /,Gt(• . ,T4) /5 GE - C:\WINWORD6W.PHU.EITFRS%EDMOCRY.DOC City of Edmonds August 25, 1994 Page 3 Hulda Humola STATE OF WASHINGTON ) Sj tvi�m��, ) ss. COUNTY OF KR46 ) nt SUBPO' ,SWORN to before me this / dayof , 1994. ame: JJ Nt&Yu Wbtk) J B l °�°'•9G "�: o �4 Notary Public ' and for the state of ......�0 �% fb Washington residing at ?,,fh 10��J —•.�Of tNk� �i000 My app't expires:GT GE - C:%W NWORD6'KPHUEITERSIFDMOCnT.DOC 00 August 30, 1994 City of Edmonds Attn: Jeff Wilson 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Lot No. 8 (Harbor Hills) 1107 Daley Place/Brian and Erin Comstock Dear Mr. Wilson: Pursuant to the memorandum of August 23, 1994 submitted to the City of Edmonds by Kevin Hanchett and pursuant to the responsive letter by Scott Snyder dated August 24, 1994, we, as applicants, are requesting that new conditions be imposed upon and incorporated in the building permit for the construction of our new home at the above -referenced address. The conditions that we would request be imposed on our building permit are as follows: 1. During all development stages of Lot 8 at Harbor Hills, including but not limited to site excavation, filling and grading activity; deliveryof concrete and building materials, trucks with a licensed gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds shall be restricted to one (1) trip in a one -hour period (i.e., one (1) truck in and out in one (1) hour). Truck traffic in excess of the specified limits shall be grounds for an immediate stop -work order from the City of Edmonds. 2. All excavation work and drainage installation work on the subject site shall be limited to the dryer periods of the year. Accordingly, excavation and drainage installation can occur between May and the end of September. Work outside of these parameters shall be limited and restricted based upon the level of the subterranean water table on the properties owned by Arlene and William McCormick and Hulda Humola. The subterranean water table shall be measured by the pizzometers which were installed on the McCormick and Humola properties by the City of Edmonds. When the pizzometer on the McCormicks' property reaches a reading of 28 inches of water level to ground level ("high water mark"), all excavation and drainage installation work shall cease. M City of Edmonds August 30, 1994 Page 2 3. The pizzometer reading would be confirmed by the Building Official at the request of either the McCormicks, Humola or the Comstocks. The purpose of the Building Official's review of the pizzometer's reading would be to assure a reading in excess of the specified level. The Building Official would not be required to monitor the water table. Monitoring of the pizzometer would be conducted by the parties. The only involvement of the Building Official would be to verify the water level before the issuance of a stop -work order. The applicants agree to pay the City of Edmonds a $30 inspection fee each time the Building Official is called upon to verify the pizzometer reading. Further, the applicant will post a $120 deposit with the City of Edmonds to verify payment of this amount. This deposit is fully refundable in the event that the inspections are not needed during the course of construction. For the purposes of pouring concrete foundation walls only, item number 3 of the revised MDNS for this project will be the only exception to item number 1 of this letter. To clarify item number 3 of the revised MDNS, each of the 4 concrete trucks (64,000 GVW each) may deliver only one 9-yard load of concrete to the subject site. 4. The stop -work order referenced in paragraph 2 could be lifted and work resume when three (3) consecutive daily readings below the "high water mark" have been made by the permitee and verified either by Humola and McCormick or the Building Official. I would anticipate that,a building permit would be issued containing the revised conditions set forth above. I acknowledge that any change in conditions may require further environmental review. The agreement to permit these conditions is contingent upon the withdrawal of the existing environmental appeal which was filed on August 4, 1994 by Mr. and Mrs. McCormick and Hulda Humola. These conditions have been arrived at through negotiations with the appellants. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Sin rely,. Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 BC/ds GE-C:%WWWORDG\KPFI\LI- ERSIEDMOMT.DOC APPROVED BY PLANNING . . I 4K I A 9/1 August 30, 1994 City of Edmonds Attn: Jeff Wilson 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Lot No. 8 (Harbor Hills) 1107 Daley Place/Brian and Erin Comstock Dear Mr. Wilson: Pursuant to the memorandum of August 23, 1994 submitted to the City of Edmonds by Kevin Hanchett and pursuant to the responsive letter by Scott Snyder dated August 24, 1994, we, as applicants, are requesting that new conditions be unposed upon and incorporated in the budding permit for the construction of our new home at the above -referenced address. The conditions that we would request be imposed on our building pen -nit are as follows: 1. During all development stages of Lot 8 at Harbor Hills, including but not limited to site excavation, filling and grading activity, delivery of concrete and building materials, trucks with a. licensed gross vehicle weight of more, than 10,000 pounds shall be restricted to one (1) trip in a one -hour period (i.e., one (1) truck in and out in one (1) hour). Truck traffic in excess of the specified limits shall be grounds for an immediate stop -work order from the City of Edmonds. 2. All excavation work and drainage installation work on the subject site shall be limited to the dryer periods of the year. Accordingly, excavation and drainage installation can occur between May and the end of September. Work outside of these parameters shall be limited and restricted based upon the ' level of the subterranean water table on the properties owned by Arlene and William McCormick and Hulda Humola. The subterranean water table shall be measured, by the pizzometers which were installed on the McCormick and Humola properties by the City of Edmonds. When the pizzometer on the McCormicks' property reaches a reading of 28 inches of water level to ground level ("high water mark"), all excavation and drainage installation work shall cease. -�; City of Edmonds • August 30, 1994 Page 2 3. The pizzometer reading would be confirmed by the Building Official at the request of either the McCormicks, Humola or the Comstocks. The. purpose of the Building Official's review of the pizzometees reading -would be to assure a reading in excess of the specified. level. The Building Official would not be required to monitor the water table. Monitoring of the pizzometer would be conducted by the parties. The only involvement of the.Building Official would be to verify the water level before the issuance of a stop -work order. The applicants agree to pay the City of Edmonds a .$30 inspection fee each time the Building Official is called upon to verify the pizzometer reading. 'Further, the applicant will post a $120 deposit.with the City of Edmonds to verify payment of this amount. This deposit is fully refundable in the event that the inspections are not needed during the course of construction. For the purposes of pouring' concrete foundation walls only, item number 3 of the revised MDNS for this project will be the only exception to item number I of this letter. To clarify item number.3 of the revised MDNS, each of the 4 concrete trucks (64,000 GVW each) may deliver only one 9-yard load. of concrete to the subject site. 4. The stop -work order referenced in paragraph 2 could be lifted and work resume when three (3) consecutive daily readings below the "high water mark" . have been made by the permitee and verified either by Humola and' McCormick or the Building Official. I would anticipate that a building permit would be issued containing the revised conditions set forth above. I acknowledge that any change in conditions may require further environmental review. The . agreement to permit these conditions is contingent upon the withdrawal of the existing environmental appeal which ,was filed on August 4, 1994 by Mr. and Mrs. McCormick and Hulda Humola. These conditions have been arrived at through negotiations with the appellants. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Sin rely,. Bran and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 BC/ds CE-C:\WINWORD6MCPIU.M- ERSEDM06"DOC August 25, 1994 City of Edmonds 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Jeff Wilson Re: Lot No. 8 (Harbor Hills) 1107 Daley Place/Brian and Erin Comstock Dear Mr. Wilson: Pursuant to the memorandum of August 23, 1994 submitted to. the City of Edmonds by Kevin Hanchett and pursuant to the responsive letter by Scott Snyder dated August 24, 1994, we, as applicants, are requesting that new conditions be imposed upon and incorporated in the building permit for the construction of our new home at the above -referenced address. The conditions that we would request be imposed on our building permit are as follows: 1. During all development stages of Lot 8 at Harbor Hills, including but not limited to site excavation, filling and grading activity, delivery of concrete and building materials, trucks with a licensed gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds shall be restricted to one (1) trip in a one -hour period (i.e., one (1) truck in and out in one (1) hour).. Truck traffic in excess of the specified limits shall be grounds for an immediate stop -work order from the City of Edmonds. 2. All excavation work and drainage installation work on the subject site shall be limited to the dryer periods of the year. Accordingly, excavation and drainage installation can occur between May and the end of September. Work outside of these parameters shall be limited and restricted based upon the level of the subterranean water table on the properties owned by Arlene and William McCormick and Hulda Humola. The subterranean water table shall be measured by the pizzometers which were installed on the McCormick and Humola properties by the City of Edmonds. When the pizzometer on the McCormicks' property reaches a reading of 28 INCHES * ("high watermark"), all excavation and drainage installation work shall cease. *From water level to ground level <� City of Edmonds August 25, 1994 Page 2 3. The pizzometer reading would be confirmed by the Building Official at the request of either the McCormicks, Humola or the Comstocks. The purpose of the Building Official's review of the pizzometer's reading would be to assure a reading in excess of the specified level. The Building Official would not be required to monitor the water table. Monitoring of the pizzometer would be conducted by the parties. The only involvement of the Building Official would be to verify the water level before the issuance of a stop -work order. The applicants agree to pay the City of Edmonds a $30 inspection fee each time the Building Official is called upon to verify the pizzometer reading. Further, the applicant will post a $120 deposit with the City of Edmonds to verify payment of this amount. This deposit is fully refundable in the event that the inspections are not needed-, during the course of construction. 4. The stop -work order referenced in paragraph 2 could be lifted and work resume when three (3) consecutive daily readings below the "high water mark" have been made by the permitee and verified either by Humola and McCormick or the Building Official. I would anticipate that a building permit would be issued containing the revised conditions set forth above. I acknowledge that any change in conditions may, require further environmental review. The agreement to permit these conditions is contingent upon the withdrawal of the existing environmental appeal which was filed on August 4, 1994 by Mr. and Mrs. McCormick and Hulda Humola. These conditions have been arrived at through negotiations with the appellants. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, P4_�:` �c Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 BC/ds GE - C:\WINWORD6KPHUEITERS%EDMOCf1Y.DOC qb Ridk, ll �- � � I t� I. t � 1 t a I �\ floo CID v%l6m%14 It J to f d Aj j - I . I. I y .. je CA 0 N lo go APP ED Y PLANN NG'l 146 A75 167. '10 198.6T T'0yA L:' LA- CDJprn iD)I--,, "(3TF-: 1,10 MX407Z TRtVw5 1. IAE;> giFMDVA-L, C>F- Avi:)�CVJ Of` 15 'To R"40ye-0 wmTA?-"va6f, q&,:girft CN W/P(tr-mma- *47TT5/q AmP-WA-i,, 132M 4--4-N cv-- zUpmo�i IN 5-1 T E PL A, Ki LOT CIT%I OF COMON410-5 ERM coNisrocK ,.�..=:-. EXHIBIT 2 FILE P-6-84 -;� MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description..of proposal 10lot subdivision with modification of Development Code - f less than 40' and a sub standard right -of wa o substandard private access roadJ+ to allow a standard pavement width of Tess than 22' for part of the road's length. Grading over Proponent Hanchett Family 500 cubic yards. Also, modification to exclude.sidewalks, Curbs and gutters. Location of proposal, including street address, if any 1100 Daley Place (East of Olympic Avenue at Glen Street) Lead agency City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a prob= able significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. L7 There is no comment period for this DNS. IL This DNS is issued under 197-11-34OC2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. Responsible official Bruce G. Fin_ke Position/title Associate City Planner Phone 771-3202, ext. 253 Address 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, WA 98020 date March 21, 1986 Signature IJuU u Ar L X_ You -may appeal this determination of nonsignificance to James M: Driscoll, He4r.ing Examiner. at 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, WA 98020 no later than 5:00 p.m.,'April 17, 1986 by filing an appeal in writing You should be prepared.to make specific factual objections. Contact Bruce Finke to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. There is no agency appeal. • • FILE #P-6-84 - PROPOSED HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION - 1100 DALEY STREET MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE REQUIRED MITIGATING CONDITIONS The following are required mitigating conditions proposed by the applicants to mitigate potential environmental impacts associated with the 10-lot subdivision. 1. Management of Storm Water and Surface Water. Prior to receiving final Approval of their subdivision, applicants shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of a drainage plan for the collection and control of all storm water and surface waters on the Site. Surface waters on Site shall be maintained separately from the storm water control system, and, except where waters must intersect roads and driveways, shall be maintained as open water courses with landscaped banks.. 2. Control of Erosion. Prior to performing excavation or grading on site, the applicants shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of an erosion control plan for both the temporary period of construction and for the completed project. Applicants' erosion control plan shall include effective practices tailored to the particular topography, soils, vegetation and drainage pattern of the Site. 3. Management of Grading. Prior to performing any grading on site , applicants shall prepare and obtain approval for a grading plan and for a conditional use permit for grading in excess of 500 cubic yards. Grading shall be performed carefully according to plan: The potential impacts of grading shall be mitigated by Condition No. 2 (Control of Erosion), Condition No. 4 (Control of Effect on Fisheries), and Condition No. 5 (Control ,of Effect on Vegetation)., 4. Control of Effect on Fisheries. In addition to the protection for downstream surface waters provided by the grading plan required by Condition No. 3, the protection from excess sedimentation that is required -by the erosion control plan of Condition No. 2, and the protection provided by Condition No.'1 from excess runoff which could otherwise cause scour of downstream benthos (bottom sediments), applicants are also prohibited from working in the watercourses themselves during any time prior to July 2 and any time after, October 15 (i.e., during fish -spawning season). No fish reside in or pass through the surface waters on site; this condition is intended to protect fisheries in areas downslope from the Site. - 5. Control of Effect on Vegetation. Mature trees, especially evergreen trees, shall be retained where not in conflict with development plans or neighbors' reasonable requests for view enhancementand preservation. Two bands of native vegetation; approximately 20-30 feet wide, shall be planted along the boundaries. between iots'3 and 4 and the eastern edge of lot 6 where the principal sources of ,two water courses first appear. Native shrubs shall be included in landscaping and the banks of the water courses shall be landscaped. 6.. Aesthetics. Water courses shall be open (not tight -lined) where not intersecting driveways or roads, realigned across contours and along adjacent boundary lanes, and have landscaped banks. In addition to the previously mentioned mitigating conditions proposed by the applicants, the following additional mitigating conditions are required.. 7. Effect on Recreation Areas and Facilities. The applicants.have offered. to make a;vol.untary contribution to the Park Fund in lieu of a contribution of park land to offset the -potential impact of the new residenrs.to the area and increase the capacity of the neighborhood -park resources. The development is within the service area of Hummingbird Hill Neighborhood Park. 8._ Effect on Fire Protection. The applicant shall install one standard fire hydrant on the west side of Daley Place between Lots 1 and 2 per Fire Department requirements. 9. Control of Effect on Vegetation. The applicants shall submit and obtain approval.from-the Planning Manager in the Edmonds Community Services Department of a tree cutting plan prior to any tree cutting. 