Loading...
16105 75TH PL W.PDFlill iiiiiiii 6068 16105 75TH PL W ADDRESS: ) w 05 - I p TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: On �5) 3106$ 00 lOCC) BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): (JU U- Q �35U V COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: 1--bLlb 'nwlU 1 l CRITICAL AREAS: 0 ` DETERMINATION: [-]Conditional Waiver XStudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:�� PERMITS PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: 6 0510cp SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:I31 Ili SEWER LID FEE $: LID SHORT PLAT FILE: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: _ 6-yL SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: I2o05- STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LOT: BLOCK: L:\TEMP\DSTs\Fonns\Street File Checklist.doc I 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 "?C. 1 r.y., STATUS: ISSUED r• „ ; fir, " �Ezp�rafi"Da'ke' 7/6/2007 F a Project Address 161;65 75,�TH�PL W, EUMO;NDS' Parcel No:00513105800600 PROPtWONVNER APPLICANT CON7RACTOR TUNG K T IFFANY BUl 4D ARCHITECTS STREAMLINE HOMES 18811 ISF I'L W 1414 MARKET ST 18811 1ST PL W BOTHEi 1..'WA 98012 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 BOTHELL, WA 98012 425-34 �-: 8n4 425-576-1414 LICENSE it: SI-REAHL944JC EXPA/3/2008 C DESCRIPTION ESLI-IA SFR LOWER l ! r?OR:427 SF WITH 840 SF GARAGEAND 581 SF UNHEATED STORAGE MAIN) LO;1R 2532 SF WITH 456 SF C,ARAGE 492 SF ROOF DECK, COVERED TERRACE 248 SF AND 79 SF COVERED PORCH. UPPER FI. .0OR 1970 SF W11-H 198 SF DECK. VALUATION: $529,892 PERMIT I YPI:. Residential PERMIT GROUP: 64 - Sinele Family Residence New GRADING Y CYDS: 3240 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB RETAININ(; WALL ROCKERY: Y OCCUPANT GROUP: R3 OCCUPANT LOAD: FENCL ^: ( 0 X 0 FT.) CODE: 2003 OTHER P' ------ OTHER DE -SC: ONE: RS-20 NUMBI it sIF S'fOR1ES: 3 VESTED DATE: NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: FXISTING AREA BASEMI=NT.0 ISTFLOOR: 0 2NDFLOOR: 0 PROPOSED BASEMENT:427 1SrFLOOR :2532 2NDFLOOR:O 3RD FLCC!R 0 GARAGE: 0 DECK: 0 OTHER: 0 3RD FLOOR: 1970 GARAGE: 1296 DECK: 1017 OTHER: 581 or FRONTSErBACK SIDESETBACKSETBACK REQUIRED 25 PROPOSED:29 REQUIRED: 10/35 PROPOSED:37 REQUIRED:25 PROPOSED:25 HEIGHT ALLOWED:25 PROPOSED24.125 REQUIRED: 10/35 PROPOSED: 18 SETBACK NOTES: Replant per Landscape flan prior to final. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND SI'ATE LAWSREGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND IN DOINGTHE WORK AUTHORIZED THERI=.BY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATINGTO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. HISAPPLICATION (SNOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIS/HER DEPUTY AND ALL FEESARE PAID. ATTENTION FI-IS UNLAWFUI.10 USE OROCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCRIRE UNllL A FINAL INSPEC'110N HAS BEEN MADE AND iPPRO\lAI- R A CER"11FICATE OF OCCUPANCI' IIAS BEEN GRANTED. LTBC109/ IBCI 10/ IRCI 10. ARCHIVE APPLICANT ASSESSOR OTHER C,—,VfX `t, BLD20060556 CONDITIONS • REQUIRED SPECIA L INSPECTIONS FOR THIS PROJECT: 1) START OF WORK LETTER FROM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD 2)GENERAL SITE MONITORING BY GEOTECH OR RECORD DURING WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION 3) SOIL BEARING VERIFICATION 4) STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 5) ROCK ERY/RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCT -I ON.INCI.UDING DRA INA GE 6) FOOTING DRAINS AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 7) FINAL GEOTECH CONSTRUCTION REPORT • REPLANT PER LANDSCAPE'- PLAN PRIOR TO FINAL • Site Restoration Bond S50,000 posted 6/27/06. • Lot line stakes must be in place at the time of foundation/setback inspection. • All new. extended. re -built or relocated electrical utility and/or service shall be placed underground. • Approval ofthis foundation design is conditional subject to inspection of existing site soil conditions. Retaining Walls must be designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure of the retained material. Provisions must be made for the control and drainage of surface water around buildings. • Installer shall provide the manufacturer's installation, operating instructions; and a whole house ventilation system operation description. A label shall be affixed to the whole house timer control that reads "Whole House Ventilation" (see operating instructions). • Maximum I-leight 25 feet. Measured from average elevation of undisturbed soil at comers of extended building rectangle. Subject to field check by building department. • Special inspections have been called for on this project and are noted on the approved construction plans and building permit. It is the owner and/or contractors responsibility to assure that reports are provided to the City on a weekly basis. Be advised-- ifspecial inspection reports are not forthcoming, the Building Official may issue a "Stop Work" and no City inspections will be provided until such time as the reporting agency has complied and reports are reviewed and approved by the City. • Hose Bibbs (exterior faucets) are required to have a permanently affixed anti -siphon device installed. • In addition to the required pressure/relief valve, an approved listed expansion tank shall be installed on all hot water tanks. Per UPC 608. • Type B or L vent connectors required on fuel-buming appliances passing through unheated spaces. Per IMC 803.2 • Obtain Electrical Permit from State Department of labor & Industries. 425-290-1309 • Pursuant to UPC 605.2 a water service shutoff shall be installed on the water line as it enters the building. • Gas pipe test must be observed by City Building Inspector, affidavits shall not be accepted. • City approved plastic piping may be used in water service piping provided that where metal water service piping is used for electrical grounding purposes, replacement piping shall be of like materials (UPC 604.8). A state electrical permit and inspection is required if electrical grounding is altered, removed, improved, or added. Contact State Dept. of labor & Industries Electrical Division at 425-290-1309. • Submit all special inspection reports to the City Building Inspector on a weekly basis. • As required by Ordinance #2661 the geotechnical engineerofrecord shall monitorthis site during construction forcompliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report including: site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundation including piles, soil bearing capacity, subdrainage installation, soil compactions, and other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Specific recommendations contained in the approved geotechnical report must be implemented by the