10 Management of Ground Water. Prior to receiving final approval of their subdivision, applicants shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of 'a drainage plan for, the collection and control of ground water on the Site. 11. Surface Water Discharge Offsite. The existing.location(s) ARof the creek, as.it leaves the subject Site, shall not be changed unless the applicants obtain written approval of the property owners -to the west and prepare and receive written approval from the City Engineer of a plan showing the existing and proposed location and configuration of the creek bed. 12'. Discharge of Subsurface Water.' This Declaration of.Nonsignificance is based on the applicants' report indicating that there will be no -significant increase in the discharge of subsurface water resulting from development of the subject Site. 13. Hydraulic Project Approval. A Hydraulic Project Approval must be obtained from the Department of Game prior to starting any work within the subject streams or- watercourses: • *:�g ��-j i � A L_ William and Arlene McCormick 502 Olympic Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Hulda Humola 516 Olympic Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 August 25, 1994 City of Edmonds 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Jeff Wilson Re: Appeal of MDNS for 1107 Daley Place File No. 94-88 Dear Mr. Wilson: CITY COPY Please consider this letter a formal withdrawal of the appeal of the mitigated determination of nonsignificance which was issued for the above -referenced property. This withdrawal of the appeal is contingent upon the issuance of a building permit to Brian and Erin Comstock which contains conditions for construction. A copy of the letter written by the Comstocks requesting these conditions is attached hereto and is incorporated herein. In order to accommodate the condition of allowing the Building Official to inspect the pizzometers on the properties owned by both the McCormicks and Mrs. Humola, the undersigned are granting a right of access to the City of Edmonds and to Dave Peterson, the Comstock's builder. Said access will be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. GE - C:\WQJWORD6KPHUErrERSW-DMOCrrY.DOC City of Edmonds August 25, 1994 Page 2 Access is further limited to only that which is necessary to conduct the pizzometer reading. If you have any questions in regard to this matter, please feel free to contact us. William McCormick STATE OF WASH NGTON ) ;rbttp.�,ly� ) ss. COUNTY OFi -- °0�AC 1994. ooq`r--f ARy�N:• • a PUBL�Gh;2 a� O66 -p1� o ee� 20 �••• boa 000 .W pS�`� ie -.i J Arlene McCormick STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ' 'PitM jj. ) ss. COUNTY OFF,.; , ,. ) 1994. "I . 'S .. ty ;^per �V t `0�•� �pTARy �P • ti'k o P U B LAG h� .qG gam• a d�CPq�FC 20 `ti•\�� �4a Sincerely, to before me this /6� day of l%QLp,Z?Z� Notary Public in'Knd for the state of Washington residing at_mCl'O My app't expires: Q/lz,. d�, lC/iF/S to before me this day of Ooai2&1 , X ame: Ali '-Kobi Llkyz Notary Public' and for the state of Washington residing at fdvy� My app't expires: GE - C:\WRdWORD6\KPHU-ETrERS\EDMOCrrY.DOC City of Edmonds August 25, 1994 Page 3 Hulda Humola is 0 STATE OF WASMNGTON ) 5nvham��, ) ss. COUNTY OF KRqG) 1994. U5O N 0 �OTARY``cnY UBl. ate` �f'o9�;C'i F �F 20 co W A .00 to before me this /46�' day of 0� , -aaiZ& 6a4aseLl- ame: N Notary Public ' and for the state of Washington residing at?,d.,oIy?d-ndD My app't expires: _ Q-Y2, f 9S GE - C:\WINWORD6KPHUXITERS\EDMOCrrY.DOC August 30, 1994 City of Edmonds Attn: Jeff Wilson 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Lot No. 8 (Harbor Hills) 1107 Daley Place/Brian and Erin Comstock Dear Mr. Wilson: Pursuant to the memorandum of August 23, 1994 submitted to the City of Edmonds by Kevin Hanchett and pursuant to the responsive letter by Scott Snyder dated August,24, 1994, we, as applicants, are requesting that new conditions be imposed upon and incorporated in the building permit for the construction of our new home at the above -referenced address. The conditions that we would request be imposed on our building permit are as follows: 1. During all development stages of Lot 8 at Harbor Hills, including but not limited to site excavation, filling and grading activity, delivery of concrete and building materials, trucks with a licensed gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds shall be restricted to one (1) trip in a one -hour period (i.e., one (1) truck in and out in one (1) hour). Truck traffic in excess of the specified limits shall be grounds for an immediate stop -work order from the City of Edmonds. 2. All excavation work and drainage installation work on the subject site shall be limited to the dryer periods of the year. Accordingly, excavation and drainage installation can occur between May and the end of September. Work outside of these parameters shall be limited and restricted based upon the level of the subterranean water, table on the properties owned by Arlene and William McCormick and Hulda Humola. Thesubterranean water table shall be measured by the pizzometers which were installed on the McCormick and Humola properties by the City of Edmonds. When the pizzometer on the McCormicks' property reaches a reading of 28 inches of water level to ground level ("high water mark"), All excavation and drainage installation work shall cease. City of Edmonds • August 30, 1994 Page 2 3. The pizzometer reading would be confirmed by the Building Official at the request of either the McCormicks, Humola or the Comstocks. The purpose of the Building Official's review of the pizzometer's reading would be to assure a reading in excess of the specified level. The Building Official would not be required to monitor the water table. Monitoring of the pizzometer would be conducted by the parties. The only involvement of the Building Official would be to verify the water level before the issuance of a stop -work order. The applicants agree to pay the City of Edmonds a $30 inspection fee each time the Building Official is called upon to verify the pizzometer reading. Further, the applicant will post a $120 deposit with the City of Edmonds to verify payment of this amount. This deposit is fully refundable in the event that the inspections are not needed during the course of construction. For the purposes of pouring concrete foundation walls only, item number 3 of the revised MDNS for this project will be the only exception to item number 1 of this letter. To clarify item number 3 of the revised MDNS, each of the 4 concrete trucks (64,000 GVW each) may deliver only one 9-yard load of concrete to the subject site. .4. The stop -work order referenced in paragraph 2 could be lifted and work resume when three (3) consecutive daily readings below _ the "high water mark" have been made by the permitee and verified either by Humola and McCormick or the Building Official. I would anticipate that a building permit would be issued containing the revised conditions set forth above. I acknowledge that any change in conditions may require further environmental review. The agreement to permit these conditions is contingent upon the withdrawal of the existing environmental appeal which was filed on August 4, 1994 by Mr. and Mrs. McCormick and Hulda Humola. These conditions have been arrived at through negotiations with the appellants. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Sin rely,. �h Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 BC/ds GE - C:\WINWORD6\KPII\LMERMEDMOCNY.DOC •••, ' • • I • �� c•I'WV*J4- ...�.1 1890 19C' �UI'LDIN-9 CITY OF EDMONDS AUG 2 1994 LAURA M. HALL OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR 447-7000 FAX: 447-XM 0215 CITY CO W. Scott Snyder August 24, 1994 . Mr. Kevin P. Hanchett LASHER HOLZAPFEL SPERRY & EBBERSON 2600 Two Union Square 601 Union Street Seattle, WA 98101-4000 Re: Proposed Mitigation Measures - Brian and Erin Comstock Residence Dear Mr. Hanchett: I am in receipt of your memo of August 23, 1994 outlining two amended agreed upon conditions. Paragraph 7 in your draft (while there were only two paragraphs, I assume this number relates to a numbered mitigation paragraph) addresses a cessation of work based upon the subterranean water table. The purpose of this letter is to request some additional information and suggest a format for resolution of the dispute. With respect to Paragraph 7 I suggest the following clarifications: 1. The pizzometer reading would be read by the Building Official at the request of either party. The purpose of the Building Official's review of the pizzometer reading would be to verify a reading in exces4 -6f the specified level. The Building Official would not be required to monitor the water table. Monitoring of the pizzometer would be conducted by the parties and subject to only the Building Official's verification of water level before issuance of a stop work order. 2. I suggest a sentence be added clarifying .when work would resume. For example, would the stop work order be lifted at any time when the water level dropped below the specified reading? My understanding of pizzometer readings is that depending upon the permeability of the surface there can be lag time between actual rainfall and a change in the reading level. In a typical Puget Sound weather pattern of intermittent rainfall, the pizzometer reading will fluctuate. This additional sentence could read something along the following lines: 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Mr. Kevin P. Hanchett August 24, 1994 Page 2 A stop work order could be lifted and work resume when. three consecutive daily readings below have been made by the permittee and verified by the Building Official. Of greater importance from my perspective is how to incorporate your client's agreement into the current process. The code provides two alternatives, the parties can forward with their stipulation, present it to the Hearing Examiner at his hearing and then have their agreement, assuming approval by the Hearing Examiner in his recommendations, confirmed by the City Council. The other alternative would be. to have the responsible official pull his mitigated determination of non -significance and reissue it with the inclusion of the mitigation requirements. Confirming the findings through the hearing process or withdrawing the MDNS and issuing a new one with new notice periods could mean a delay of anywhere from one month to six weeks would pass before the new mitigation requirements would be confirmed and final. You have raised concerns regarding the Comstock's financing. It is my understanding from our conversations that unless this matter is resolved and a permit issued by September 1, 1994 they, will lose their existing financing and an advantageous interest rate. While I appreciate the impact which delay may have, I am unwilling to recommend any change in process in which the City would accept additional liability in this situation by appearing to form a "special relationship" with the parties. It is for this reason that you have worked to establish an objective standard in line with the City's mandatory duties under the Uniform Building Code. In order to try and accommodate the Comstock's interest I suggest the following variation for the City's consideration. These actions could be accomplished in the form of a closing with all actions taking place simultaneously.. The actions would consist of the following: 1. Withdrawal of the existing environmental appeals by the appellants. 2. Submittal of a request by the applicant that the new conditions, amended in accordance with my comments, be incorporated in the building permit at the applicant's request. 3. A permit issue containing the revised conditions issue which provides that any change in the conditions would require further environmental review. I am providing a copy of your letter and this response to Jeff Wilson, Responsible Official and Jeannine Graf, the Acting Building Official as well as to Paul Mar, Department Director. Dismissal of the appeal terminates the environmental review process and Mr. Wilson's determination becomes final. Issuance of the building permit incorporating the voluntary, • • Mr. Kevin P. Hanchett August 24, 1994 Page 3 requested additions by the applicant could proceed if the request is clearly made by your clients as a part of your separate and independent resolution of the dispute with the appellants. I hope this additional alternative enables the Comstock's to meet their deadline. Any further compromise of the statutory hearing process could be interpreted as the City assuming a special relationship to monitor the property. Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE W. Scott Snyder WSS:are cc: Paul Mar (w/encl.) Jeff Wilson (w/encl.) Jeannine Graf (w/encl.) WSS82075.tUF0006.222/B0006.90000 LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services Ms. Sharon Nolan Community Services Department City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 STRE.SET F E RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED COMSTOCK RESIDENCE 1107 DALEY PLACE (LOT 8, HARBOR HILLS) EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: BU(LDINO AUG U 1 1994 August 2, 1994 This letter provides supplemental geotechnical review comments concerning the above - noted proposed single-family residence. Documents that we reviewed include a July 18, 1994 letter by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. and a driveway retaining wall cross-section prepared by Baker Engineers, dated July 20, 1994. The responses in this letter follow the same numbering sequence contained in our June 6, 1994 letter. Item No. 5. A revised topographic map was not included with information we reviewed for this supplemental letter. The City will need to determine if the items raised by Landau Associates in our June 6, 1994 letter require a response by the applicant. 8. We understand that the City has accepted Mr. Dodd as the project's lead design professional. 10.d. It is unclear if the City or Dodds Geosciences has reviewed this driveway drainage detail. The City should determine if a response is required. Excepting the above, all the responses by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. adequately address items in our June 6, 1994 geotechnical review letter. The City should determine if the building plans need to be modified to reflect changes/clarifications provided by Dodds Geosciences prior to permit issuance. WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 501 • TACOMA, WA 99424 • (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-2531 EDMONDS: (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAx (509) 327-9691 � M N Landau Associates appreciates this opportunity to serve the City of Edmonds. If you need further assistance or have questions regarding this letter, please call. WDE/mlm No. 74051.10 08/02/94 \PR0JECTS\MISC\74051RVW.LTR 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 S�'- d -�'— William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF ED.MONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I8 c),O Public Works • Planning Parks and Recreation • Engineering 90 19 July 27, 1994 Don and Shirlee Hall 432 Olympic Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for 1107 Daley Place, Edmonds Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hall: In response to your letter received by the Planning Department on July 25, 1994, you stated that you are concerned about construction during the rainy season at the subject lot. Pursuant to the decision by the ' Hearing Examiner, all development of lots in Daley Place must conform to the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code.. This ordinance gives the Building Official the authority to limit grading activity to the drier season (normally between May and the end of September). Work outside of these parameters is based on the professional recommendation of the geotechnical engineer for the project, but also with concurrence from the Building Official. The mitigating conditions placed on this -project are based on the results of the 1990 vibration studies and environmental protection relating to the site. Should you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, 9�9&_ Ann Bullis Code Enforcement Officer cc: Building Permit File • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister .Cities International — Hekinan, Japan JUL25199� PLMN4fr CYEPT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: Building additional houses in the Daley Place section We live at 432 Olympic Ave in Edmonds right adjunct to the property in question. We are very concerned about the building during the rainy season. This truck traveling and moving of dirt and equipment is still causing damage to our home. In th winter months it is the worst. We would appreciate your giving consideration to the fact that we have already put $350,000. back into our home from the 1988 damage to our home. T k :you, Don and Shirlee Hall 7-15-94 I-r- 07/18/1994 08:32 206881 1 ' DODDS GEGSCIENC * PAGE 02 OEOSC/ENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966. Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimlle (206) 887-864 Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 BUILDING R JUL 1,� 1994 Subject: Review RcVmm Proposed Single -Family Residence Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmwds, Washington Reference: Geotochnical Review Proposed Comstock Residence 1107 Daley Place (Lot 8, Harbor Hills) Edmonds, Washington by Landau Associates, Inc. dated June 6, 1994 Dear Client: .Fob Number 4030 July 18, 1994 This letter provides the required response to the referenced geotechnical review by Landau Associates, Inc. (Reference 1). This letter uses the same numbering sci:ctnc utilized in the review. Item 9.g. - Drainage Issue Discussion: Lot 8 is near the base of the slope. All the lots directly uphill from lot 8 ate fully developed with complete drainage systems. In -our opinion a deep trench drain and/or additional french drains. for this lot are not required Proper i=allation of retailing wall backfill and concoct installation of the footing drains will be able to handle the anticipeied groundwater seepage. Item 9.h. - F-6sting Fill Materials/Access Road: During the recent construction of Lot 7, the fill in the upper portions of the access road was removed and replaced as needed to provide a firm stable base for the driveway. We will monitor the acce road denting construction of Lot 8, and will 1ecluire loose, soft, and potentially unstable materials to be removed and replaced with properly compact structural fill. Item 10.a. - Fill Requirements under and along Driveway: All fill supporting structures and under the driveway will have to meet the reuuirements for structural fill as provided on page 7 of our April 25, 1994 report. Item 10.b. - Structural Design Cross -Section for Driveway Retaining Wa11: A cross-section is being submitted. 07118/1994 08:32 206E$ Di:'D05 GEOSCIENC:PAGE 0-� J. COMSTOCK RESIDENCE REVIEW RESPONSE .lob Number 4930 July 18, 1994 ; Page 2 Item 10.c. - Setback Distance for Driveway Footing: The footing must be founded in a manner which provirJes, Orin bearing to the structure and which does not promote instability of the slope. During construction, this firm will provide, the contractor with direction on the correct placement of this footing. Item 11. a. through h. 1) Minimum footing width of 16 inches required. i 2) Active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot required. 3) Retaining wall back -Fill should be in accordance with our. report. 4) DODDS Geosciances Inc. report is the applidable report €6r this project. 5) Four inches or granular material below floor slab is requir ci 6) Footing drains should be placed in accordance with our report. If there are any qucstioas concerning this letter, or if we can be of further scmcca% please contact the undersigned directly at (206) 867-3297. Sincerely. . . MKD(wd S M SLASHER; HOLZAPFEL !SPERRY & EBBERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6000 WESTLAND BLDG. 100 S. KING STREET SEATTLE. WA 98104.2869 (2061624-1230 FAX 420613462563 RONALD E. BRALET LINDA KELLET.EaBERSON ANTHONY !.W. GEWLO -RICHARD R. HACK. JR. KATHLEEN MEALY KEVIN P. NANCNETT DELNET N. NILEN GEORGE S. HOLZAPFEL MARGO L KELLER LISA ANN KOKENGE EARL P. LASNER Ill. P.S. JOE MENTOR. JR. DEAN A. MESSMER DANIAL O. PNARRIS ROBIN WILLIAMS PHILLIPS SHANNON SPERRY -DAVID J. SPRINKLE PAUL A. TONELLA OF COUNSEL MICNAEL K. MURRAY. P. S. June 14, 1994 Lyle Chrisman City of Edmonds 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 R . 11 aley Place.. Dear Mr. Chrisman: G �%vtED J U N 1 6 1994 ENGINEERING Direct Line 654-2430 This letter is being -submitted to you in regards to the driveway and walkway on Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Harbor Hills, commonly known as 1107 and 1111 Daley Place. The undersigned property owners have accepted the driveway at the entrance to the properties at its current dimension of 9'6'.. It is understood that the driveway was made slightly narrower in order to accommodate the sidewalk which was built to code. If you have any questions in regards to this matter. KPH/ge cc: Brian Comstock Homestyle Construction "e to by: Brian Comstock Date: /!P �I HByy AaYk A�Va g to Date: Very truly yours, LASHER HOLZAPFEL SPERRY & EBB SON Kevin P. Hanchett SITR-EET FILE "r Auth.Agent JUN I P 1994 LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services ITRE.ET FILE Ms. Sharon Nolan Community ,Services Department City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED COMSTOCK RESIDENCE 1107 DALEY PLACE (LOT 8, HARBOR HILLS) EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: BUILDING JUN 10 1994 June 6, 1994 As requested, Landau Associates has reviewed construction plans and other documents submitted to the City of Edmonds as part of a building permit application for the subject single- family residence. The property is also known as Lot 8 of the Harbor Hills subdivision. The documents we reviewed are listed in Table 1 (attached). The documents include an environmental checklist; a critical areas checklist; construction plans prepared by Design Consultants; a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan prepared by Erich O. Tietze and Associates, Inc.; a topographic map prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc.; and a Geotedhnical Declaration, Statement of Risk, Lead Design Professional Declaration, and a geotedhnical report and addendum prepared by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. We also reviewed geotedlnical reports related to the Harbor Hills subdivision, in which the Comstock property is located. Those reports present drainage recommendations that were not incorporated into the construction of the Harbor Hills subdivision. The primary purpose of Landau Associates' review was to evaluate whether the documents we reviewed address the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code pertaining to earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas (City Ordinance No. 2661) and, in particular, the Meadowdale permit submittal (MPS) requirements, of Chapter 19.05, revised May 20, 1988. 06/06/94 D:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSIMISC174051.LTR WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 501 • TACOMA, WA 99424 • (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-2531 EDMONDS: (206) 779-0907 • FAX (206) 779-6404 / SPOKANE• (509) 327 0737 • FAX (50u) 327-9691 Our review comments are presented in the following order: • a general comment on the feasibility, from a geotechnical viewpoint, of the proposed construction • comparison of the submittal items to the ordinance requirements, followed by our suggestions and recommendations regarding elements of the submittal items that, in our opinion, do not comply with ordinance requirements or need additional information or response from the design team. Our comments are numbered for the convenience of others responding to them. 1. From a geotechnical viewpoint, we concur with the designer's opinion that construction of the proposed residence is feasible. We understand that subsurface drainage features recommended for the Harbor Hills subdivision (see references 1 and 2, Table 1) were not installed. Consequently, installation of appropriate subsurface drainage features has become the responsibility of each individual lot owner. 2. Owner Landslide Acknowledgement. No geotechnical comment is necessary. 3. Driveway slope variance request. No geotechnical comment is necessary. 4. Drainage calculations. No geotechnical comment is necessary. 5. Topographic map. Most of the MPS requirements are addressed in the submitted topographic map. However, the map does not provide the following information: a. Distances between existing structures and structures on adjacent properties (e.g., the residence on Lot 7, upslope of Lot 8). b. Pertinent topography for adjacent lots, such as the slope descending into Lot 9 from the driveway for Lot 8. Our knowledge of the property, obtained during earlier site visits, indicates that the existing paved access into Lots 7 and 8 is constructed of non-structural fill placed on a hillside. We recommend that the topographic map be revised to include this slope area, and to show the upslope home. 06/06/94 DAVVPD0CSWR0JECTSMSC174051.LTR 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 6. Critical Areas Checklist. The checklist we reviewed omits details regarding the existing drainage that crosses the northwest corner of Lot 8. 7. Environmental Checklist. The response to item B.1.d. (slope stability) is not correct, based on earlier Harbor Hills reports. Dodds Geosciences, Inc. addresses this item in its Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk. 8. Geotechnical Review Letter/Statement of Risk/Designation of Lead Design Professional. Our review indicates that this document complies with MPS requirements, except that the designation of the lead design professional is in question. The MPS requirements state that a structural engineer or architect shall be the lead design professional. Mr. Dodds is a geotechnical engineer; we are unaware whether he is also licensed as a structural engineer or architect. The City will need to determine if Mr: Dodds is qualified to be the lead design professional for this project. 9. Geotechnical Report. The report presents most of the geotechnical information required by the MPS. Our comments regarding items required by the MPS, but not addressed by the report, are as follows: a. No plot plan showing the proposed building location is included in the geotechnical report; however, Dodds Geosciences, Inc. appears to assume that the proposed residence will be built within the central portion of Lot 8, in accordance with applicable setback requirements. Since the building plans show the required information, we recommend that this particular requirement for a plot plan be waived by the City. b. Shoring recommendations are not provided. We understand the proposed basement will be a partial basement and will not extend to the upslope perimeter of the proposed residence. The geotedlnical report presents recommendations for temporary and permanent excavation slopes and provides cautions and recommendations for reviewing site conditions if steeper slopes are planned.for the construction period. Accordingly, it appears that the proposed construction can be performed using slope inclinations that comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. We recommend that the City require the excavation slopes be reviewed by a qualified geotedlnical consultant during construction to verify conditions assumed in the Dodds Geosciences, Inc. report. c. Recommendations for foundations do not include total settlements; only differential settlements between foundations are presented. However, all foundations are to be founded on dense soil or competent structural fill (according to the geotechnical report), and, in our opinion, the need for providing total settlement estimates is not a significant issue for this project. W06/94 D:IWPD0CSIPR0JECPSWS074051.LTR 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. d. No comment on foundation stiffness or tying footings together is presented, as required by MPS. However, considering the basis of foundation support, this issue is not significant enough, in our opinion, to warrant a response. e. Siltation control measures are provided in the report; however, there is no comment about covering exposed slopes during wet weather construction or recommendation for permanent erosion control measures. However, the grading, drainage, and erosion control plan, which was reviewed by Dodds Geosciences, Inc., provides notes addressing protection of exposed ground areas. Therefore, we assume that Dodds Geosciences, Inc. has had the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the erosion control measures presented in the plan. f. Dodds Geosciences, Inc. discusses the possible need for subslab trench drains on page 3 of its report. Page 8 notes that moderate to heavy seepage into the excavation should be anticipated. Construction of a trench drain system could result in enough additional excavation to require a conditional use permit. The applicant and designer should be aware of, and plan for, this contingency. Our comments regarding issues that, in our opinion, require additional discussion or comment by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. consist of the following items: g. The report does not address one of the drainage issues recommended by the previous studies (references 1 and 2, Table 1) performed for the Harbor Hills subdivision. The previous studies recommended installation of french drains along the sides of individual lots for the purpose of intercepting heavy seepage encountered in explorations. These drains were intended to be placed along the property lines to intercept seepage before it contacts the building perimeters or basement walls. We recommend that the City require Dodds Geosciences, Inc. to comment on the need for french drains in addition to the basement, trench drain, and retaining wall drainage features shown/described in the geotechnical report and in the building plans submitted for Lot 8. h. We recommend that Dodds Geosciences, Inc. be required to comment on the possible instability of the fill materials placed beneath the existing access to Lot 8. We understand that this access also serves Lot 7. 10. Grading Plan. We recommend that the City require Dodds Geosciences, Inc. to address the following items: a. The grading plan does not address the possible presence of unsuitable or inadequately compacted soil along the top of the slope that descends to Lot 9 from the driveway serving Lots 7 and 8. The grading plan presents a note stating that the pavement subgrade shall be suitable material, but does not provide information regarding improvement of inadequately compacted fill or for support of the retaining wall footing along the edge of the driveway. b. No structural design cross-section for the driveway retaining wall is provided. 06/06/94 D:IWPDOCSIPROJECISMSC174051.LTR 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. c. No daylight distance or setback requirement for the driveway retaining wall footing is presented. This footing could impact the adjacent descending slope that extends into Lot 9. d. The plan shows only one inlet for collecting surface runoff flowing down the proposed driveway. This drain is located along the garage doorway. We suggest the City review this design. 11. Building Plans. Our comments on discrepancies between the building plans and the geotechnical report prepared for the project are as follows: a. The building plans indicate the width of the footing under the short story along the east wall of the residence is 12 inches; the geotechnical report recommends a minimum continuous footing width. of 16 inches. b. The geotechnical report recommends an active lateral earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot for use in design of retaining walls. The plans indicate a lateral earth pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot was used for design of retaining walls and basement walls. c. The geotechnical report recommends that retaining wall backfill contain no more than 5% fines. The building plans indicate that "porous material" should be used for the garage retaining wall backfill. The plans do not specify backfill for other retaining walls or basement walls. d. The plans (No. 4, Sheet 6) reference the Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. report dated July 2, 1990 (reference 3, Table 1), for retaining wall backfill, not the Dodds Geosciences, Inc. report prepared for the proposed Comstock residence. e. The geotechnical report recommends that a minimum of 4 inches of granular material be placed beneath concrete floor slabs. The plans do not include the recommended granular material beneath floor slabs. f. The retaining wall detail (No. 3 on Sheet 6) shows the footing drain atop the wall footing. The is contrary to Dodds Geosciences, Inc. recommendations. Comment by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. on these six items is needed. The geotechnical declaration, statement of risk, and lead design professional declaration prepared by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. indicate that it has reviewed the plans and specifications and, in its opinion, they conform with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It will be assumed that if no comments are received for a particular issue raised herein, then that issue has been considered by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. and, in its opinion, no further actions or revisions are warranted. 06106/94 D:IWPD0CSIPR0JECTSMS074061.LTR 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Landau Associates appreciates this opportunity to serve the City of Edmonds. If you need further assistance or if you have any questions; please contact us. SJClmlm No. 74051.10 attachment 06/06/94 D:IWPDOCSIPROJECTSMSC174051.LTR 6 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. by: St�tenCoo er, P.E. Project Engineer and �4 . /' r'x-'a- William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE 1 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. Geotechnical report prepared by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. (CGI), dated December 5, 1984, titled Harbor Hills, Edmonds, Washington. 2. Geotechnical report prepared by CGI, dated May 23, 1989, titled Harbor Hills Phase II, Edmonds, Washington. 3. Geotechnical report prepared by CGI, dated July 2, 1990, titled Lot 8 of Harbor Hills Subdivision, Edmonds, Washington. 4. Geotechnical letter prepared by CGI, dated July 31, 1990, titled Harbor Hills Lot 8, Geotechnical Declaration, Edmonds, Washington. 5. Geotechnical report prepared by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. (DGI), dated April 25, 1994, titled Geotechnical Engineering Report, Comstock Single Family Residence, Lot 8, Harbor Hills Development, Edmonds, Washington. 6. Letter prepared by DGI, dated April 27, 1994, titled Addendum #1, Footing Drain Requirements, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision, Edmonds, Washington. 7. Letter prepared by DGI, dated April 27, 1994, titled Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk and Lead Design Professional Statement, Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision, Edmonds, Washington. 8. Letter prepared by Erich O. Tietze and Associates, Inc., dated April 28, 1994, titled ,Waiver Request for Driveway Grade - Lot 8, Harbor Hills. 9. Drainage calculations for Lot 8, prepared by Erich O. Tietze and Associates, Inc., dated April 28, 1994. 10. Applicant/Owner Liability Landslide Acknowledgement Declaration, prepared by Erin and Brian Comstock, dated April 5, 1994. 11. Critical Areas Checklist prepared by Brian and Erin Comstock, dated January 20, 1994. 12. City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist, prepared by Brian Comstock, dated May 2, 1994. 13. Topographic Map prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc., dated December 12, 1989. 14. Grading, Drainage, & Erosion Control Plan prepared by Erich O. Tietze and Associates, Inc., dated April 29, 1994. 15. Building Plans prepared by Design Consultants, dated April 1, 1994, titled Residence for Brian and Erin Comstock (Sheets C of 9 and Sheets 1 of 9 through 9 of 9). 06/06194 D:IWPD0CSIPR0IECTSWSC174051.LTR 7 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. STREETIVLE pU ERICH O. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers and Consultants . 