owner. The geotechnical engineer shall make written. dated reports on the progress of the construction and submit the report to the Building Official on a +yeekl+ basis until all site grading, drainage, foundation and associated ground work is complete. Omissions or deviations from the approved geotechinical report and/or approved plans or specifications shall be highlighted and immediate) submitted in a seperate letter to the City for review. The City shall be advised in writing of work stoppages of more than one week. In addition to the geotechnical monitoring, special inspections based on the provisions of IBC Section 1704 are required when specified on the approved plans. Other special inspections may also be required by the geotechnical engineer, architect, or structural engineer of record (refer to approved plan set). At the completion of final site grading and all permitted structures, a final geotechnical report, prepared by the geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the Building Official. This report shall contain a statement that, based upon his/her professional opinion, site observations, and testing during the monitoring of the construction. the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and with all geotechnical related permit requirements. Any deviations or omissions in the report, plans, or specifications that occured during construction shall be addressed separately. Occupancy, final approval, or release of the bond for the project shall not be granted until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Building Official. • Any request for the modification_ variance or other administrative deviation (hereinafter "variance") must be specifically called out and identified. Approval of an+plat or plan containing provisions which do not comply with City code and for which a variance has not been specifically identified, request and considered by the appropriate City official in accordance with the appropriate provision of City code or State law does not approve any items not to code specification. • Pursuant to UPC 608 a pressure regulator valve (PRV) shall be installed near the water shutoff: • Sound/Noise originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from the noise limits of ECC Chapter 5.30 only during the hours of7:00amto 6:00pmon weekdays and 10:00amand 6.00pmon Saturdays_ excluding Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all other times the noise originating from construction sites/activites must comply with the noise limits of Chapter 530, unless a variance has been granted pursuant to ECC 530.120. • Applicant; on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns, and successors in interests, agrees to indemnify defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees. and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature; arising directly or indirectly from the issuance fo this permit. Issuance ofthis permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce any requirements of any City ordinance not limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision. • 48 hours notice is required when requesting your FINAL Engineering Inspection. 425-771-0220, em.1326. INSPECTIONS THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT TIME LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) BUILDING (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1333 I ENGINEERING (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1326 I FIRE (425) 771-0215 I PUBLIC WORKS (425) 771-0235 1 PRE-TR ATNIENT (425) 672-5755 T RECYCLING (425) 2754801 • E-Erosion ControVMobilization • E-Traffic Control • E-Storm Tight line • GStormConnect to Stub • E-Storm Detention System • E-Footing Drain Connection • E-W ater Service Line • E-Driveway Form & Slope Ver. • E-Engineering Final • B-Setbacks • B-Footings • B-Foundation Wall • B-Isolated Footings/Piers • B-Retaining Wall • B-Slab Insulation • B-Plumb Ground Work • B-First Floor Framing • B-Plumb Rough In • B-Gas Test/Pipe • B-Equipment-Mech • B-Exterior Sheathing • B-Shear Nailing • B-Height Verification • B-Framing • B-WallInsulation/Caulk • B-Floor Insulation/Caulk • B-Ceiling Insulation/Caulk • B-Sheetrock Nail • B-Building Final • B-Lath Inspection • ESLHA SPECIAL INSPEC7ONS SEEAPPROVED PLANS x It #P20 0 6,(T& Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: 2 Property Tax Account Number:?��_ 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): �, D4 S•F 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓ yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? -Y_;� ;np^�Ye- n� A 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. •J Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15%° (a vertical rise of 104eet over a .horizontal: distance of 664eet).. Hilly: slopes present on site ' of more than 15 % and less ' 3 o v c f 0 fee q� �1 1 r over a horizontal distance of 33 to-fe�fj�, d <,1ak. Steep: grades of greater than 30% .presen�ea ver a rise o 0-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). _ i c 1 1_ . .. �` ,:..... Other (please describe):IV V Site contains areas of year-round standing water: . No . ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water:_ ; Approx. Depth: What se.ason(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway —MID floodplain of `a water course: .9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs. ; mixed ✓ urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site:go For City, Staff Use Only p l' 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? Pu/ W 05 -5(v 4 . 2. Site is Zoned? R--6 - 2 0 . :3. ' SCS mapped soil°typ (s)? 3 A-1400"Od 'W- 01 M1 U ha n d1J 1 0Q m ► �' Z5 '�' �i l bOfiS 4. Critical.Areas.inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? yE `J L1 DAYP- YV'L A P i�ndic.at�y "�iw�isn Ha►2arc( %,(,A M.Ap - "LAnd�tide HA2ar,j .Aye'6L,4 5 Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? y IF 5 '• " till Q�(,�'d p,WGiA t UIU�fi Lyvy�lU w11V� ���L 1q • 1(�. `/ DETERMINATION j� STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed by: rA1V1/L(, (itj(A" Date: 12 0 Z 20 D C7 Critical Areas Check]isd3.25.2004 #P20 °f=EDO City of dmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 iaC I goo Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to His/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed ' .to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at 1 eas inventories, maps, or soil S BUILDING PENT AP. 05- Date Received: City Receipt #: 91o(-1 /'- 3 Critical Areas File #: 2 0 5 — 01 $ ;j Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to ADDlicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to .complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist.City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant .. shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site, plan; topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned, applicant; an - i er i s heirs, s, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or . part . upon false,misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its.agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE h — 12 'D.f Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorize the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the.public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to thds application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER Owner/Applicant: Name Soo I �_� Street Address -B9QgL UJA q96 /y City State Zip Applicant Representative:. Name 3'�f5 , t18 '` �v� �E , � f ?D Street Address City State Zip Telephone: ?S -345- n64 Telephone: (y 25) 1+5 1+ I 1 r t Email address (optional): (/1 Altlmail Address (optional);&"c,-t a. P Ae_c-%5 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: 16105 75"' Place West Tax Acct. Number: 00513105800600 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CA-2005-0183 Applicant: Barbara Pickens, 4D-Architects Inc. Owner: Tung Bui CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-2005-0183) During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain or be adjacent to critical areas, including a Landslide Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This site is also located in the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area and must also comply with ECDC 19.10. GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to.the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. • Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D: There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. • A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a. slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.13. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. A• ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS !p Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. • Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. • The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The. alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Gina Coccia Planner GX'I/ VW ( V"/Z/1% December 2, 2005 Name, Title V Signature . Date NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. 2 9 • PLANNING DATA NAME:_ , Fi4n.j gi." DATE: 1 / t' / 7—t- SITE ADDRt5S: I(v10S - 75- Pt, W. PLAN CHK#: 05- 5104 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: R¢inov(. tY:sfi c ar C—A SUA'Cenjr,w � 5. '� trs<vKc to lf%+r ` at%� i��la� tiaryic S9-1 ° anti Stb-"x rWh lrr : 2532"f QSG '.4Wsst ' tJ te.Y LowcA 79 ° cw-m P. ); 19.70 0 1 l98°"Ac:�c REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: jXe3 / No) g-% /9 -- MAP PAGE: 5-07 CORNER LOT: Yes / o FLAG LOT: Yes N ZONING: RS - Zo CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: 05-/93 EfStudy Required: lanAsl,'04 hAzArA a�x d-. b„ 4ST•4AApt- AA#-M .' ,a ZO'S ❑ ,l Waiver re�. -' rtp i•6,,".`,� P w, p� F. 14. j -I•Kt &.#A) Q tM 0." bCL1 Prn.N'� -, GwHMJ wii W44 ah 74•r L.X ❑ Conditional Waiver 11 SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ,,,,, ti 3,7*0 y-A, (oNJ w,q, ❑ APO list w/ notarized form i0 �-y 2"Igo 1. IA_ lk.*� I- G�,f,--. L (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) ❑ Exempt DNs "Iti'`x 2,1wo (;, 11.,?) a ,,r� �t{a++�^�)/ v 5-1tw,, �- 3�2As yti SETBACKS: t Required Setbacks: Street: 2.5' Left Side: a 3 ' Right Side: lo'/35' Rear: 25' Actual Setbacks: Street: $?' Left Side: 37 ' Right Side: It" Rear: 25' Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yet / No / DNA) Ah.., nq DETACHED STRUCTURES: Nont Sk~n ROCKERIES: Cv L, e c '-AA * r rh- Qr t+t - U �+.., 3 '-�w :� sc�na�., sw.�..:atwu - rcfil •�. w�� ti�iv.vcwJ ,t n.. n+.,t ice+ 3' aw iio:t p FENCES/TRELLISES: nm th. n. � P� (r ti"` `"`)i plMe--W.tsd3 a� BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTIN �ODTTIION: • P"�"'-L, �„ ;� �,,. ,, ,,, s,k?;� �! i���„��:,,� ��,,� A STAIRS /DECKS• 'H - • r< fue f'k� a 5� r SL' ties nar S M^h 3' µb�v+ owe" M1rtkl V.- : 4- i#+A A,'c ` • 1 — : k. �rrw,. +HCS [�c f*" a Gw� tbpc• —ot. PARKING: Required: 2 Actual: 4 *' �,,, � LOT AREA: I k. 042. ' LOT COVE 3?" 5 (,.�., )/ 2 / Z Calculations: t 8'.42 = BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Allowed: 2•S' ioS.4 ") Actual Height: 2q . 12 5 A.D.U. CREATED?: o Yes) SUBDIVISION: i H 6 % b NY,- S' , fj'ieciv /u&Av,-,Asv4 v-,"w** 7411 LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes / o OTHER: Att P\tA% 10 tK rtr.w✓rq �.S'k L!rM Qt�u la rgr4l' IQ? Pr,'vc� ocutl - PJL- 4,V 4s 9otoi 7,o364 - lo' ,n sgrr-OeAA.Y sa,t r<r •r-6eca,,e r. c«r�wry '*"k f A SF0. Plan Review By: NewB PPlanningDataForm.DOC i • #P20 • Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: ���«- Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: AG106 150" Pj• W - 2. Property Tax Account Number: ()n �j 13 j n,5- DO j,-• QQ 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): S•,F 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓ yes; no. pp ILL, If yes; how is site developed? v W A� 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). ✓ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% v%At ca�,rise,.,9f �0 feet , . over a horizontal distance of 33 to 6=feeE) tg { ,g a Steep: grades of greater than 30% present site`" a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet).`nk } Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Vi0 ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: )40 ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway _ `i10 floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ;mixed ✓ urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) / 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: " 0 ------- ------ -----------For City Staff Use Only p • 52 03Z 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? P U 4 : 05 - 5(p 4 . 2. Site is Zoned? 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? 3 * A'140i(MOd arOlve{lu hcl r►dI4 1 OayYl i 5'�5 '�• 5 t Q1 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? ye 5 Lt DA-P- YVI A iPldi �a �e,� "�YD�ibyt Hg201rd "; GA WiP = " LayldSlide H01,7,av-A )kyc a, • 5-. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? Y E 5 IJ1?,a apwda hit AUK►' &'UonP?M WiAy1 LLDtr 1q 1a. �( DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed bv: 124A I/bV UTIA" Date: 1.y D 2 20 0 g Critical Areas Checklist/3.25.2004 #P20 Of EDno City of dmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 toe I g90 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to His/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at 1 reas inventories, maps, or soil U s BUILDING PUNIT AP_ as - Date Received: City Receipt #: Critical Areas File #: 2 0 0 5- 01 g Critical Areas Checklist Fee: - $135.00 Date Mailed to ADnlicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, an tidTs7Fier ifs heirs,?ff&ff9lghs, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT fi DATE 16 — 1 Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorize th�ave plicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to th4 application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER Owner/Applicant: Name <6'8CO- 1 Ilk Street Address `Ro'71f(il A q96 I ZI City State Zip DATE Ia —/Z--DS—. . 1AApplicant Representative: T av La rc- 1 • C �G115 -1 1.�� �YCh•T�_CT� lc�G Name 345 , t%811-` Ave-,5E !A0 ( Zo Street Address ,�11 �vt,el tc.Io_o� City State Zip Telephone: ?S -34s- 5,%s( Telephone: 025) Email address (optional): Email Address (optional): ,,.��o,V c>- ri CITY OF EDMONDS 10 CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: 16105 75th Place West Tax Acct. Number: 00513105800600 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CA-2005-0183 Applicant:- Barbara Pickens, 4D-Architects Inc. Owner: Tung Bui CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED (CA-2005-0183) During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain or be adjacent to critical areas, including a Landslide Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This site is also located in the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area and must also comply with ECDC 19.10. GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. • Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. • A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.6. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. PMENT PROP, Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. • Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. • The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum often (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Gina Coccia Planner 061WWVTWVV December 2. 2005 Name, Title V Signature Date NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. 2 �T • • A 0 F E.Dp, F ti CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -.BUILT ADDRESS: PERMIT 16105 75th PL W NO. ENG20060160 CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE: NICHOLSON BUI NTS DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY: 5/03/07 E. SIBREL 5/14/07 I. ABILA OF EDMONDS ?PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTOT SIDE SEWER PERMIT FOR INSPECTION CALL is permit ,77-5=2'5`2-5—Ext. 2-21 Issue Date PERMIT MUST .BE POSTED ON JOB SITE 1. Address of. Construction �(, 1C; Il�� (�, ENNW_QoD LINE 2. Property -Legal Description (include all easements) U— 3. Single Family Residence Multi -Family No. of Units Commercial W 4. Owner and/or Builder UU 5. Contractor & License 6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Yes (If Yes Right-of- wa Construction Permit Re uired - Call Dial Di (34)6X'534f4A b fore 4 excavation) . H 7. Cross other private property: Yes No\/, Easement required - attach legal description and county easement number. H a READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN: a 4 a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on >' their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to construct side sewers in the public right-of-way. w b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each Ei installation for one year. aC. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6") side sewer line. o d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30") to any structure. e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade. of 2% (1.150) o and maximum grade of 100% (45°). 0 H f. No turn in side sewer greater than 45 (1/8,bend) is0allowed between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45 (1/8 bend) and Wye with removable cap. g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected to side sewer system. h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines through other than granular soil. i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure due to poor compaction of fill. k.. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved by the City. . 1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working days notice required. DATE: ! DATE : I certifYt at I have "read , and shall comply with the above H PERMIT FEE: U � O CONNECTION FEE: O w ** PERMIT DISAPPROVED By: Date: APPROVED FPROVED By _ Date : UST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ,w z qC z H � o a z 0 oo C °z � 3 0 o z o z �U w 0 A A od4 H u A d a O � z V ti i i Ihc.18o90 i CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 7, 2008 Tung and Tiffany Bui 16105 75" PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Building Permit #20060161 Site Address 16105 75" PI W Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bui, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Please find enclosed your refund check in the amount of $550.00. This is a refund for the payment that was made on July 6, 2006 for a water meter. A new water meter was not needed since the existing meter at the property was able to be used. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at 425-771-0220. J a En n erring c ician Development S ces City of Edmonds (425)771-0220 x1324 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 91' CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 'nc, 1 %9' DATE: Monday, April 07, 2008 PERMIT #: ENG20060161 PROJECT ADDRESS: 16105 75TH PL W, EDMONDS PROP OWNER: BUI TUNG & TIFFANY 18811 1 ST PL W BOTHELL, WA 98012 J0Dx.YlluluFIR11 D 3 i. Lion FeeYA"mFopu IRNMI1111111111111113,5111FORM E-Water Meter Fee $550.00 ($550.00) $0.00 Total Due: $550.00 ($550.00) $0.00 *FEES ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED AT SUBMITTAL -SUBJECT TO CHANGE PAYIVIFNT TRANSACTIONS: ff'. OEM ecei # ethod/Pa, , I= 7/6/2006 REC000346 Check 2573/BUITUNG& TIFFANV ($550.00) E-Water Meter Fee ($550.00) 14 i 1 Date: To: From: Subject: Vendor # MEMORANDUM 04/07/08 Duane Bowman, Development Services Director JoAnne Zulauf REFUND # 072191 Tung and Tiffany Bui Duane, Could you please sign this request for a refund check in the amount of $550.00. Tung and Tiffany Bui paid for a water meter but ended up using the existing water meter per Scott Highland. Our water meter permit number that has been voided is Eng 20060161. Linda, Please mail the check to Tung and Tiffany Bui, 16105 75`h PI W , Edmonds, WA 98026. Please deduct $550.00 out of the utilities fund. Thank you. Qinnaraly vision Director's Signature City of Edmonds cQ Community Services LL. Lu LU I w LU IL E c D 0 c (D CL X 0 U) u nA I STREET FILE .RET-URN ADDRESS: City of-Edmonds, City Clerk - 1.. Avenue North I 11111111111 IN 1111111 MI IIIII 11111 M 11111111111111 E%dmorid�; WA 9g020 28 �08i226 .20amP41SH PGS SNOH6P�ISH C UNTY, INGTQN NOTIFICATION .