1121 5th Avenue Suite 205 Edmonds. WA 98020 206-771-6212 FAX 20Q,_75,20236t PEftij City of Edmonds April 28, 1994 9 c� Community Services Dept. Engineering Division 250 Fifth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Waiver Request for Driveway Grade - Lot 8, Harbor Hills Due to building height restrictions which set the maximum garage floor elevation for Lot 8;. the proposed common driveway grade which serves Lot 7; and the grade of the existing cul-de-sac, it will be necessary to construct a driveway to Lot 8 that has a maximum centerline grade of 19%. The maximum centerline grade of the common drive serving Lot 7 will be 19%. Since these exceed the'standard of 14%, a waiver is requested. Please see the enclosed plans. Very truly yours, ERICH O. TIETZE & ASSOCIATES Erich O: Tietze, P.E. President enclosure EOT/jsm Ge 9 nAnnne GEOSCIENCES INC. STREET FILE RECEIVED Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 881-8641 Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk and Lead Design Professional Statement Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Comstock: We acknowledge appointment as your Lead Design Professional. MAY 0 2 1994 PERMIT COUNTER Job Number 4030 April 27, 1994 We have reviewed the geotechnical report, understand its recommendations, and have incorporated in the design the established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury of damage from any earth movement predicted in the report. In our judgment, the plans and specification prepared by the structural engineer conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. The risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from the soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the report and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. It is our opinion that there is less than a thirty (30) percent chance of movement on Lot 8 within a 25 year period. Please contact the undersigned directly at (206) 867-3297 if there are any questions, or if we can be of further service. Sincerely: Inc. K. DC)ow-tt ,•�F WAs,y�� .O(� � •C •• 22508 CISTF NAL I EXPIRES L/ /-7 1 / P% f Mark K. Oodds, P.E. Or—w1 n AA � C1TY_COPY �GE.t?SCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 . Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 1-864 1 YJ 7 G a Brian and Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Addendum #1- Footing Drain Requirements Geotechnical Engineering Report Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Comstock: 'The.following section was inadvertantly left out of our April 25; 1994 report: Footing Drains Job Number 4030 April 27, 1994 Footing drains are required for all sides of the residence, .and should consist of a slotted four - inch -diameter PVC pipe bedded in, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock. A non -woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP or equivalent) should be wrapped around the outside of the drain rock. The PVC pipe should be sloped to drain, and may be connected to the roof and surface water discharge pipe downgradient and away from the residence. The drawing below shows a cross-section through a properly installed footing drain. SLOPE GROUND AWAY, FROM FOUNDATION — FOR AT LEAST 10 NONWOVEN GEOTExn COMPLETELY WRAPPE AROUND DRAIN ROCK. DRAIN ROCK--'-- 6" MINIMUM 4' PERFORATED RIGID PVC PIPE Invert below floor slab or crawl space. Slope to drain. Place slots at 5 or 7 o'clock •TIGHTLINE ROOF DRAIN Do Not Connect to Footing Drain SLAB ' VAPOR BARRIER 4" MIN. FREE- "'- """`--"""""` =DRAININGSANDI GRAVEL r COMSTOCKSFR ADDENSUMNO.1 April 27, 1994 If there are any questions, please call me directly at (206) 867-3297. Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. v K• DO �PQ.oF WAZV ASti,, 9FGiSTEP��'�G us�ONAI- EXPIRES Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Job Number 4030 Page 2 Y -.. GEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 881-8641 r� i Brian Sand Erin Comstock 1140 Sierra Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Addendum #1- Footing Drain Requirements Geotechnical Engineering Report Lot 8, Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Comstock: STREET FILE. The following section was inadvertantly left out of our April 25, 1994 report: Footing Drains Job Number 4030 April 27, 1994 Footing drains are required for all sides of the residence, and should consist of a slotted four - inch -diameter PVC pipe bedded in, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock, non -woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP or equivalent) should be wrapped around the outside of the drain rock, The PVC pipe should be sloped to drain, and may be connected to the roof and surface water discharge pipe downgradient and away from the residence. The drawing below shows a cross-section through a properly installed footing drain, SLOPE GROUND AWAY FROM FOUNDATION FOR AT LEAST 10 NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE COMPLETELY WRAPPED AROUND DRAIN ROCK. DRAIN 6" MINIMUM 4' PERFORATED RIGID PVC PIPE Invert below floor slab or crawl space. Slope to drain. Place slots at 5 or 7 o'clock ] IGHTLINE ROOF DRAIN Do Not Connect to Footing Drain SLAB VAPOR BARRIER 4"MIN. FREE - =DRAINING SAND/ GRAVEL COMSTOCK SFR - ADDENSUM.NO. 1 April 27, 1994 Job Number 4030 Page 2 If there are any questions, please call me directly at (206) 867-3297. Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. K.. Do P,.oF was C w� ., . 2250 NAI. EXPIRES Mark K. Dodds, P.E. MKD/wd STREE APPLICANT/OWNER MAY 0 2 LIABILITY LANDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DECLARATION PERA11(T COUNTER The accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by the applicant/owner in a form which relieves the City and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusions shall be those of the applicant/owner and his/her design professionals. The applicant/owner understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that they will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. Date Erin A. Comstock Brian J. Comstock Date l � Given under my hand and official seal this S day oi�- .L�,,1994 STATE OF u' 111 G70lJ, as. SA :ECO Councy of {�av►u 1 On this day persgrglly appeazA f>e(ore wo �, I r \J— IL. /1� z.'W'V% UVytv_> 1 Uz-(,--- 1 to me known to be the a disvid of-.Jlcscribed In and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that signed the same as..4 free and voluntary act and deed (or the purposes therein mentioned. S /" L `�II ` " Girew vwder wy hasid mud official J:IwI I! J � � dui o l'��.L My appointment e lea �'I . 1 �_ C L(,_= .\.r/nr% 1'nJdn rn u.Jrl /rd I!a• .Muir r.l II rJ �hJrrluu, w%irli JJ); .J/ ,-.....-�.�. ..- TL•34 Itt $J /4 SAFECO Taw IrttuJarlce Ccnrtlanv •• ACKNOWLEDGMENT - ORDINARY O,t- 26 J107 � L" TREE ,LE EXHIBIT: 2 P-6-84 i FILE N MITIGATED. R'I�D GNOm06ARMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description.of proposal l0 loi subdivision with modification of Development Code to allow a substandard private access road right-of-way of less than 40' and a sub- standard pavement width of less than 22' for part of the road's length. Grading over Proponent Hanchett Family 500 cubic yards. Also, modification to exclude.sidewalks, curds ana gutters. Location of proposal, including street address, if any 1100 Daley Place (East of Olympic Avenue at Glen 'Street) Lead agency City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does'not have a prob- able significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(*c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. ]-There is no comment period for this DNS. ® This DNS is issued under 197-11-34OC2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. Responsible official Bruce G. Finke Position/title Associate City Planner Phone 771-3202, ext. 253 Address 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, WA 98020 date March 21, 1986 Signature / luu "67 You may appeal this determination of nonsignificance to James M: Driscoll, He4r.ing Examiner. at 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, WA 98020 no later than 5:00 p.m'. 'April 17, 1986 by filing an appeal in writing You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Bruce Finke to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. ,IiN .11/ 0 There is no agency appeal. M �i FILE #P-6-84 PROPOSED HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION - 1100 DALEY STREET MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE REQUIRED MITIGATING CONDITIONS The following are required mitigating conditions proposed by the applicants to mitigate potential environmental impacts associated with the 10-lot subdivision. 1. Management of Storm Water and Surface Water. Prior to receiving final approval of their subdivision, applicants shall subm*lt and obtain approval from the City Engineer of a drainage plan for the collection and control of all storm water and surface waters on the Site. Surface waters on Site shall be maintained separately from the storm water control system, and, except where waters must intersect roads and driveways, shall be maintained as open water courses with landscaped banks.. 2. Control of Erosion. Prior to performing excavation or grading on site, the applicants shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of an erosion control plan for both the temporary period of construction and for the completed project. Applicants' erosion control plan shall include effective practices tailored to the particular topography, soils, vegetation and drainage pattern of the Site. 3. Management of Grading. Prior to performing any grading on site, applicants shall prepare and obtain approval for a grading plan and for a conditional use permit for grading in excess of 500 cubic yards. Grading shall be performed carefully according to plan. The potential impacts of grading shall be mitigated by Condition No. 2 (Control of Erosion), Condition No. 4 (Control of Effect on Fisheries), and Condition No. 5 (Control ,of Effect on Vegetation). 4. Control of Effect on Fisheries. In addition to the protection for downstream surface waters provided by the grading plan required by Condition No. 3, the protection from excess sedimentation that is required by the erosion control plan of Condition No. 2, and the protection provided by Condition No. l from excess runoff which could otherwise cause scour of downstream benthos (bottom sediments), applicants are also prohibited from working in the watercourses themselves during any time prior to July 2 and any time after October 15 (i.e., during fish -spawning season). No fish reside in or pass through the surface waters on site; this condition is intended to protect fisheries in areas downslope from the Site.. 5. Control of Effect on Vegetation. Mature trees, especially evergreen trees, shall be retained where not in conflict with development plans or neighbors' reasonable requests for view enhancement and preservation. Two bands of native vegetation, approximately 20-30 feet wide, shall be planted along the boundaries between lots'3 and 4 and the eastern edge of lot 6 where the principal sources or two water courses first appear. Native shrubs shall be included in landscaping and the banks of the water courses shall be landscaped. w 6. Aesthetics. Water courses shall be open. (not tight -lined) where not intersecting driveways or roads, realigned across contours and along adjacent boundary lines, and have landscaped banks. In addition,to the previously mentioned mitigating conditions proposed by the applicants, the following additional mitigating conditions are required. 7. Effect on Recreation Areas and Facilities. The applicants have offered to make a voluntary contribution to the Park Fund in lieu of a contribution of park land to offset the potential impact of the new residents to the area and increase the capacity of the neighborhood park resources. The development is within the service area of Hummingbird Hill Neighborhood Park. 8. Effect on Fire Protection. The applicant shall install one standard fire hydrant on the.west side of Oa ey Place between Lots 1 and 2 per Fire Department requirements. 9. Control of Effect on Vegetation. The applicants,shall submit and obtain. approval from the Planning Manager in the Edmonds Community Services Department of a tree cutting plan prior to any tree cutting. - 10. Management of Ground Water. Prior to receiving final approval of their subdivision, applicants shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of a drainage plan for the collection and control of ground water on the Site. 11. Surface Water Discharge Offsite. The existing location(s) of the creek, as it leaves the subject Site, shall not be changed unless the applicants obtain written approval of the property owners to the west and prepare and receive written approval from the City Engineer of a plan showing the existing and proposed location and configuration of the creek bed. 12. Discharge of Subsurface Water.' This Declaration of Nonsignificance is based on the applicants' report indicating that there will be no significant increase in.the discharge of subsurface water resulting from development of the subject Site. 13. Hydraulic Project Approval. A Hydraulic Project Approval must be obtained from the Department of Game prior to starting any work within the subject streams or watercourses. -e, 's,- ly j :fi � , .. -.fa 1'GA.- ...-r. h.. ..�1'....iK ....:?):'6,L ••:.[r._n^�•°t rc r.. v,��...... .. ..- :..J'.�u`++.�".il.-LL.TI:Si �!Y'•rT ILaT..:+:^al^bv9 USE PERMIT �/� •'`.�'.° { y CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE �NUMOEn CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION J0e JydJaV sUII E,APTr . ;Ag OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IIC7 I- ul•f' T�� I r `9eii a' i AM L MAT! ING ADDRE43 alelI:4 �2�11LEP.ONINIJM.ERCITY S 13` NAME J E I4 - C U ADDRESS Q � Zp C� P. no I Q � CITY ✓/�I ZIP 9020 TELEPHONE NUMBER 7' - NAME NS t44t- rva<e ADDR /t7 / • V/ y/r -76 /. ¢ I 0 ZIP TELEPHONE NUMB R `�mards 77�-93 STATE LICENSE NUMBER AM &Z,124 �P S I { $ I I . ( R 4 legal Description of Property -include all easements (show below or attach lwt�c' I �es IT 1 rl r t 1 i I, IL 1 a 3 Tax Account Parcel No. 1 ( O ' J t NEW C/3 RESIDENTIAL LUMBINO ADDIALTER D COMME AL MECHANICAL REPAIR APT Ej SIGN TE, O FENC El DEMOLISH OR CARP rl BWIM REMODEL a'GARAGE L_I L ❑WOOD STOVEI ❑ RETAINING WALL' ❑ RENEWAL INSERT ROCKE.iY i 1 a . 2 a DS (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS EXP OR ACTIVITY) LAIN' e/` NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING I UNITIS I NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) . 1 O'MIA /• V LE5A1. DESCRIPTION CHECK F^ 4u0 (VISION NO. LID NO -L -B 0Ir PUBLIC RIG T OF WAY PER OFfICIAI STREET MAP. EXISTING REOUIPED OEDICATION-'�� TESCP APPROVED BY }U PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REOUIRED)K STREET USE PERMIT REOUIREO O REVx"w BY SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATE6 �_ //� A REMARKS A.iADj p/CGC �Ns� )C;6:4/O , uA: N ' 14)MAZ AB& Mglele vrcc �.1FFrE+? 1C2,1,J17W .S `iAur�n METER 4 Eff BUILDING $�PPLY 412E FIXTURE Nli$ - RENA K IG ' REA ENV. REVIEW A40 PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT �NO. A 'tT� 'v /' 4NpgEAI/TN/(E •/ ��'I�VVV) `{�►1f • ANCE OR CU PLANNING �RR W BY f SETB`ICKS-FEET HEIGHj LOT COVERAGE FRONT SIDE I(R =�" EMARKS dr • /! d17.•r2.wf Io /� `CODE CH KED TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION -N 88 HEIGHT ZS' S NSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY - GROUP O.3 OCCUPANT I.JAD R :: NO !� R MARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 Ec¢wLJ�rsu /-{'it 1414 eM6 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED W NIy r� :'vet •+'. r� b z I . tEo Is I of c / VALUATION FEE r A Y B PUN CHECK FEE Y ' 1 + BUILDING 4 , •. U PLUMBING ;�j - •F I Plan Check No. Rj MECHANICAL )� •' TTl This Permit cO•!ers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIiILL S� Any Construction on the public domain (eurCs, sidewPtks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE v Permit Application: 180 Days c �• 6p, o r,.• .µ a f Permit Limit: 1 Year• Provided Work is Started Within 1800aYs "Applicant, On behalf of his or her spouse, hairs, assigns and 1%N 6. � � • �• , m successors in interest. agrees to Indemnify. defend and hold CI .��o W narmlass the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, aemployees, and agenis'from any and all claimu for damages of r whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly rr;•m the Issuance PUN CHECK DEPOSIT '� r f��C— _ O of !his permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed t0 ' modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance t7 ° nor limit In an way the CII s ability to enforce an .)rdinance Y Y Y Y Y TOTAL AMOUNT DUE S 'L../. I �•d provision." 00 i a I hereby acknowledge that I have read this appl:cat Ion; that the information given Is correct; and that I am the Owner, Or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL, authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT - �- state laws regulating construction; and In doing tie work au AUTHORIzfs This application is not a permit until o';i,^• ad thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLr THE signed by the Bui.dlnp Official or Ms Code of the Stale of Washington relating to Workmen's CGmpensa• WORK NOTED Depu ; and lees are paid and receipt is , c< . ° a ledg nspace vided. ,t•T-, �0P li n Insurance. INSPECTION ,y^�r SIGNATURE (OWNER On AGENT( DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT tlB 11// CITY OF FF uL'S R ''••TEyE ,Yb I`"� • L 7 I D EOMONOS CALL FOR ELEASEDD' DATE ' ATTENTION INSPECTION O ° IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771„:as02 1 UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEP! MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YE�OW — Inspl for ��.. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER J. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor. ' 1 rozeT ?'' o ° oR _ °� 'o8`Mr,°, a •� o+ o•� ° ° m° .d m•o ° o.ib .> g. ;Si,M, i, �°° ° r .. 'ILI a tr-o .. �°n_o �. a,. ..r IC'P,_ n;o a'$�T .`b \r e.. '•. ". s.• .. _. ... / VALUATION FEE r A Y B PUN CHECK FEE Y ' 1 + BUILDING 4 , •. U PLUMBING ;�j - •F I Plan Check No. Rj MECHANICAL )� •' TTl This Permit cO•!ers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIiILL S� Any Construction on the public domain (eurCs, sidewPtks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE v Permit Application: 180 Days c �• 6p, o r,.• .µ a f Permit Limit: 1 Year• Provided Work is Started Within 1800aYs "Applicant, On behalf of his or her spouse, hairs, assigns and 1%N 6. � � • �• , m successors in interest. agrees to Indemnify. defend and hold CI .��o W narmlass the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, aemployees, and agenis'from any and all claimu for damages of r whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly rr;•m the Issuance PUN CHECK DEPOSIT '� r f��C— _ O of !his permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed t0 ' modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance t7 ° nor limit In an way the CII s ability to enforce an .)rdinance Y Y Y Y Y TOTAL AMOUNT DUE S 'L../. I �•d provision." 