-.•--���COVENANT OF AND:INbEM:' MIRCATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference #: �(e'- d5 66 Grantor(s): (1) --1 .(2) Additional on pg. FIT Grantee(s): City of 9dmon s Legal Description (abbrevihtg.8) ` Sec.- ec• 3wnc9T Rng _Qtr SW OR L,ot Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) 1 e131! S764mh (2) DOSI.3l0.SRM84Z Assessor's T.aa Parcel 1D# not yet assigned CITY OF EU141(iND$ APPROVED FOR PEC:0 D1-NG i BY: �, j , DATE: 7 PAGE 'OF� Under the review procedures established pursuant to.Abl a .stato-iluilding Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City' o�.'Ed�tigdi,'--.and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the conslruction..of'a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS ot-j F00erty-do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: - .. :' ..... ....... APPROVED FOR RECOPDING .. .... BY 6DATE z6v PAGE OF Dd&iption of-Subiect Property. This covenant of notification and indemn*irjci-tiOlithof " 4-VarWess relates to a tract of land at the street address of �1Ik -i--,LrmI iA q9624(insert street address), Edm6iRdi S.1toboiWsh County, Washington and legally described as: I L MINIUMEWWWREP11 ► 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 subsidenice.or'l-49dMide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have"66eit"emitiateq by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as.,.a..'pa'rt X`!be,. process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of,4hi'FytisuJJ;&'nPr* reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are e4,nfa.inid in'Whilding permit file number q0QU-0 (insert number) on rile V"**IJb--"t.be" of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or pirqwiitions.- on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommeiida'4oIig-,of.:` APPRO ED FOR CO G BY DATE 7 PAGE OF the :Consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions mayr.equire.t ngoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may regieire medifjehogns to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future' oF••aptitipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and coi ndition:: prbpgited by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architecuadd/orrstputtural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of•-the`f{le--as.fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring. -or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice off be-iiisience'of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewedd.uring normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Departriient,••City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 9802M, 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Tlie :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 a6y andAl eases. of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees" ari-9mg.f-rom•2,nd out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their.•successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify..94d'bold..liarmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any fog, elairn,.H ib-lity or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either op= or. bff the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising-.froii-or out. of•. the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurr'ipg or v • f a R RECO GATE LPOF arising put of any ,false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS; theis, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permits,' 4. Insurance Reclalreme't _fin addition to any bonding which may be required during `th�e•� eotirse, •-U development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike oh)-speeifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coveage:.q: the amopnt apd for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financia6es6o'ntibiHties established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement'ab4vc: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Lakid. ..-This. covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches -and 'concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating : dlor initriftg 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-Ihe:City'except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintaiii.,tbe.insurance"above required. APPROV p FOR RECOR G BY DATE OV _ PAGE C.� OF D.ONE'Ais day of f' , f99_ OWNER(S) By: •.... By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory evi0enceAhat __ru l -etu I signed.lhis instrument and acknowledged it to be�/her) free and volunfMT-27 •for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this 1Co day of ml�. ..... WS �' , Ji GOLDM ap'CPAu,, TARY PUBLIC . u .•• G z My commission expir v!s-' .Q1•* fr''9TF OF WN'�` 1, WENIMBUILDINGIMEADOWWOVENANT ;. AeSe ole www.alphasub.com Surveyors and Land Use Facilitators 4727-A Evergreen Way Everett, WA 98203 Tele: (425) 252-1884 Fax: (425) 339-0269 June 23, 2006 Dear Mr. Bui, This letter is to inform you that we will be filing an Amended Record of Survey to correct a survey performed by ASPI for Melvin & Margaret Ebert filed under auditor's file no, 200103095003. This survey did not show that portion of 75th Place W. that was deeded to the City of Edmonds by deed recorded under AF #9010110124. Our amended survey will conform to a record of survey by North Pointe Surveying, Inc. P.S. recorded under AF #200404155002. We haved removed the nail & tag previously set as the southwest corner of the Ebert property and have accepted the North Pointe rebar & cap as the correct corner. Very truly yours, Jerome L. Krell CITY COPY RESUS JUN 2 3 2008 SLALO .2713wr )=,L�o matts(a-)alphasub.com CADocuments and Settings\umbaugh\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK57\Amendedros.D0C JAN-19-2005 15:24 ADAPT ENGINEERING INK _ 206 6_5_4 7048 P.02 TRY .9 2005 I� FR CHICAGO 'fi-LE 425 255 8Z79 ._.�1C�56d0S83a P.02.p4_r ..-- AESUB APR - 7 2006 ( 3UILDING DEPARTMENT 00Y OF EDMONDS { After Recording AeturD to; �•, M d NJ& nearrA. Indrsoo `• 'dr •o 9ASe RN7 acaeZKOT (nary R. Jenaay) GRUTUM. Robert A Anderson and ,Toa,en N. lenan, hoeJyepd ' and wife, In Consideration of the eonasnt of QgIntlt• 1�1p E. onaway?o A aingtt roman, to the VICAUDA GE tilt street Q eight-oF-Msy of Tlta Place Neat !n the city Of ftwads, and ( tetdve upon the Vacation of the said 74th place Rest by the )) •'•! city of adaanda, and in furthtr consideration of 6rantaeis n thviaq ;z crAptocs contest to remove oaraaiA treat on Grantees•( G, eenraY s A just claim to Crantao hot hairs property ' ��C� I aaeigne, a not►-aaelusive tangmesa and tQta 6mant to. i • Conde"los. end I Borges, and upon the foilawl ta Case,{� waal�in9ton, legally aetetlb&6 aseOP*rky In Bnobomish C*4nty, / 06 q\�! v p f i II 1 i That portion of Lots b6 And 37,• Mesoordale Daaah, va einq to the plot thereof reeordod in volume 3 of is tg, nape 10• records of 6eabosish warty, rawhingtoo, dMaar'ibed at follow# aeg40e101 at the eouthvsat carntr of said Lot $71 thence saetb 9? 35143• east along the so#therly line of said Lot 57 10.00 feet; CAep 16 59'1T' east parallel with the Ve6terly lint ea north CI the Bald Loa 56 and 57s IN feet( thence earth 87ajs•63■ vest 4.09 feet$Othence north 16 59'If• eclat al.seat; tnabee north 87035143, west 6.0 feet to intersect with the westerly line of the Held Lot 96; theme& South 16 39*17• West along the westerly 11Ae of Said Lets( S6 and 37 US.00 feet to the point of bnyyinning; TDGMXR MM the easterly one-half (l/!1 of C6a vacated 7tth p1+tMeat from tbt, Orthogly line of Lot d, bleak Is, of the raid plat of neadeMdale 8eACh to 162d Street =odthwlrt, befit the wts:tesly 11 feet thereof lying between the northerly boundary lone of the soctiatj one-half (1/2) of bat �, slack 5a, a y naadwdele beam, gs pro��tse See the sold )lat Of with the lime betweeO the sold "Des a ans�9 900 the southerly ep bwypyry lose of Lot la, aloek 5e, or the sold plat of MeadowW* betah as ojtcted easterly th on th! #am bearing as tbt sold 11'ne, such of clanks**. heent r all he heirs, ao0aessoce and @Soiqq sr'+M4nhtDrop,r lead a fastest in 8hohaeiRh Lbantlr, NatAln9tes, 4A legsl2y ao4cribe0 ac: Loch b, 7and the north Oat -we (1/2) of Lot 8 i, adoeR se n toe plat of Aatdowdalt peach, as described go*". OobTraeaftolaeesd , tChair hairs, SU90666693, end assigns (ball not be o malntaiat repair, or Improve the eaasment 1z Any Portion of It. esaatee bereb)pive an ctantea's proper6 Gasranftersollows, hsrrisslon to cot We& Coder tracts ty 131 1'ha mvltipio trunk cedar tree grnwia a iud dip located neat the Aoetbltly lZ49 floe, a lip le Old of Lot 6; Y audway between tbt easterly and waatp� Lot 6, 4 beuhdtries 121 Dne cedar tree pear the hQ9tlke■4porly career CC Gax 1 In the weatarly the -ball (V2) at tht Vacated 74th place rAetfltN7 AGABEMENi - wage i or 2 �� "U10120864 VOL.2385paF1066 OCT 1819' TOTAL P.02 t � F Hart WorkfloWTM for Public > rds Page 1. of 1 Ofi" cial Public Records Snohomish Count, Washington Docimient .D1etail County Auditor 4+ Menu • New Search • Search Results • Help Document Detail... Instrument Number: 9010120364 Sequence #: 0 Date Received: 10/12/1990 12:00:00 AM Document Type: EASEMENT Book: 2385 Page:1066 Consideration: Image: Grantors ANDERSON ROBERT A & JOANN M Grantees... JANEWAY MARY E Legal_ .Records.. # Plat Lot/Unit Block/Building Section Township Range Q1 Q2 I Related..Documents..' None found For issues with this software, please check the FAQ. Internet Public Access Module Version 3.1 Copyright 2001, 2002 Hart InterCivic, Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://l 98.238.192.100/docdetail.asp?id=TAxMA%3D%3D%21 %21 %03%130%21 %21 K... 1 /18/2006 Inc. 1890 August 12, 2005 • CITY OF EDMONDS, #TREET FILE 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Tung Bui 18811 1st Place West Bothell, Washington 98012 RE: 16105 75th Place West, Request for Waivers Dear Mr. Bui, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The City is in receipt of your letter dated July 21, 2005. As you were informed I was out of the office until August 9th and could not respond earlier. The development ordinance regulating the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area of North Edmonds (City Ordinance #2661) was enacted to provide both substantive and procedural provisions relating to the issuance of building permits. The City requires peer review to ascertain whether the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice or the practice of a particular specialty; primarily because the City lacks a team of professional engineers on staff to perform such review. Peer review also provides objective technical assistance to both the City and the applicant into the various engineering aspects of the project. Although your design professionals have impressive backgrounds, it is noted that none have extensive design or review experience in our landslide hazard area. Accordingly I am denying your request for a peer review waiver. Regarding the surety bond requirement, the reason the City requires a surety bond is to facilitate clean- up or repair if failure occurs during construction and causes damage to City -owned infrastructure. The surety bond is an expeditious way for the City to be assured that immediate action (within 72 hours) will be taken (rather than waiting for insurance claims, etc.). For homeowners who desire to post the bond (instead of their contractor), most choose to establish a frozen fund account with their lender (in this way there is no out-of-pocket expense as a portion of the loan is simply held in a separate account). Although the City has not yet experienced a failure during construction, most development projects exceed one year (through the wet season) and it is reasonable and prudent for a surety bond to be posted to protect public improvements; therefore your request for waiver denied. If you hove any further questions please feel free to contact my office at 425-771-0220. Sincerely, Duane V. Bowman. Development Services Director Incorporated August 11, 1890 ° Message a ON, Page 1 of 2 Graf, Jeannine 1610.57 140 From: Graf, Jeannine Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:00 PM To: 'negaweyesa@4darchitects.com' Subject: Preliminary Critical Areas Review To: Nega Weyesa, 4D Architects STREET FILE Dear Mr. Weyesa, In response to 4D Architects inquiry last week of whether or not the City could perform a preliminary critical areas compliance review for a proposed single family residence on a steep sloped lot in our designated Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area of north Edmonds; met with the Development Services Director and Planning Manager and the City has concluded that we can provide this service. The following information, details, and documents would be required (at a minimum) in order for the City's geotechnical critical areas peer review consultant to provide an opinion to the City Planning Manager of code compliance to the City's new Critical Areas Ordinance #3527. . Detailed Geotechnical Report (2 copies, report shall address Critical Areas, IBC, and Earth Subsidence criteria) . Detailed Topography Map at 2 foot contours (3 copies) . Detailed Site Plan showing exact proposed location of home, retaining walls, rockeries, driveway, etc. (3 copies) . Proposed Foundation Plan with projected depth of footing or piers, maximum height of walls, etc. (2 copies) . Detailed Grading Plan (3 copies) I have already provided your firm with the list of current City geotechnical consultants. Once