00 i a I hereby acknowledge that I have read this appl:cat Ion; that the information given Is correct; and that I am the Owner, Or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL, authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT - �- state laws regulating construction; and In doing tie work au AUTHORIzfs This application is not a permit until o';i,^• ad thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLr THE signed by the Bui.dlnp Official or Ms Code of the Stale of Washington relating to Workmen's CGmpensa• WORK NOTED Depu ; and lees are paid and receipt is , c< . ° a ledg nspace vided. ,t•T-, �0P li n Insurance. INSPECTION ,y^�r SIGNATURE (OWNER On AGENT( DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT tlB 11// CITY OF FF uL'S R ''••TEyE ,Yb I`"� • L 7 I D EOMONOS CALL FOR ELEASEDD' DATE ' ATTENTION INSPECTION O ° IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771„:as02 1 UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEP! MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YE�OW — Inspl for ��.. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER J. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor. ' 1 rozeT ?'' o ° oR _ °� 'o8`Mr,°, a •� o+ o•� ° ° m° .d m•o ° o.ib .> g. ;Si,M, i, �°° ° r .. 'ILI a tr-o .. �°n_o �. a,. ..r IC'P,_ n;o a'$�T .`b \r e.. '•. ". s.• .. _. ... A) CASCADE GEOTEC NICAL, INC. 12919 N.E. 126111 PLACE (206) 821.5080 A W KIkKLANU, WASH1NG1 UN 98034 PAX. (206) 8D 2LUs October 1, 1990 Job No. 9004--08G Sandy Olsen 9228 183rd Place S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 �. 91-120 RECEIVED STRfE7' Fl(E Reference: Response to Preliminary Geotechnical Review Harbor Hills Lot 8 1107 Daley Place Edmonds, Washington Dear Sandy: OCT 0 21990 SDA, INC. At your request, we have prepared this letter in response to the Preliminary Geotechnical Review prepared by Landau Associates, dated September 20, 1990. We have also reviewed Sheet 1 prepared by Structural Design Associates, revised September 25, 1990. The following responses address the items noted in the letter prepared by Landau: 1. We concur. with Landau Associates that our recommendations for sequencing of drainage and foundation installation should be shown on the final plans. A Typical Construction Sequence section was shown on the revised plans we reviewed. 2. We concur with Landau that the plans should clearly communicate the need to install horizontal drains. This has been added to the revised plans we reviewed. 3. We concur that the french drain we recommended for the east property line may be as deep as fifteen (15) feet, under the worst case conditions. The exact depth of the drain should be determined at the time of construction, based on observations made by a reps eseritdtive from our firm. Should a fifteen (15) foot deep french drain be required, detailed and specific construction recommendations will be necessary. 'These would include: the use of digging boxes or other shoring, dewatering pumps, excavating the trench in segments, and the use of special equipment. We understand from discussions with you that the cut and fill calculations prepared by SDA did not include a fifteen (15) foot deep freru:h drain and assumed a maximum of six (6) feet only. It appears that if a fifteen (15) foot deep trench is necessary, you will be over the 5UU yard limitation and a special use permit will be required. We understand that you wish to avoid the delays of applying for a conditionaj use permit. LP CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL .91-120 October 1, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 2 STREET FILE As an alternative to installing the french drain to the bottom of footing elevation, we recommend installing horizontal drains In addition to a six. (6) foot deep trench on the eastern property line. The horizontal drains should be mechanically drilled into the slope from a point west of the western foundation wall at an elevation below the bottom of footing grade. These drains should extend to the eastern property line and be tightlined off the site. We should be engaged to provide a detailed plan for installation prior to construction should you opt to use this method of drainage. 4. We recommend that permanent slopes be no more than 3H: IV. The grading plan we reviewed showed grades less than 5H:iV. 5. We concur with Landau that the cut and fill calculation should accurately reflect all excavation and filling proposed on the site. 6. Our recommendations were to place a retaining wall around the western and southern side of the driveway turnaround fill pad. The details shown on the revised plan note "rookery or cone. retaining wall per soils engineer (typ)" for the western side of the fill pad only. An additional detail should indicate the southern side as well. A retaining wall detail is shown on the revised plans we reviewed. 7. The driveway access will require reconstruction and repair to allow construction traffic to access the area. This will require scarifying at least two (2) feet or material and recompacting to at least 95% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The southern slope should be protected from erosion until construction on Lot 9 is completed. The driveway should not be used if there are open, unsupported excavations in Lot 9. We recommend that this is coordinated with the owners of Lot 9 prior to construction. 8. The revised plan we reviewed showed a french drain to the east of the building, yard drains on the eastern and western sides of the building, and footing drains at the base of short rockeries on the southern and northeastern sides of the building. Additional drainage such as horizontal drains or temporary construction drains may also be necessary. The drainage system sllowli on the revised plans provided appear to conform to the intent of our recommendations. We recommend that a maintenance plan and schedule be prepared for the drainage system. 9. We concur with Landau that the sewer clean out be shown on the plans with a cautionary note. 91-120 ACADi: GEOfECHNICAL October 1, 1990 ST13 Sandy Olsen EET FILE Job No. 9004-OSG Page 3 10. We have reviewed the environmental checklist prepared by Robert Hughes dated 7/20/90. The checklist appears to be done in accordance with the our findings with the following exceptions: Section 3, b, 1) ground water will be removed via french drains, yard drains and horizontal drains and discharged to an existing pipe on the northeastern side of the site. Section 3, c, 1) run oft from the site will include french drains, yard drains, horizontal drains and a catch basin. The catch basin will outlet into the storm sewer system. All subsurface drains will outlet into the pipe on the northeastern side of the site. Section 3, d, 1) controlling drainage and runoff will include french drains, horizontal drains, catch basin and curbed paved areas. 11. We have not reviewed the storm detention design. We trust that this provides sufficient information for your needs. Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact us at any time. Sincerely, CASCADE ;OTAECHNICA.. _ 0 G e E. L , .E. Prin al Engineer j [/ eter Engin PJ:Pg I ' h 1 \` UO A I LLJ (YARD I I SPEC/.9L D29/,C/ Sr.2utraeE ^ J' „wER Sff1lENT ,� 1 f ; .4I JX — — — 4- ; ► laeq �1sz� 180 • �i.'6 -o -4- 00I ' /Z GAP CNC/•lSE�YJENT .,' - "`�" ' � �"'--� - � AT SWAL-ENJ G2oSSING = t. CD.i � • '' ,\ -1- C95/NG kK F i III ;;• '-24"o &NC�. My • I E. 23~' 197.57 � q �10 -9 I 4eb"OIA TYPE 4 f S✓x�. /. 1+45-3'-6-2'LT. &EL. �(/ I o I (I (w/5 LID LOCkING ,tt53, TOP p 197. GS 4 ,✓ f_� d t{:_ I o i II 1 0l Ig0-juv. I Z 1 71 0 t 30 v I i-7 LF "~ 12CMP'x '� I I EXIST PP TO PEE: RE1-�C_TEU 22^ '�'itI A9° 50 54/ W'.w °k;�: � •I(oZ 11 tl::}�"`.:c+ :}1=• ��,�_ ' 1 a, � —f L �aA STREET FI(E M E M O R A N D U M May 1., 1990 TO: File 1107 Daley Place FROM: Dan Smith, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: LOT NO. 8 - DRIVEWAY SLOPE The City Engineer authorizes the driveway slope at 1107 Daley Place to exceed 140, up to a maximum of 190, as it has been determined that: a. The driveway is the only economically and environmentally, reasonable alternative. b. The driveway does not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard. C. The Police Chief and Fire Chief have concurred in allowing the increased driveway slope. d. The public health, safety and general welfare will not be - adversely affected. DS/RJA/sdt ,a Pq °`- �,.if jaor Fj�P. 1107DALY/TXTST530 GA-vj 6 �- e-',, 41 �� STREET FILE �Cx � _ � � -eni-�ti► �.�� � Gi 40 d uv c o h v-e v'S c��l, 0 In. CeII? car-;, V � 0 Wr b (11A ( ot� 0 �L L o+ PIT K - ©uN I ve W aAl W e - m o 04OLw veo ve -�vo u"�LA_ l.d- Ise, ash ; ca CL� UU/1. PC Ak- 1111 1 v o� (6(��- C-05+ - W�,c-e w n ,4�, ce"��e- Sep Cs c o��r-h o�S . ul2 %/LQ,t -v e S iv� GTE 00 OIC4<'S W 'L b,oG b (!Q. +0 O "wv � ua,�e -�o-loge k Gl - �SoV'� O-C Y-00-t' CLod, Ve5VI� 4v (,(/lam' A �'i j vt a/ 4 U'v I ak a vtie a (ate ck —�c.w �O O vo U-0 C . 5 a - - o �-p-� CYO 03Vu C(P- 01-1 au,, o, besf" aA(� so o(„ . c� p �� V (K �j Y i l �Z v' CIAA)OU ` r7t-�v t�l�t2 `J 4�v 'g�?0 VhQ.—OA-A k 1 q w e I Ul - +0 c,J 45Avt c.Piv.—, (T) -.I a•� cttio` K . a5ak, SACTI)iiAL' DESIGN ASSOCWES INC. • , / CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5630 - 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046 • PHONE: (206) 775-7434 April 12, 1990 APR 1990 Chris and Sandy Olson 9 2 2 8- 18 3 rd S. W. PERMIT (UI Edmonds, WA 98020 subject: Residential Drive at Daley Place Lot 8, Harbor Hills, Edmonds, WA Our Ref.: inspect\91-120.rjh To Whom This may concern: At the request of Sandy Olson, this office inspected the subject site, and reviewed the submitted site topographical plan and drive profile, to determine the feasibility of building a driveway with a slope of 14% or less from the cul de sac to the proposed building site. The current slope across the 15 foot wide, 85 foot long access is approximately 21.7 percent. Daley Place appears to have been filled during construction, slightly increasing the natural slope. Cascade Geotechnical Report No 8411-15G dated May 23, 1989 indicated the site is water sensitive. Conclusions and Recommendations: 1. The building site and access easement can not, be economically filled beyond the proposed level, nor is it structurally or aesthetically desirable to do so. 2. The proposed driveway does not appear to present a safety hazard as it slopes down away from the cul de sac, and has good line -of -sight at the street. 3. The proposed 19% slope driveway appears to be the only economically and reasonable way to provide access to the buiding site. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Pse anden AEnde,. P.E. president KVE/jme bo- STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION: BUILDINGS • FOUNDATIONS • RETAINING WALLS • BRIDGES 0 PIERS • DOCKS • TOWERS 0 TANKS LOT ? CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen STREET FILE Job No. 9004-08G Page 6 Site Preparation We recommend that the earthwork be done during an extended period of dry weather. The fine-grained soils, steep slope and wet ' surface and subsurface conditions may cause significant additional construction costs. We recommend that erosion control be placed prior to any excavation work. Erosion control may consist of a silt fence with hay bales along the northern and western edge of the site. It will be necessary to place anchored plastic sheeting over any cuts made on the site during construction. We should review the detailed erosion control plan prior to construction. Site Drainage We recommend that a French Drain be installed east of.the proposed building area prior to any construction. The French Drain should be placed east of the garage adjacent to the property line to a depth below the proposed basement floor elevation or to a layer of impermeable soils. Detailed plans for the French Drain should be shown on the final plans. If seepage from the cut made for the lower floor basement wall is noted during construction, it will be necessary to place horizontal drains into the cut face. The drainage should be tightlined away from the excavation. The horizontal drains may be hand driven if sufficient penetration can be obtained. A drill rig should be used if hand driving is to difficult. We should be on site to monitor the excavation to provide recommendations for drainage requirements. Drainage should be placed in the yard areas to the north, west and CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 7 south of the proposed building. Drains should be placed after the organic soils are removed and prior to placing any fill. We suggest placing four (4) inch diameter, rigid, perforated drain pipes bedded and backfilled with pea gravel to at least twenty-four (24) inches below the subgrade elevation. Where fill is required in the yard areas, it should be placed after the installation of the drain lines. The proposed drain locations should be shown on the final plans. Provisions should be made in the plans for field adjustments to adapt the drains to the conditions excavated. Grading It appears from our review of the concept plan that material will be removed from the building area. Fill is proposed in the yard area, as well as wall backf ill for the garage slab, and in the parking area turn around. No grading plans were provided for our review. We should be engaged to review the proposed grading plans in detail to conduct our analysis. We recommend against using compacted fill for support of the structural loads in our Phase II report. It appears that fill will be necessary for subslab drains, wall backf ill, garage slab, the parking area and yard areas. All structural loads will be supported directly on native bearing soil. Compacted fill for the driveway will be retained with a structural wall. The fill proposed for this lot meets the intent of our Phase II recommendations. Structural support of the parking area turn around and garage floor and elimination of the fill in this area would greatly simplify construction and provide a less intensive design. It appears that significant cuts will be made for the proposed r] CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 8 building in the sloped area of the site. We recommend that all cuts be sloped at a temporary 2H:1V grade or less and be protected from erosion with anchored plastic sheeting. Drainage will likely be necessary from the cut faces as discussed above. If caving is noted from the cut faces, it may be necessary to slope the cuts at a grade less than 2H:1V or provide shoring and drainage. We should be engaged to monitor the excavation to verify that our recommendations are followed. If fill is used to support the garage slab and parking turn around, we recommend that a select, free draining imported material be used. Free draining, granular material should be used as wall backfill, under the floor slab in the lower floor, for fill under the parking turn around and in the garage. We recommend that all existing organic soils or material be removed from the building pad prior to placing any fill. ' If fill is used for the proposed garage floor, it will be necessary to overexcavate in the garage area to reach bearing soil. The fill should consist of a clean, free draining material that is placed on a subgrade of firm, undisturbed, native bearing soil that is free of any organic soils or material, loose material, or standing water. The fill should be carefully compacted with light equipment in eight (8) inch lifts to at least 95% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The down slope side of the fill will be retained by a structural wall. This should be done after installation of the French Drain previously discussed. We understand from the driveway profile prepared by Structural Design Associates dated 4/16/90 that a 19% slope is proposed for the driveway. It appears that fill will be required on the north end of the driveway for a car turn around. If this alternative is used, fill should consist of a free draining granular material that CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 9 is placed in eight (8) inch lifts and carefully compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill should only be placed on a subgrade of firm, undisturbed, native bearing soil that is free of all organic material, loose material or standing water. The western and southern sides of the driveway fill will be retained by a structural wall. Specific design requirements for this wall are provided. Fill should be placed after the retaining wall has been completed. The upper portion of the driveway was constructed during the Phase I portion of the project and an asphalt walkway was placed. The fill bank is extremely steep on the southern side of the driveway grade and there is some evidence of cracking in the asphalt and slippage on the fill bank. We understand that this area may be excavated during construction for Lot 9 and that a retaining wall will be placed in this area. A detailed review of this area will be necessary once the construction on Lot 9 is completed to provide specific recommendations for support of the fill bank and proposed pavement section. Foundation Design Parameters It appears from our subsurface analysis that the native silty sand underlying the topsoil/peat and fill will be suitable for support of a spread footing foundation designed to a 2000 psf maximum safe soil bearing value, if the material is firm, undisturbed, organic free and does not become wet prior to concrete placement. It appears from our review of the conceptual building location and preliminary floor grades that the excavation on the eastern side of the building will be below the fill and organic soils. It may be necessary to overexcavate to remove unsuitable soils in the slab and footing areas on the west side of the house. All structural loads should be supported on the undisturbed, native, bearing soil II CITY OF EDMONDSRF-CF-lYsDSIDE SEWER PERMIT o Nov U 41994 PERMIT IN]o 6 0' 890.19" Address.of Construction: PUBLIC WORKS UPI 21 Property Legal Description (Include all easements):��• ( //� �eC �f L�`� �T-����"� EDMONDS Owner and/or Contractor: /W/e_-./ State License No. �2G �Io ��C.� Building Permit No. 14 Single Family Invasion into City Right -of -Way: 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) RW Construction Permit No. ❑ Commercial Cross other Private Property: No ❑ Yes ❑ Public Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements Dat as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. * CALL`DIAL-A-DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY -EXCAVATION OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771. Permit Fee: � c-- Trunk Charge: G--� • �� Assessment Fee: ? Lid No.: �SJ Partial Inspection: Comments , PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. O Z3S` Issued By �,1•�-�� Date Issued: Receipt No.: Date Initial Reason Rejected: Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: DateInitial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON, JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Bull Copy: Applicant Revised 3/90 f 0 Side Sewer Drawing • The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO- ---------- ---------------------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION [vJ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO - ------------------ -ASMT. NO. ------------------ OWNER--Mi.C14EIt�Q.---C-t--I-ST------------------------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR --------------------------------------- PERMIT NO. &040-- JOB ADDRESS --- 1-1.0.7------D.A-i--F--j ...... PLACE .............. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. ------------------------------------- BLOCK NO. .-•- ------ 5.5 DP. 6.,Fvc. c% CAP 1' DP, PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11178) NAMEOF ADDITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDMONUS M TREM iv1EN1, PLAN" Approved: DATE _ '3 -J 99 By f ......----•-. s The City of Edmonds Water Service Drawing EASEMENT NO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION CK REPAIRS ❑ LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO................... OWNER .... BaLAt A ..... 7GO.M.5'%O.C.K................................. CONTRACTOR..._............................................................................... PERMIT NO.94.05.79. JOB ADDRESS .......1_10...I..........1-A.L..E.�J....... PIAC.F............ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO ....................................... BLOCK NO. .................................... II07 DALES PL.. MEASut&D FROM cat4c. FOUNDATION ' r B"ss sPLtcE ,y APP%. 2'/a.' DEEP NAME OF ADDITION.................................................................. A coPP6R ALL t" IW P.S.I. SUPERLOt4 P.E. — X UPfrR LiALFOF THIS WATER 'SERVICE WAS INS-TALLED DURING 1111 DALEb PL. CONS'T•RVCTtON ANo wAs NOT tNSPEC-Mp APPROX. LOCATtoty wA5 'DETC-Rmst.1ED 'BJ TRACER LOCRTtoN WIRE IN SC=P,MO INTO PIPE. PWW0001.11/75 (REV.11/78) WApproved: dj�� •v Y DATE .. r,. 3.-8-g5 By ./�. r C//t? � .......................... 0 USE CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION GB ()1,YNEnr:A1,:E NAME OF BUSINESS � ADDRESS ;?P , A A/ i Ei2/A/ (Vrr) s rdCEGAL DE PEaMIT NUMBER J`I (J�•i !J MAILING ADDHE55Ll c ,[/JT / D �+ /'�/V-r0. / ((k'c-e- PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP APPI-e ❑ LI I • I.IP TELEPHONE NUMBER RW Perm.1 Re rtd ❑ � �6 EXISTING —�.�'} REOUIREO DEDICATION strr•¢I Ux P—.1 Rep'd ❑ pPPl Rred ❑ PROPOSED I S.dIk R24�Ire0 7. NAME C f#� LF ` / ME' IZ - IN E $IIfF I NO. FIXTURES PRV�^,.�E(OUIRED 3 / / �ESJ(I NO n UURESS SSOS /9 %ive. T "%/op RI:f.,AHti$ CITY SIP TELEPHONE NUMBER IJ. el, NWIIG EvE,eErT ?y5'-65_0 IPEiEkSOAJ ev577,rI') r`%oM is G.EAr . 6.l,-,e CITY . IP TELEPH04E NUMUEH STATE IILEN$C NU :'DER LXVIRA TION D - Legal Descriphon Of Property -include all easements N.E. �/r� sE�T/o�l o2�L� 7• �lT R 3 C . WM WA - Tax Accounl Parcel N.( '7 '�.1�� •-(7]��-•r'(�ri'%%�„�, ® NEW RESIDENTIAL 7!.UMa1NG ADDITION 0 COMMERCIAL 'Y"`�' LF-T MECHANICAL APT' BLDG. El nEMODEL SIGN ❑ REPAIR c �� - CYOs FENCE ❑ L_x—FT) DEMOLISH ❑ INSERT 0VE INSERT O $HOT Wild UZiS ' SWIM FOIL PA GARAGE a RETAINING WALL/ Q RENEWAL q+•NH!1T ROCKERY ! T YPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN. 5/1/C7GE CAM/t.y o2E9/DEAIdE - NUI.IBER-5AJ'" UMBER OF OF DWELLING / CR:TICAL AREAS / �� STORIES UNITS , WIMPEn 0. 1P jW S"gee- V o5wta) Sis WSP. ,usf it�v 7 1_44 SIGN AREA SERA REVIEW A0F1/NO. ALLOWED COMPLETEEXE� /•V/�jOPCGEII SHOR INE. EXP IV MIANC ?R U P ING N. BY �00 :TBA�—FEET HEIGHT LOZ / 0 2 i:MARKS�t/lAr—.__\ iONT'(/ SU' REAR /i T, MARKS �_� PROGRESS WSPECTIONSIPER U8C'305 =77 j a ih� Pe�•1491 "lNSEG`, VIRG2 GoOE � :• DESCRIBC WORK TO BE DON: I ATTACK PLOT PLAN) C01VST,e vcT A 5/1v¢4 FiNAL-INSPECTION REQUIRE ; W_0r p J Fqr,/�y K�S/DEn/GE VALUATION. PLAN CHECK FEE . �•%.��;�,'� LtIT51cr--euarnNo %� GLAZIN . 2 HEAT SOURCE G�S Z PLUMBING Plan Check No. _% MECHANICAL :,. This Permit covers work to be clone on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL T i('j • -' Any construction on the public domain (curCs, sidewplks, .y )`i •" driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE sURCH ARGE Permit Application: 1130 Days STORM CRAINA.GE FEE 22 Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days NSPECION FEE ;. "ADPIiCant. On behalf 01 his or her spouse. heirs, assigns and EKG- m sucnessors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds. Washington, its officials. Qemployees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising direct;y or indirectly from the issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed t0 PUN CNECK DEPOSIT .� A O a '' y'.•r 01 modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance _ - - .b/•- o nor limit in any Way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ' provision." -' I hereby acknowledge that I have read !his application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION 'APPROVAL . . information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree lU Comply wish city and THIS PFRMIT This application is.not a permit Vntil slate taws regulating construction; and in dsng the work authoriz• AUTHOPr: Es signed the BuildingOfficial or his/her ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor T,JOO'RKYN7'ED Deputy:nd fees are paid. and receipt is - Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen'- Compensa• acknowledged in space provided.- i Lion Insurance and RCW .27. INSPECTN:+ DEVART I,!EN7 DATE �T{( SIG 101-E• OR A^ i nArE SIGNED CITYONOOSF EDM 0 1 L'S S"NATURE Gy ,n J' z1 vl/L!y✓1 - ATTENTION CALL FOP INSPECTION RELEASED DATE' " '/ -9 .:' .; •{� ; , •.; r IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR HAS BEEN UBC• 771 - 0220 • ORIGINAL — File . YELLOW--Inspeclorrr• - •,. - , •'• /'•i';;'a: r,� A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY .GRANTED. CHAPTER 3. - - �_ PINK — OW^er GOLD Assessor. �/`rr' lozaT .. - • . ). n \ N 1 I ► 1 Q i � = 4 - fo-o► y, "Pf,31-4c CD 0 T I ro I I P- I e ..1 , I1 I A A b I II I 'L ► I I �' ( ► 1 I o I 1 1 tir F ` G' LJ LKW^'II AIWMGAIT toa 8 T ! �• g. Y 1 '\ 1 HEIGHT OIL L,C'g A IB:�7r • C ,4a yt'...._ ..._... ---- TOYA' L: 771.00 =N = ,?3.2 T MEAN f :Moo w. IIB.AS Msx .. NOTE: AIO ►�A.IOR rtZ�,gy Try nv ctes,Ko�r�v `V APPRO F BY �NtNG 4� 51TE PEA Nj y 1_OT 8. MATLNO-M &+ILL7 CtTv OF Woi-tOn40d5 3AIGHOMI3N CO.�Wd. :: T3T�' •� ' ERlt�l C4MSTOCK 27-0 QD CO qb I I I Y I \o � I G PILO 98v3 0 11 VIP IF co O;V, u to d ol 14 LA3A6LKW^ b,-.Jlrmlwk4r ROO go go HE I GHT CAN LC:5 APPR Y PLANNI Li,l A 167. 8r TQ'rPi'L: 77-f.00 + 2 1 a. ZT MAX 140 OR-' 16-fteW OF V tklrmoye-p I� � .. WJI r ra -. OP �5rW:ie�, STREEI ITE' I-OT CITY OF ED" ot-413,5 ERIN COM5-roCK FILE `Y r,- ,.�� 2 0 PLANNING DATA SITE ADDRESS: ///,?7 DATE: a ZONING: i� JJ PERMIT#: / PROJECT DESCRIPTIO SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front:255" Left Side:/0Right Side:. d Rear: 2 S Actual Setbacks: Front: 2 < Left Side:_IZ _Right Sider o Rear: FLOOR AREA: LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: Actual: 1? o0 BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: $ 2� 2 Actual, Height: (20 SUBDIVISION: r "y CRITICAL AREAS #: �� - 1 `? -SEPA DI LOT AR OTHER: Plan Review By: AdML- STANDA PFDRAINAGE DETEN TI SYSTEM -� WORKSHEET G ✓'� n �J �'� a r �ot-ns�oc !� �Soc OWNER CALC BY: ADDRESS PHONE:? 7/ 6 2.( -L DATE: IMPERVIOUS AREA '"DESIGN DATA***** PIPE DIA PIPE LG q c.s& sF- 361` RIM ELEV 4' 0 DETENTION P.PE LEoIGI" 1'WNCOVER 2'Me[ COVER� INV CLEV 40rea CA Moir BASIN 6'MIN SwICE. RW ELEV V4' PIPE WK EItr EV COMMOL CAM14 BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION ORIFICE i M WASNEO GRAVEL /OUTFLOW TRENCH, MINIVLONG TOP AND 4'PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL FROM CONTROL OUTLET 4'PERFFIPE W/CAPS RUNOFF SPREADER OUTLET �r9 - EP, 4'-6"QUARRY SPALLS ■2'■S" DEEP, 3i4' CRUSHED ROCK FROM CONTROL OUTLET RIPRAP OUTLET FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED, TO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES. A4 l a I 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice 0 APPROVED BY DATE 5. OIJ el 6. 0 )-3 1A C) S/= :- s 1'& 4 & o-P f6l cL c, [z. f ;e& % o, r. asjg�� i�- Walk, o _,.IA e- (C)IL - A-.CL S "er_C4,44.11e,,, e -eed ewn 0 V,,c UJA I-() 4o vv, 4�i e I at (0 741A e /0 . I S PZ U �A Cj _ L_ u:!do o,,Ixj I i wk, Qk o z Ac rer I'li e- 'V7I CL I e 10 6 7,v5to:=[ I U w 0/0 te c-s 4 eov�( V= T d, 1%0 Tn Itz-X60 vvx IV% t�# 4-cls 0 c. t7 I Z. +ae -ext '.*) i i'' *' 7-- z F—o., e/a 4 ✓ Qx �s►�.�,� _ c�e = C 71: J4 ` = Q. Z. x 1,.7 x 0 3 _ . _ ......-----yesv,�►e ��,.,-� v' e � � '�s Y' e,'i-�.t v� � `��-�-.,d�..a5-=--Q•LS ZD Sc o.Q IL - - - - - - - Q�a. �►-0 _�0 0,y q r eo- X D e v.ej op pW • C u al c o 3 0.6$ -- T = — S5 X7 - — 2 -3 7 a 3 4q3 1 1tn g 37- x -9-o6-cr- .. o Ac re,Y- C V:j- 14vb-,cY- C_ = (206 x0,3'x D•6� = �4_ Gt ---_. _ _ i . �jroc.� d bL 4 ( c u u.�Lrol c�-},"u_c(,✓ Q - - f ( .zA_% � jA� / - 34 2 0.�Ir►a G� TIC 1 -viz. os x co 15Tr 569 �DIVALF� '� • aiPiRta 3 •- e . l Z n c. �r e_ ✓.. Of r h Al Nt O �`V �h�Y� �ii��r,unuur AMIF mwii 20111111"1� AM■ 77 SQ0 OM 1S A couQ7"-)j . . • Rtal�.3��L.L 1 Q7 17ti' V - a - lcoo . pL�G�TOt�I <i..��►..�uTESi 40 50 Coo to • q) STREET FILE Bg0,194- City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist 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 a development permit 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). An applicant, or his/her 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. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site Plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Z�i2/A-�J �4.✓D FRJ�tI G'0/'►'15TOCI� Name C0�22�SPONDE�ICE ADDRESS Street Address ��u, rZ-I/0;t -7 City, State, ZIP Phone /-,20-9y- Signature Date Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date CVVNO. :�x-�t etc.; r-e_. a-e..¢ : $ s 'S..�L` ` • 4pritical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: / /0 7 77c Ll 1' /a e e 2. Property Tax Account Number: pilcP l # 72g9' 00o - OD 8 -0003 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): •"i° f -x 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. R 1 i~. I V E D If yes; how is site developed? l%T11.1 r/66 , 57RCET, 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. ER Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. PERMIT ���``�! i Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 1-0-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): .. For City Staff Use Only - I... Site is 2..:SCS mapped soil types)?. 3 Wetland inventory or C.-A'.'--map indicates wetland present on its? 4... rCcaAiventoyoC.A.ap Area onfisite? 5...: _Site withiddesignated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? .. b , Site designated 061he u6oamentally Senis►ttve EnvAreas Maps DETERMINATION WAIVER Ned by. ` :.P1ann iba Re„olroaroa CASCADE GOECHNICAL, INC. 12919 N.E. 126TH PLAC (206) 821.5080 KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823-2203 July 2, 1990 Job No. 9004-08G Sandy Olsen 9228 183rd Place Southwest Edmonds, Washington 98020 Reference: Lot 8 of Harbor Hills Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Olsen: At your request, we have completed a soils report which conforms to the Geotechnical Report Guidelines set forth in the City of Edmonds Ordinance #2661 (Meadowdale Notebook as modified for Harbor Hills). The purpose of this report is to summarize our subsurface investigations and to provide conclusions and recommendations for the proposed construction. SCOPE This report provides conclusions and recommendations which specifically address the development of Lot 8 for a residence. This report provides a discussion, of the slope stability for before, during and after construction, a history of the development completed prior to this date, and specific recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, lateral pressures, drainage requirements, and construction monitoring requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We completed Phase I and II reports for the Harbor Hills Subdivision prior to this report. The Phase I report discussed the feasibility of developing the site and provided specific TABLE OF CONTENTS Scope Page 1 Project Description Page 1 Subsurface Conditions Page 4 Conclusions Page 4 Recommendations Page 5 Site Preparation Page 6 Site Drainage Page 6 Grading Page 7 Foundation Design Parameters Page 9 Slab -on -Grade Page 10 Lateral Pressures Page 12, Drainage Page 13 Environmental Checklist Page 13 Construction Monitoring Page 13 General Page 14 Appendix A Test Pit Location Map Appendix B Test Pit Logs Appendix C Unified Soils Classification System 2 • CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL 9 July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 2 0 recommendations for utility placement and road construction. The Phase II soils report provides general design recommendations for each lot based on past and recent subsurface investigations. The recommendations provided here are based on the subsurface information obtained for the previous two reports as augmented for the specific house designed for this lot. We have been provided the topographic survey prepared by Lovell- Sauerland dated 12/12/89, and preliminary building sketch plans, prepared by Behm Design, undated. We should be engaged to review the final plans to conform to the City of Edmonds requirements.. The. sanitary sewer, storm sewer and roadway were constructed at the site in accordance with the design plans and our recommendations for the Phase I work. We were present at the site periodically to monitor the construction of the roadway and utility placement to provide recommendations during construction. There was no evidence of deep seated slope instability within the Harbor Hills Subdivision noted in our Phase I and II reports. During the excavation for the cul-de-sac on the upper portion of the plat, there was some surficial movement within saturated organic soils. The failure was within the upper two (2).to three (3) feet of material and was buttressed immediately with quarry spalls and fill.• This area was not located within Lot 8. Lot 8 consists of a west facing, moderately sloped site at an average grade of 11% located on the north west corner of the development. The lot is located at the'base of the slope. The proposed house will be built on the sloped portion of the site within the defined building area shown on the plans prepared by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. 0 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL . July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 3 Lot 8 was covered with grass and brush at the time of our recent visit. We observed flowing water that crosses the site on the northwest corner. The surface of the site was very soft and wet with brush, standing and flowing water, and the trees had been cut down at the time of this report. We have reviewed the preliminary building concept prepared by Behm Design, undated, which proposes the construction of a wood framed, two (2) story house with the lower floor designed as a daylight basement and an attached garage. The design concept indicates that the house will be supported on a spread footing foundation. The design concept shows the lower floor of the house as a daylight basement with a slab -on -grade floor at elevation 1861. The second floor will be at elevation 1941. An -attached garage is proposed on the east side of the house with a top of slab elevation of 2001. We understand that fill with a retaining wall will be required for a parking area turn around adjacent to the garage. It appears that up to eight (8) feet or more of fill will be required to obtain the proposed pavement grade. A retaining wall is proposed for the south and west sides of the filled area. It appears that a basement/retaining wall will be required for the east side of the lower floor of the house. The east basement/retaining wall will be about nine (9) feet high according to the concept plans we were provided. It appears that the wall may have a slab at the toe and a wood diaphragm at.the top. No design details for the retaining walls were provided. Detailed lateral earth pressure values and suggested design alternatives are provided in the Recommendations section of this report and should be included on the final drawings. • CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL • July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Test pits were excavated on the site in November 1984 prior to any site work. Additional test pits were excavated on the site and on adjacent sites to the east and south in May 1989 after completion of the Phase I site work. The tests pits excavated on the site in November 1984 showed about two (2) feet of topsoil/peat overlying a sandy silt that was medium dense to dense. More recent test pits showed about two (2) feet of fill overlying one (1) foot of peat/topsoil overlying a medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel. The test pit locations are shown on the test pit location map in Appendix A. Test pit logs and detailed soil description are located in Appendix B.