you choose the consultant let me know immediately and I will contact them and get an estimated cost of review. The review time for all City consultants is 45 working days and the applicant is responsible to pay the full cost of peer review regardless of whether the proposal is approved, denied or approved with conditions. The City shall expect the consultant review fee to be paid upon submittal of the documents to be reviewed. Note it is possible that the review fees may need to be adjusted once the review is complete. The City shall refund any fees not expended and the City shall collect from the applicant any additional fees that are charged by the consultant. If the final decision from the Planning Manager requires a re -design and re - review by the City consultant the applicant is responsible for 100% of additional review fees. Note, the consultant that you choose for this critical areas review shall also be the consultant used for the future building permit review. It is imperative that the submittal be as complete as possible to assure a timely review and decision. If you have any questions about the City's Critical Areas ordinance or conditions of approval please contact Rob Chave, Planning Manager directly at chaveQ&—ci.edmonds.wa.us. Please contact me directly for a mutually agreeable day and time for submittal. Our office hours are Monday through Friday, 9:OOam to noon and 1:OOpm to 4:00pm. 3/22/2005 Ihc.18c�0 June 7, 1999 srR�Er ADDRESS FAHEY CITY OF EDMONDS S Fitt OR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • 7110 — 210TH ST. S.W. • EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 771-0235 • FAX (425) 744-6057 • E-MAIL: klein&i.edmonds.wa.us WEB SITE: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us Pittman Tax Service, Inc. 6324 — 18151 Place SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Subject: Water Leak Credit #3-06950 (16105 — 751'' Pl. W.) Dear Pittman: I have reviewed your account and will allow a credit for the billing period between February 22, 1999 through April 19, 1999 in accordance with our City policy. The policy states that the customer will be billed at the retail rate based upon the average water consumption for the same period during the previous year. In addition, the excess water lost from the leak will be billed to customer at the City's wholesale rate with a 15% surcharge added for administrative cost. Only one leak credit will be granted in any three- year period. Should you have any additional questions after you receive your new billing, please contact Denise Burke, Utility Billing Clerk, at 771-0241. Sincerely, zz Jim Waite Water/Sewer Supervisor JW/lk cc: Denise Burke Utility Billing Clerk wo rdata\water\cred it99\# 30695 0 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Pittman ,Jax Service, 9W. 6324 181ST PLACE S.W. LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 (206) 776-0856 May 25, 1999 Jim Waite City of Edmonds Water District 7110 210th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Waite: On April 19, the Water^District called -me, stating that the water at 16105- 75th Place W had an inordinately high meter reading. As they said the meter reader was still on the premises, I asked that the water be turned off. We now request an adjustment to the water bill because of that leak. The house is vacant, and has been for at least 5 years. The owner is over 90 years old, incompetent to handle her own affairs, and lives in Utah with a relative. Paul Williams, a local attorney has been appointed by the court as Guardian of her property. I assist Mr. Williams in accounting and taxation affairs. We also request that the sewer charge also be eliminated for the property. Sincerely, 1,��, William e4li�m�na Enrolled Agent 160 T I Ct TO PERMITTEE AND/OR OWNER ARTIAL APPROVAL 18 9 0 1 9 VIOLATION CORRECTIONS REQUIRED Permit Number Owner Job Address4Mdv / J NO PERMIT -STOP WORK -REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN PERMIT AND 1:IA AK COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT ORK. MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT OR REMOVE. �;V_q STOP WORK - UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY CITY INSPECTOR. lq- CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE: BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVLR TIIE NEXT PHASE IS STARTED; TO AVOID POSTING OF A STOP WORK ORDER, ORDER UU CORRECT, OR ABATEMENT PROCESS. JOB CARD MUST BE POSTED ON SITE AND BE VISIBLE FROM STREET. r APPROVED PLANS MUST BE AVAILABLE TO INSPECTOR ON SITE. \1 WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED. FA CONTACT INSPECTOR AND ARRANGE FOR APPOINTMENT. t7� t1 RECALL FOR INSPECTION. Or J =Z THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED WITHIN (�,�DAYS OR PENALTIES MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTIONS CALL 771-0220. lBuilding Division Planning Department FlEngincering Department Fire Department CITY OF EDMONDS _ Inspector _� J�� Date f 890.19C� CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering February 71 1995 Mr. Paul M. Williams 6324 181st Place Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 RE: 16105 75th Place West, Edmonds LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the City has received a citizen's complaint that remodeling and/or repair work is being intermittently done at the subject site without the proper City approvals and building permits. According to the County assessors records you appear as the guardian of the property and therefore it is your responsibility to respond to this letter. Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code requires that a building permit be obtained for repair, alteration, remodeling and additions on structures. If tenants are doing the work (authorized or unauthorized) it is your responsibility to obtain the proper permits or provide evidence that a permit is not required. This determination is especially critical since the. site is located in a designated earth subsidence area that has very specific and restrictive development requirements. The site was posted with a Notice of Violation on December 28, 1994 and a site inspection. on 2/6/95 revealed that the home may be vacant. Please respond in writing as to the scope of work being done at the property by February 17, 1995. From your description a determination shall be made as to whether a building permit is required. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. Thank you, .1 04 V Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan. Jaaan L-1 L.