• Elevations discussed in this report are from the surface elevation at the time of our study. There is an extensive and complex ground water system underlying the Harbor Hills Subdivision. Substantial subsurface drainage and rechanneling of surface runoff was done during the Phase I construction. At the time of the recent test pits, we noted slight to moderate seepage at about five ( 5 ) feet below the surface. Caving was noted below five (5) feet in the more recent test pit. We noted extensive surface water on this lot during observations made during construction and in previous visits to the site. The subsurface conditions were wet at the time of our investigations. CONCLUSIONS It is our conclusion that Lot 8 is presently stable and presents little risk of slope failure. It appears that significant cuts of " CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 5 up to eleven (11) feet high will be necessary for the proposed building on the eastern side of the site. Specific and detailed recommendations for the proposed cuts are provided in this report to minimize the potential for slope failure during construction. We anticipate that the site will be stable after completion of the project if our recommendations are strictly adhered to. It is our conclusion that the peat and fill which was noted on the site are not suitable for the support of a structural load, or slabs, if significant differential settlement is to be avoided. All structural loads should be transferred down through the organic soils and fill to the underlying native silty sand. Detailed recommendations for the proposed development are provided below . RECOMMENDATIONS - The recommendations provided in our Phase II soils reports for Lot 8 included placing a drainage blanket across the site and utilizing an auger cast pile.f.oundation. These recommendations were based on our understanding at that time that fill would be placed to significantly raise the grade of the site. It appears from the design concepts we were provided that only minor fill is proposed on the southern portion, a retained fill is proposed on the southeast corner, and that the building will be seated on native soil underlying the organic soils and fill. We have altered our previous recommendations to address these more specific design requirements. Due to the excavation proposed into the slope face, -cautious, dry weather construction, site drainage and sloped or shored excavations will be required. Detailed recommendations specific to this lot are provided below. • CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job -No. 9004-08G Page 6 Site Preparation We recommend that the earthwork be done during an extended period of dry weather. The fine-grained soils, steep slope -and wet surface and subsurface conditions may cause significant additional construction costs. We recommend that erosion control be placed prior to any excavation work. Erosion control may consist of a silt fence with hay bales along the northern and western edge of the site. It will be necessary to place anchored plastic sheeting over any cuts made on the site. during construction. We should review the detailed erosion control.plan prior to construction. Site Drainage' We recommend that a French Drain be installed. east of the proposed building area prior to any construction. The French Drain should be placed east of the garage adjacent to the property line to a depth below the proposed basement floor elevation or to a layer of impermeable soils. Detailed plans for the French Drain should be shown on the final plans. If seepage from the cut made for the lower floor basement wall is noted during construction, it will be necessary to place horizontal drains into the cut face. The drainage should be tightlined away from the excavation. The Horizontal drains may be hand driven.if sufficient penetration can be obtained. A drill rig should be used if hand driving is to difficult. We should be on site to monitor the excavation to provide recommendations 'for drainage requirements. Drainage should be placed in the yard areas to the north, west and 0 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL Is July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 7 south of the proposed building. Drains should be placed after the organic soils are removed and prior to placing any fill. We suggest placing four (4) inch diameter, rigid, perforated drain pipes bedded and backfilled with pea gravel to at least twenty-four (24) inches below the subgrade elevation. Where fill is required in the yard areas, it should be placed after the installation of the drain lines. The proposed drain locations should be shown on the final plans. Provisions should be made in the plans for field adjustments to adapt the drains to the conditions excavated. Grading It appears from our review of the concept plan that material will be removed from the building area. Fill is proposed in the yard area, as well as wall backfill for the garage slab, and in the parking area turn around. No grading plans were provided for our review. We should be engaged to review the proposed grading plans in detail to conduct our analysis. We recommend against using compacted fill for support of the structural loads in our Phase II report. It appears that fill will be necessary for subslab drains, wall backfill, garage slab, the parking area and yard areas. All structural loads will be supported directly on native bearing soil. Compacted fill for the driveway will be retained with a structural wall. The fill proposed for this lot meets the intent of our Phase II recommendations. Structural support of the parking area turn around and garage floor and elimination of the fill in this area would greatly simplify construction and provide a less intensive design. It appears that significant cuts will be made for the proposed CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL . July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 8 building in the sloped area of the site. We recommend that all cuts be sloped at a temporary 2H:1V grade or less and be protected from erosion with anchored plastic sheeting. Drainage will likely be necessary from the cut faces as discussed above. If caving is noted from the cut faces, it may be necessary to slope the cuts at a grade less than 2H:1V or provide shoring and drainage. We should be engaged to monitor the excavation to verify that our recommendations are followed. If fill is used to support the garage slab and parking turn around, we recommend that a select, free draining imported material be used. Free draining, granular material should be used as wall backfill, under the floor slab in the lower floor, for fill under the parking turn around and in the garage. We recommend that all existing organic soils or material be removed from the building pad prior to placing any fill. If fill is used for the proposed garage floor, it will be necessary to overexcavate in the garage area to reach bearing soil. The fill should consist of a clean, free draining material that is placed on a subgrade of firm, undisturbed, native bearing soil that is free of any organic soils or material, loose material, or standing water. The fill should be carefully compacted with light equipment in eight (8) inch lifts to at least 95% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The down slope side of the fill will be retained by a structural wall. This should be done after installation of the French Drain previously discussed. We understand from the driveway profile prepared by Structural Design Associates dated 4/16/90 that a 19% slope is proposed for the driveway. It appears that fill will be required on the north end of the driveway for. a car turn around. If this alternative is used, fill should consist of a free draining granular material that 0 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL 4 July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 9 is placed in eight (8) inch lifts and carefully compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill should only be placed on a subgrade of firm, undisturbed, native bearing soil that is free of all organic material, loose material or standing water. The western and southern sides of the driveway fill will be retained by a structural wall. Specific design requirements for this wall are provided. Fill should be placed after the retaining wall has been completed. The upper portion of the driveway was constructed during the Phase I portion of the project and an asphalt walkway was placed. The fill bank is extremely steep on the southern side of the driveway grade and there is some evidence of cracking in the asphalt and slippage on the fill bank. We understand that this area may be excavated during construction for Lot 9 and that a retaining wall will be placed in this area. A detailed review of this area will be necessary once the construction on Lot 9 is completed to provide specific recommendations for support of the fill bank and proposed pavement section.. Foundation Design Parameters It appears from our subsurface analysis that the native silty sand underlying the topsoil/peat and fill will be suitable for support of a spread.footing foundation designed to a 2000 psf maximum safe soil bearing value, if the material is firm, undisturbed, organic free and does not become wet prior to concrete placement. it appears from our review of the conceptual building location and preliminary floor grades that the excavation on the eastern side of the building will be below the fill and organic soils. It may be necessary to overexcavate to remove unsuitable soils in the slab and footing areas on the west side of the house. All structural loads should be supported on the undisturbed, native, bearing soil 0 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL M July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 10 noted below the fill and organic soils. The conceptual plans we were provided indicate that the daylight basement will be on the western third of the house only. The house will then step up for the garage. It appears that two (2) retaining walls will be necessary; one (1) for the daylight basement and one (1) for the main floor/garage. Based on the sketch we were given, it appears that the main floor/garage footing will be seated on the wall backfill for the lower daylight basement retaining wall. We recommend that the footing for the main floor/garage wall extend down through the wall backfill and be seated directly on firm, undisturbed native bearing soil. Additional excavation may be necessary for the retaining wall proposed for the parking area if fill is used for slab support. We recommend that the footing extend down through the unsuitable soil and be placed directly on the firm, undisturbed, native bearing soil. Footings should be seated at least eighteen (18) inches below outside finished grade for frost protection. All foundation excavations should be free of standing water, loose soils, or organic material at the time the concrete is placed. We should be engaged to observe the excavation to confirm suitable soil conditions. Slab -on -Grade We understand that the lower floor will be a slab -on -grade at about elevation 186' and the garage slab will be at elevation 2001. It appears that fill may be used to provide support for the garage floor slab as previously discussed. 0 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL M July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 11 If this alternative is selected, it will be necessary to remove sandy fill and organic material in the garage area for support of the garage slab. Depending on the depth of suitable soils, excavations may require temporary shoring on the eastern side. Once the unsuitable soils are removed, we recommend placing compacted, granular fill on firm, undisturbed, native bearing soil, up to the slab elevation. The western edge of the compacted fill will be retained with a structural wall. An alternative to overexcavating and placing fill would be to design the garage floor as a structural floor or deck. This would require significantly less site work. Fill should consist of a clean, granular soil that is free of all organic material and is placed in ,eight (8) inch lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. We should be engaged to observe the subgrade prior to placing any fill to confirm suitable soils and -to test the compaction of the fill as it is placed to confirm adequate compaction. We recommend placing at least eight (8) inches of a clean, free draining sand, pea gravel or crushed rock under the lower floor slab to act as a capillary break. The capillary break should be covered with a plastic vapor barrier which may be covered with one (1) to two (2) inches of clean sand to aid in concrete curing. We should besupplied with a sample of the free draining material to confirm that it meets our specifications. We recommend placing a subslab drain under the slab in the lower floor. The subslab drain should consist of four (4) inch diameter, rigid, perforated pipes that are bedded and backfilled in at least eighteen (18) inches of pea gravel, below the capillary break material. We recommend placing at least three (3) pipes that trend east -west, parallel with the dip of the slope, and extend through CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL M July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 12 the stem wall to the footing drain. Lateral Pressures We understand that a -retaining/ basement wall is anticipated for the east side of the lower floor, between the main floor and the garage and for the fill. placed for the parking turn around. We understand that the building walls may be up to ten (10 ) feet high with floors attached and will be designed as a rigid wall.- An eight (8) foot high, free standing wall that will support fill is proposed for the parking turn -around. We recommend the following design parameters 'for the retaining walls: At Rest Earth Pressure • 50 pcf Active Earth Pressure (flexible wall) 40 pcf Passive Earth pressure (native soil) 250 pcf Bearing Value 2000 psf For the above values to apply, we recommend that a drain be placed at the base of the footings and that the wall be backfilled with a clean, -,..free draining material to within two (2) feet of the top of the wall. Wall backfill will be placed after the floor slab and wood diaphragm have been attached for the rigid -walls. The backfill may consist of a pea gravel, washed rock or a clean coarse sand that has less.than 5% passing the #200 sieve, based on the percent passing the #4 sieve. The flexible wall design parameters are only valid if a select, imported free draining granular material is* placed on firm, undisturbed, organic,free native soil and is adequately compacted. Full time inspection will be required during the •backfilling of the CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July.2; 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 13 walls. Drainacre We recommend placing a four (4) inch diameter rigid perforated pipe that is bedded and backfilled in at least eighteen,(18) inches of pea gravel at the base of all perimeter footings. The footing ,,drains should be tightlined away from the foundation to the storm sewer system. All roof drains, should be tightlined to the storm system separately from the footing drains to avoid backflow. All paved surfaces should be curbed and graded to direct all surface runoff to a suitable catch basin. The catch basins should be tightlined to the storm system. Additional drainage will be necessary in the.landscaped areas on the northwestern and southern sides of the house. We recommend that the yard drains be placed.after organic soils are removed and prior to placing any fill. Environmental Checklist We have not been provided.the Environmental Checklist for review. We feel that we have addressed the significant issues with regards to the Earth within the text of this .report. We should be provided a copy of the Environmental Checklist to provide any additional comments necessary. Construction Monitoring We should be engaged to observe, the excavation for the building, CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL • July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 14 the French Drain, and the placement .of the erosion control to confirm that construction is done in accordance with the approved plans. It is especially important that we are on -site during the excavation for the building to provide monitoring of the cut slopes. We should be engaged to observe the foundation excavation to confirm suitable soil conditions. The .placement of the drainlines and backf ill should be observed by our office to confirm proper placement. All compacted fill should be observed and tested by our office to confirm adequate compaction. These are engineering inspections that are in addition to normal testing requirements. General A detailed review of the final plans is required by the City of Edmonds specifications. Once final plans are available,'we will provide a detailed review with any additional or alternate recommendations that may be necessary. We expect the on -site conditions to reflect our findings; however, variations may occur. Should soil conditions be encountered that cause concern- and/or are not discussed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if additional or alternate recommendations are required. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Sandy Olsen for specific application to Lot 8 of the Harbor Hills Subdivision in Edmonds, Washington in accordance with generally accepted soils and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL July 2, 1990 Sandy Olsen Job No. 9004-08G Page 15 - Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this project. Should you have anyl questions, feel free to contact us at any time. ' Sincerely, CASCADE GEOTECHNIC i Ge a E. Lamb, P. Principal Engineer PJ:pg CC:SDA Attn: Robert Hughes Behm Design; Attn: Jay Behm 0 Pet Jewett E ineering Geologist APPENDIX A } S HARBOR HILLS Lam' '8 TEST PIT LOCATION MAP TILE PIPE I EXST. CONTOUR . I NEW CONTOUR I I _ II I 4 MAX ROCKERY II� I I ITP.14 i I � R soENcE I I I U I 1 TP.10 I I I AGE I w tz w --- --II 1 I I EXST.6/'�CQD SEV1R i �! EXST.8' PVC STORM DRAIN RETAININC, WALL WfTH RAIL 1 I 0/ I I FROM SITE PLAN EY STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC Job No. SCALE: 1" = 20' CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Wo4-M 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.5080 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823-2203 pots Dwn. BY 07/06/90 HLA T.P.- 14 Sail Descript& Classification T.P.- 15 oil Description & Classification e 0. 0 - 2'FILL; GRAY SILTY SAND WITH 0 0 - 5'F ILL• TOPSOIL & SILTY SAND ` SOME GRAVEL.& SOME ORGANICS tZ H�SOME GRAVEL &,SOME ROPE), �LOGS), LOOSE, LOOSE,RSATURATED. SATURATEDRGANICS _ 2'- 3'PEAT; DARK BROWN TO BLACK, ORGANICS, LOOSE, SATURATED. 3'- 8'SILTY SAND; GRAY, WITH SOME GRAVEL, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, SATURATED. ($M) -5 -5 "..= 5'- 6.5' PEAT; BLACK ORGANICS, LOOSE, SATURATED. 6.5'- 9'SILTY SAND; GRAY, WITH SORE GRAVEL, WITH LENSES OF • GRAVELLY SAND WITH SOME SILT WITH MINOR MOTTLING, T.D. = 8.0' MEDIUM DENSE, SATURATED.. (SM) T.D. = 9.0' -10 -10 -15 -15 Note.. SLIGHT :TO MODERATE WATER SEEPAGE BELOW 5', CAVING BELOW 5'. Noter. SLIGHT WATER SEEPAGE FROM 5'- 6.5' . MODERATE CAVING BELOW 6.5'. TEST P I T LOG CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL Harbor Hills A DIVISION OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC Date 05/04/89 Job No. 3411 - 15G Dwn.By HLA Goo/Eng. ,� F7- Soil Description and ificotion T. P. -Q :: Soi escription and Classification 0 0-2.0' ORGAN ICSILTWEID PEAT, DARK o 0-i.5 AT DARK BROWN. LOOSE, r BROWN, LOOSE, SATURATED �•-_ _ - SATURATED (P7). (OL- PT). r +: t• 1.5 70rSILTY SAND; GRAY BROWN, FINE . TO COARSE-GRAlNEO,TRACE TO I 2O-Ga_5 SANDY SILT; BLuEGRAY,WITH SOME GRAVEL, MEDIUM TO LITTLE GRAVEL, DENSETOVt_R1( DENSE DEN51'TY, SATURATED DENSE, MOIST TO WET(SM). - -s 2.5' SLOUGH I N0. .s 65 T p_ ZO' Notes: HOLE TERMINATED DUE TO Notes: HOLE TERMINATED AT REFUSAL. SLOUGHING. 4 P - j Soil Description and Classification T P. -''Z Soil Description and Classification o - � -- 0-2.0' PEAT; DARK BROWN, LOOSE, o _ _ O-l.5'pE DARK BROWN, LOOSE, -.- SATURATED (PT). 4+ 5PrTURATED (PT). I.5-G.O'SILTY SAND; BLUE GRAYTOGRAY BROWN, FiNE-TO COARSE-GRAINE + 2.0-8.0'SILTY SANG; BROWN, FtNE-TO COARSE -GRAINED, SOME GRAVEL, SOME ROUNDED GRAVEL,DENSE, MEDIUM DENSE, SATURATED, SLIGHTLY MOTTLED,WET(5M). WITH OCCASIONAL'PoGw� OF: _5 GLEAN GRAVEL(SM). .5 25' SLOUGHING BELOW DUETO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. DDzl G.O' 8.0-9.V 5ANDY SILT; GRAY BROWN TRACE TO LITTLE GRAVEL', _lo Y Q HA D MOIST (ML . -lo Notes : HOLETER M 1 MATED DUE TO SLOUGlil NG. -Notes: _TERMINATED AT REFUSAL. TEST PIT LOG HARBOR HILLS Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. Eclmo ld s, Washington Engineers - Geologists 1.4120 N E 21st Street Beiievue, wash 98rA7 Phone 641.2573 DATE N 0 V. 13, 19 84 CERT N0 8 411 — 15 G TOWN BY E S DTICHKD BY ' ,Q r CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS 2?9 / 4 &/ #1 ER /Al Coeur s reck- MAILING ADDRESS /'.err A e. CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER 9 s�o ay 776 - yo a NAME ADDRESS ' 50S /c/V 4ve. SE•" �0g ' CITY ZIP • I TELEPHONE NUMBER E VC oe Et'rT 9?,�7 y s- 6 s 6 9 NAME ' % O ADORE$ g "' • CITY ZIP% TELEPHONE NUMBER 11,1 .w60 03 7ys-a7�� S ATE LkCEI1SE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE ac.Y�P�G.s \. %U I`�o-9. U01 VCJNIIJUUII UI FIVFJCity - IIIliWUW\P11 W01=111CIt W. R 3 k1M . �TJn�onlDs , WA USE ZONE PERMIT NUMBER JOB '1 9db57S SUITE/APT a 1,Or- 0 ?- , w' L i 5 3 .4 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑ EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required .0 Street Use Permit Req'd ' O PROPOSED l�-��'� Inspection Required ❑ Sidewalk Required ❑ MZ6 99 LINE $I��C Ty NO. OF -FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED4LO Q 3 YES N017 1EMARKS .. ? .�`f ��•tt �"�� r.� � IX��vIJ 5�s InaSr' ENGINEERING MEMO DATED RE . 1 �/��1 SIGN AREA ALLOWED j PROPOSED cu SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT / Sh EXP 6L&V ING BY BY M / Q �) �V SETBACKS —FEET " FRONT 11//SIDE 1/ REAR HEIGHT LOT CC ERA6j ' m Property Tax Account Parcel No. REMARKS Gd(J INNEW 121 RESIDENTIAL t'. PLUMBING i ADDITION 0 COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL APT . SLOG. n REMODEL LJ SIGN G W FENCE REPAIR ' "`t:tOS. �x_FT) t DEMOLISH NSERT TOVE Ei HOT TUB SPA GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ t#RPO"r ROCKERY El RENEWAL �d T O��J` e-W l % T TYPE =ST ION W)VA41 C041 OCCUPANT SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED►l ES AR g/ CC z O OADPANT REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 O (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: tt.f 5/NC7LE. tAMi�y ODES/,DE/VCE .- l491 tG �/�pG? IC4�E. NUMBER`Cd'�EM •O :OF m STOR,tps UMBER OF UN TS ING / CRITICAL AREAS NUMBER � �r- � 11C ' SOla Wr y AKK. 6065 14 0 DESCRIBE WORK 199E DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) . A S/�ICfiGE FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Ax-or.* Q83 `,cT �4'1 �- 7 ec5 /Z) EA/C E VALUATION FEE of7 / PLAN CHECK FEE �. BUILDING '7 `1 ` T /� 83 HEAT SOURCE:t GLAZING PLUMBING / .. Z OID /O Plan Check No. MECHANICAL f!/ 63 This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. ARADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalKs; ­ STATE SURCHARGE 1-10— driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 180 Days „ Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE -FEE "Applicant,.on behalf of his)or her spouse, heirs, assigns and INSPECTION, ENG. INSPECTION FEE n successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, A! E employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of ,% whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from'the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT �t✓ modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city, ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance I 1. prov s on. , � ; I hereby -acknowledge that I have reed this application; that the information given is correct; and that 1 am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application 'is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED. Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insurance and RCW a.Z7. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIG (OWNER OR A T DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT CITY OF OF I 'S SI NATURE DATE EDMONDS ATTENTION CALL FOR INSPECTION ELEASEO DATES IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 1 1 77J O�wo ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor +o2•eT 64" ME ol 09 -n S7 -C-) /Ion- &kpX P/ STREET FILE wo STtZ fix/ , its La , A D.' TO tX sT C�MI HA SWA L tr .714 `'' � :+. , .- '. , ' . y �+! ���� i�YY'4 �IJ�✓ �ilf'R'k"fs l� lYT' j ....•.-. 45 t FR F1Gi4 t iN �41 Gi. L+tH i '" ... ... ..:. '. ," - ': ',", ., ,. -,-. r # # # s1.�.,t)r �,�Ry/«y� �{ �yr�r �+y �" j jJ� j }��!w�r �[, /w j j j # }� R wry .' ." '. .. ., ,`'. M4+.i!':«.`r...,_.4/"ii^'"1.P"',iT '„ M+1T,("�+i, ., '.'#++r+4w1e:��.'. Er✓i"•`V', . .. ,. .. .. t r ti Oro 1 1 ci" txl 4y 'Ilts , ,s vr ,r {^ . «� t 1 .: 3442 N 89 84' 28 W i I _EX . Co EX CREEK I TILE PIPE l `fit°e i I L /NV. 180.97 ' {� 1 i 1 I i I I I I 3 m I I O ro i I I I I 1 ! I EX. C I. I TOP 183.88 )JAI INV 180.7(o D U/L O/NG I SETB4C(L//VE(rYR) I L \aoZa oil lb\N \ / Zp� 231 a2 W SEWER �/ I O I CIO. C.J ' 1A0 ' -~�a5 ao � /v84°,341,08" W EX. 8" PVC TOf;?M �O PRIVATE UTILITY ESM'T G' W4LKW4Y ESM'.T — I I i i Co" )SPNALT 1N4LK L� Lti --- jl <I t� _ l I-- D-, %Ltl L� t-1 ttl t i t, l 2a a2 2 N O P�'I' o N D '�Dt F2 - O gel • \l Ex. C \O • b0 25�_ 0 1 TELE. PED.Q Y Puce I,P VT -17 g0 O O�.P \ �4 ./ �o a v 0, W4TER '� , 3 ,� ©• \ � c�` r ROOF ORAI STUB 0 METERS 025 OA ti N� sTus p \ C3> ELEC STU85�/ tiAy \ ��/ PU.D WULT Z�52� yAi�P 2A2 I I 1`� j \ \\� yat� O 2 \ \ 30 I co\ �0 CIO WATER \ METER �0 ` ®t0� VERTICAL CURS '� e� �oE , ' UTILITY ES'TrZGBo4 7MARPROX.\\ \ TOP 9F BQNI�C � U I 2 I \-7' UTILITY �q� "PVC ROOF DR41 N Q9' \� Ex. C.B.— LE644L OESCRIPTION o LOTS 4 AND 8, PLAT OF 4J4RBOR DILLS, CITY OF EOMONDS SIV09OM1514 COUNTY , W45/-JINGTON. I� Ex. C.B. -- _ BENCt. MARK TOP OF C45E0 COAIC MONUMENT LOC4TEO 0 CENTER OF CUL - DE - SAC. ELEV4T161V 04TUM: C/TI' OF EOMONDS LEGEND O — EX. C45EO CONC. MONUMENT O — EX. /RON PlN W//-L,45TIC C4P NO'D 9891 I � N Ai Z O� , I NOTE T415 MAP SI10 WS ONLY T405C E4SE'v1ENTS 41\10 SET84CK L INES T114T 4PPE4R ON T"E RECORDED PLAT OF !-/, ,4?BOR 411Q S: T"IS MAP GOES NOT PURPORT TO S,UOW ALL E4SEME/V7-S OR EIVCUMBERENCES TL14T MAY EX15T, 017110E RECORDED OR UN RECORDED. L EX. S S M E-1 I. SPEC/4L 5ET84CK REQUIREMENT j 1 '� ttl i FROM WATER COURSE TO BE DETERMINED 4T TIME OF 8UIL0/NG j PERMIT 4P/:LIC4T/ON. _ ` M IN. 1 S ' FROM TOP OF BANK nth —1 9 JUL 181990 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. - ��g FOR g% Q� PUGET SOUND COMMERCIAL, INC. N. E. 1/4, SECTION 24, T..27 N., R. 3 E., W. M.. CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc 1, 7,.•' >` Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultant 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 • Lynnwood, WA 98037 • (206) 775-1591 • (206) 340.083( DRAWN CHECKED DATE F.B. SCALE FILE NO. 0 7 r G t O-1VqLv, 40UC-Q-1 NOTE: GONWf DOUWOUT� f0 DRAINAGE �WK NOT EX. 6" TILE PIPE FTC. DfAINy I--- - �V1a7I�IC-�Z�1 � �5"T�LIStt�'v C" cr- i5pmcnGBii (TYPE 9-48''0)- I''�` ' EE IB I.0 (ALL) Ml f FENCE W6 DETAl1J� k6 Lf, %0 0 ALUM GMP, IO AA, 0.0. %---_ 4BO2 - fLOW GONfKOL *f(t;faT (TYPE Z - 4,6,1) Kl= ISG.14 IE 1,63110 (ALL) OV eKfLOW EL - 04.43 OKIf166 VIA- I %Z" f00fING Df1;AIN-fYP�/ EX. GB flkHfLINE fWM H001E IM 03.aa TO GB 16 00.1(0 le IN.10 (NEW §11 IN) _ 4 Lf, G" PVG, y-oy. 61 PVG---,. fO OLYMPIG AVENUE VKAINAAE 9Y5fEM b 30 Lf,6"PVG,9.32.7%- Hoff: GONNEGf ffG. DKA10 � 0L I TO fHlh GB AT IE ISk.�i I HEIGHT (ALGUW100 A IbTli B I87.B�i G 198.75 D 198.0 TOTAL 77AOO _ 4= 193.25 MEAN +0.00 Z I B.0 MAX m 0 0 Na °34'ZS"W x X x 6009f EX. WAIN IE 182.97 SOT 8 IE Ia3.0 t i-Z6.b4' /, -a" PVG 0- -i woo' t,OK ll� (4' NIGH) 4' HIGH MAX. KOGKMY-fYP. IS LF, 4" PVG, 5-�i6.1 TOK-197 W HIGH) 'Gt YD#Z K6 1100 3�- eye• IE 193.92 TYP. YVfI (Oa DETAIL) fi E 1100 IE 193.92 W4 fOK-Ile 0' H16H) RE 117.3 LOT 7 IE 1�3.8 N 00° 11' 161' W I Da.y6' 10' MIN ZOOONTE EX. GB END Of WALL ,.......... ::.........._...r. :.. R E ISa.71 .........:::........... . IE 183.93(W) WALKWAY EAtiEM Nf ,..*'I':::.,.:..::; RE .7 .. " IE 194.IZ NOTE: of yHf 6 Of 9 Of BLDG PLAN, 4.5' A61 AWALKWAY FOfZ ffG DRAIN DETAILh 4 (fZEPLAGE tEXX. WALK Ah NEEDED AT Ex. G&ADE) FOUNDATION WALLh 7' UTILITY E OWffiT dI' WIDE CURB/RETAINING WALL O W/RAILING Ay NEEDEV 'C END GUKB- T BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM FOOTZNO DRAINS SHALL NO � NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. 2• Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. CcRACOE G�j 2 KINA 4 WV61C WIZ4' ELEV-ISlo.l4 FUND ©PENINGc OVEKFLOW ELEV-164.43 yUPPOKf (Z R. IN--• PVG PIy0AK4e TEE- WNIKOL DEVICE ORIFICE VIA-I%Z'' LGA (Pisr6MAE aI N.� . LE VEfINf ALUM. GMP. EEV 1 - 011�1, N a DETWION PIPE ;,• 46 LF ELEV-10 .0 ---ONA AND 6OV61Z GPI o TYPE Z a (VMMETEg-40) 01.0 Mglf!9 (MAX. Z.V HIGH) (CETAINING WALL - t•-c - EXTRUDED GU0 EX. GRADE 2" ASPHALT (GLAhS'B') A01'H41 �11'1y? GIZU9HEV SUfzPAGING ?OP GOUK,F, WALK Z%y" GIZU51­1Et7 SUKFAGING LASE GOUKSE (GOMPAGTEV PEK KEQUIeEEMEWTS OF SOIL EW6IWaI5Q GOMPEfENf, VWOy , rKOffKLY =FAKeV SUBGRADE I'M KEOUIREMENfy Of 001L ENGIN6W 'WVAI. 1XIVEWAY !!�E6TIOK1 WO SCALE PEEC.A9f tE,r t.1GN rArt1N 64.Iv SEGfiOIQ (a& A'f M6H EUD) PGf441•f 'iGMGH DE..41W .5WIDN (1YFP144L) 1 t i FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE ANO � �41 PETENDON PIFE PE7AIL No NOTE: NO REMOVAL Of =0 Of 9,i(mfvmf w6 SHALL B6 PE&MIfty ZIO.S ° AA M / K N V&IVE (BY OfHm" GONyfmuv rw Zl�i N APPROVED GIfY PLANK fOR LOT 7) NOTE: Pfi:OVIDE fEMP GONyfRIlGflON MSANGE (hEE DETAIL) -1O' A,iPHALf VKIVING yUKfAGE fEL. FW P U. D. VAULT WATER MT 1 ZZO 8" P11! yAN. h6IJ69 EX. MH i-EX. fGOLLED CURB a" PVG tMN. t EWeK K/W AIV D AS NOTED 7 4`/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Material must be Removed from the catch basins and detention pipe to LOT $, PLAT OF HARBOR HILLS, CITY OF EDMONDS, prevent clogging, especially at the outlet .control system. ..Catch SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON basins should be cleaned at least twice per year. Frequent catch basin cleaning will reduce the need for the more difficult task of cleaning BENCHMARK the detention pipe. The system should be kept clean during TOP OF CASED CONC. MONUMENT LOCATED @ CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC construction. Material must be physically removed and not just flushed ELEVATION - 229.45 DATUM: CITY OF EDMONDS downstream. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (VERIFY WITH SOILS ENGINEER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR) CO-ORDINATE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION WITH DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION @ LOT 7 A SOILS ENGINEER. ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. FLAG PROPERTY LINES AND CLEARING LIMITS. INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AS REQUIRED. INSTALL DETENTION PIPE. KEEP EXCAVATED SLOPES COVERED WITH PLASTIC, AS REQUIRED BY SOILS ENGINEE EXCAVATE BUILDING AREA. POUR FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL FOOTINGS. POUR FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS. WATERPROOF ALL FOUNDATION WALLS. INSTALL ALL PERIMETER FOOTING DRAINS AND CONNECT TO EX.CB, NOT TO DETENTION SYSTEM. PARTIALLY BACKFILL FOUNDATION WALLS. INSTALL ALL ROCKERIES. INSTALL UNDERSLAB PLUMBING. POUR CONCRETE SLABS. COMPLETE BACKFILL FOUNDATION WALLS. INSTALL DOWNSPOUT PERIMETER DRAINS AND YARD DRAINS. CONNECT TO DETENTION SYSTEM. FINAL GRADE AND PAVE. UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPING, REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AND CLEAN UP SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. Z20 .ArNS SPECTI WATER -SIICE REaUIREge CALL 771=0235 0ADI NG QUANTITIES GUT - 431 GY ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL FILL- Z31 GY N•12 ADS Sch 40 PVC SDR 35 (ASTIR 03034) 197:00 220.00 215 �_---. ._ -------- ---- - 210 - __. 'RAGE WALL PROPOSED GR i 205 r - - - - TRENCH DRAIN GRADE -.ROVED BY CITY FOR LOT 7 200 195.52 -�1^ EX: GRADE .F. EL. 194.8 . 19 (GARAGE)_ 190 DRIVEWAY PROF-IL_E SCALE: V _ 20' 'DLLED CURB 219.95 EROSION/SEDIMENTATION NOTES ALL LIMITS OF CLEARING AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS Io" DESCRIBED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD AND /111x G;; 4 r-4 TIC - OBSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. Peft.of TPewui t%CAIW BY nl K,AIA;t!•OU1 I 6461rIG IW'ff-etWl"Lr ALL REQUIRED SEDIMENTATION/EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE I I Plrr✓ G EiaIWe co. CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/OR �• I I I oeatltt. OTHER CONSTRUCTION TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES L NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ALL EROSION AND 5. SEDIMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ON -SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. THE [�MI2 vIEW IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS TO EROSION / SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE. T��lGN p�Al�l 17�TAIL No hGAI E THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON - THIS DRAWING ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO MEET ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND Z'Ix 7" WELVED WIr-E UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE PAI3RIG SHOULD ANTICIPATE THAT MORE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION riL-f6IC FAt31I✓'IL t'IA ('t- CONTROL FACILITIES WILL BE NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLETE n_ r'l l ti✓A FI 1 �o oIE EA LAMC- ANP AiE- t �V YARD MIN MAIL ND !wa : fI L,E Or- tilE• eIW6 (fYPIGALl-� z SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF u>•al 11 II 1 CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF 2X i i 1 I 1 II THE PERMITTEE TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE I" - I V WA4HE0 ZU6,LAS CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, 6AiZAV5L• Or FIE Olt11 I' I OVER AND ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEDED TO 4 SEA 4 AV6L. e0UAI- 1 PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE Ll II II 11 RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ANY DISTURBED AREA WHICH HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR MORE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS L'UKY IrlLfEK PAl3KIG PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT IN 6rKAVEL-LINED APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR IN QUESTION. GRASS SEEDING ALONE f�ENGH WILL BE ACCEPTABLE ONLY DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THRU SEPTEMBER INCLUSIVE. SEEDING MAY PROCEED OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PERMITTEE, BUT MUST BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING, OR OTHER TREATMENT APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. MAINTENANCE SILT FENCES AND FILTER BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. SHOULD THE FABRIC ON A SILT FENCE OR FILTER BARRIER DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE END OF THE EXPECTED USABLE LIFE AND THE BARRIER STILL BE NECESSARY, THE FABRIC SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH STORM EVENT. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROXIMATELY ONE- HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE SILT FENCE OR FILTER BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED, SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED. GENERAL NOTES ALL ROOF DOWNSPOUTS AN ,...H Al Imo- ► '�''f'��� lJ I1 I i- II q-' O.G. �U U U zoulo( wf-f4M or rit,1 �c zAOr-16 MAf'L. IN I' X P G re6NGN NO SGAL-E SYSTEM SEPARATELY. D FOOTING DRAINS WILL BE TIGHTLINED TO THE DRAINAGE GUM 60WIMU61I0N MUAW WAIL NO SCALE NO CONCENTRATIONS OF STORM RUNOFF WILL BE DISCHARGED TO GROUND SURFACE. ALL SITE WORK IS TO BE CONDUCTED DURING DRY WEATHER. IN THE EVENT OF RAIN, ALLtt,>Fltio. �` "" EXPOSED SLOPES WILL BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC AND THE EXCAVATION KEPT DRY BY a�IPL ;w �r PUMPING OR BY OTHER POSITIVE DRAINAGE MEASURES. I 1 x I PUGET, p GET p F jry z O I I a cPoo ,.tiN lEY, VIEWIAND EXCAVATION WILL BE PERFORMED WITH LIGHTWEIGHT EQUIPMENT. - -- - +- - - -� - -SaNSE•r af, '------- 1 PARK A GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WILL BE RETAINED TO MONITOR ALL SITE WORK. NO CUT SLOPES ON THE SITE SHALL EXCEED: 2HAV TEMPORARY _ _ FERRY fDMON 3H:1V PERMANENT 1 �NDPARK'ER 1 1 ry20 A CONTINUOUS DRAIN WILL BE PLACED ALONG THE OUTER BASE OF THE FOOTINGS AND 1 e i 524 TIGHTLINED TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THE DRAIN WILL CONSIST OF A FOUR (4) INCH i Kip DIAMETER PVC PIPE WHICH IS BACKFILLED WITH AT LEAST EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES OF PEA ` - - - - t- - -- - - - - - - GRAVEL. I K ._ 1 MARINA BI,[OER -� U 1 1 aL0 Q NO SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE. ! P e? Tod o Q Q tailbtlFf cc = O� SANC7UARV M HOWELL v' loll. 51��9- /Y1f7"/ 771`J Cl�,�'I71�CA1+ ' ERRI �fOWARD_ 2t87H ST PARK' Pi DWARO F3 a HSW .. ... FOR ----------a----- ,'-gym ^`°- y 1 DST SWQ =a 1- I e y PL 1 Ir Z D< ^ RELLA IUM V161MITY MAP 'APR 2 91s9 No yGALE L 0" " T 8 H A R" B00"R H I L Lo" k '4e.t'I3i ub 1, ".L'' ; I MIN ziu, U GRADI DRA11NA%G%E&E0R`Q`0%1 14 W M%J 4-ZI.14 AVDED SCHEDULE 4 P&OfILE Ul/li�W G( AVING 4 DETENTION ERICH 0. TIETZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 121 5th Avenue N., Suite 205 Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 771•-6219 w-7 "-owe a7401,41 01(oll-bov -i� (9// 5 lei SE CORNER OF WA.11,( At",