- L 0 v, R :A tr ni 1:1 ladapt Engineering, Inc. 615 — 8 Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel (206) 654-7045 Fax (206) 654-7048 www.Isiadapt.com June 22, 2006 WA05-12239-GEO Tung Bui 18811 - I" Place West Bothell, Washington 98012 Subject: Response to City of Edmonds Additional Plan Review Comments Proposed Residence 16105 - 751h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Tung, As required by the City of Edmonds Development Services Department (DSD), we are writing this letter to confirm that no footing drains are required for the standard Utility Vault No. 6070 proposed for the Detention Vault to be located near the southwest corner of the property. The planned invert elevation of the vault is 63.0-ft, which is above the planned below -slab trench drainage system with bottom elevation of 62.5-ft, as well as the approximate groundwater elevation of about 62.0-ft measured in our explorations in this portion of the site. The bottom of the "sump" portion of the detention vault, however, appears to extend to an invert elevation of 61.0-ft, which would be about 1.0-11 below the top of groundwater elevation on the area; we have verified with the vault manufacturer that this additional load is included in the standard design loading for their vault. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, Adapt Engineering, Inc. Rolf B. dyllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Tung Bui (1 pdf copy) rRES 6/ON/-??- -I JUN 27 1006 STREET FILE s� �D C UTILITY VAULT COMPANY Auburn, WA P.O. Box 588 Phone: 253-839-3600 Aubum, WA 98071-0588 Fax: 263-735-4201 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURES USING ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN METHODS VAULT: 16070 Trench SIZE: IStandard Design PRODUCTS INCLUDED: ID# COMMENTS LID #1 BOTTOM SECTION #2 BASE OF A BOTTOM SECTION #3 �nnl 1/�Anl L 9•Af1CC• (1j - AASHTO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS for HIGHWAY BRIDGES: 14th EDITION (21 - BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS for REINFORCED CONCRETE: ACI 318-02 8 AC1318R-02 I[3] - ASTM STANDARD PRACTICE for MINIMUM STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING for UNDERGROUND PRECAST CONCRETE UTILITY STRUCTURES: C857-87 PCA: DESIGN CRITERIA FOR AIRCRAFT LOADING (for wheel loading only) SHEET MS 026.02P NOTE: Code selection is predicated on most stringent design criteria and/or practical engineering science. -5 Nov-02 REs U E3 8:52:07 AM M1,51 RM �G IWON t. ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF UNDEgWOUND-PRECAST STRUCTURES Excel VER. 1 BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS AND INPUT DATA Code references are made when applicable - otherwise basic engineering practices are followed. nput nput PRINT BUTTONS >>> NOTE: PLACEMENT OF REBAR: INCHES OF COVER FROM TENSION SURFACE: pg. nput GOTO Buttons Shear 8 Moment COMPONENT CHECKLIST: LID PRODUC ID# #1 MARK WITH "X" X THICKNESS OR INSIDE HEIGHT 12.0000 Inches INCHES: 2.7500 Y N Y TOP SECTION RISER Feet Feet nput dnput BOTTOM SECTIONX BASE OF A BOTTOM SECTION #3 X WALL THICKNESS 6.1700 Feet 1.5000 Y 8.00001.6000 Y 8.0000 Inches 0.0 00 Feet 10.0000 Feet INSIDE VAULT WIDTH (Short Dimension) nput INSIDE VAULT LENGTH (Long Dimension) nput nput REBAR SCHEDULE (Printout Option) DATA COMMON TO ALL COMPONENTS: VALUE UNITS NOTES CONSIDER 2' FOR HS20 LOAI AASHTO 3.20.3 > of = to AASHTO 6.2.1 2.1 > or = to AASHTO 6' AIR = 2.833' , H2O = 6' AASHTO 3.7 AASHTO 3.22 AASHTO 3.22, = 2.17 AASHTO 3.22, = 1.3 AASHTO 3.22, = 1.3 fy 60,000.00 PSI GRADE 60 nput 'c 6,000.00 PSI @ 28 Days nput DEPTH OF FILL 1.9900 Feet On Lid nput SURCHARGE HEIGHT 2.0000 Feet Above Fdl nput SOIL DENSITY 120 PCF Dry Weight nput EQUIVALENT SOIL FLUID PRESSURE 50 PCF On walls nput EEL LOADING: "YES" or "NO" nput HS20 LOAD CONCENTRATED WHEEL LOAD LOAD FACTORS: GROUP X LOADING: gamma = 1.3 Wheel Load 16 LF YES KIPS@Ft= NOTES Spacing 6.00 LIVE LOAD FACTOR: (ACI = 1.6) DEAD LOAD FACTOR: (ACI = 1.2) SOIL LOAD FACTOR: (ACI = 1.2) 1.60 1.20 1.20 PLAN VIEW DIMENSIONS: VALUE UNITS OUTSIDE LID I BASE WIDTH 7.5033 Feet OUTSIDE LID I BASE LENGTH 11.3333 Feet INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AND SOIL LOADING (unfactored) ON COMPONENTS: "X" VERTICAL HORIZ. POSITION OF "X" 7W­EIGHT POUNDS COMPONENT Feet PSF LOAD:PS FROM TOP OF SOIL 12755.67 ILID 1.9900 238.80 TOP OF LID LID 4.9900 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 BOTTOM OF LID BOTTOM OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL TOP OF WALL 0.00 TOP SECTION 4.9900 0.00 RISER 4.9900 30102.89 BOTTOM SECTION 4.9900 8503.78 BASE OF A BOTTOM SECTION 11.1600 842.79 558.00 TOP OF BASE 51362.34 TOTAL WEIGHT OF CONCRETE BUOYANCY CHECK "Y" or "N" Y 935.56 TOTAL WEIGHT OF REBARS VOLUME OF VAULT 666 Cu. Feet 36.43 LBS REBAR per TONS OF CONCRET BUOYANT FORCE 41584 LBS. SAFETY FACTOR 1.7 MIN.=1.5 PAGE no input 6070 Trench SIZE: Stanaara ueslgn ��-•�- A SHEAR ANALYSIS OF _ BASIC DATA CONCRETE CO O REBAR: INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet 2.7500 Inch INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet ALL THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches RATIO: LENGTH: WIDTH 1.62 ONE-WAY SLAB DESIGN: AASHTO 3.24.6.1 % OF LOAD IN SHORT DIRECTION 100.00% AASHTO 3.24.6.1 % OF LOAD IN LONG DIRECTION 0.00% AASHTO 3.24.6.1 SLAB THICKNESS 12.0000 Inches SHORT SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 Feet LONG SPAN LENGTH 10.6667 Feet DEAD LOADS: ultimate ESLAB 0.180 KIPS/sq. ft. OVERBURDEN 0.287 KIPS/sq. ft. udl = 0.467 KIPS/sq. ft. I IVF 1 OAD* ultimate EEL LOADS (P) 16 KIPS IMPACT 30% EEL FOOTPRINT ON LID: WIDTH (PARALLEL TO LONG) 0.8330 Feet LENGTH (PARALLEL TO SHORT) 1.6670 Feet uii 23.97 KIPS/Foot Pu 33.28 KIPS ..u� ve1e. eur—T ENRECTION 1 WHEEL AASHTO 3.8.2.3 ASTM C857-87 0.833 + 1.75 . DEPTH OF FILL 1.67 + 1.75' DEPTH OF FILL + CC DIMENSION of WHEELS NOTES: Jr7C/1R /1•ML .aw. a 1.0781 Feet 50% of WALL + d b 1.6670 Feet LOAD LENGTH c 4.0915 Feet LOAD TO OTHER END TOTAL 6.8367 Feet SPAN LENGTH Vu(11)@"d"=%'(Wull)(b)((2c)+b)/21 u(dl)@"d"=Wudl(1/2-a) 7.89 KIPS/Foot 1.09 KIPS/Foot E = 3.04 8.98 KIPS ACTUAL Vu PER Foot b = d = 12.0000 INCHES 8.9375 INCHES WIDTH E 0.75Vc = 0.75.2•SQRT(f'c)'b'd 12.46 ACI 11A.3.1 AASHTO 3.24.3.2 KIPS ALLOW. Vc PER Foot ACI 11.1.3.1 r SHEAR ANALYSIS of UD 1 B put 6010 Trench q'd MOMENT/As 0ACIP neTA SIZE: Standard Design CONCRETE COVER TO 12-Nov hecl nput nput INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet ALL THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches RATIO: LENGTH: WIDTH 1.62 ONE-WAY SLAB DESIGN: % OF LOAD IN SHORT DIRECTION 100.00% % OF LOAD IN LONG DIRECTION 0.00% SLAB THICKNESS 12.0000 Inches SHORT SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 Feet LONG SPAN LENGTH 10.6667 Feet DEAD LOADS: SLAB 0.18 KIPS/sq. Foot OVERBURDEN 0.28656 KIPS/sq. Foot udl = 0.46656 KIPS/sq. Foot LIVE LOAD: JWHEEL LOADS (P) 16 KIPS IMPACT 30% iEEL FOOTPRINT ON LID: DTH (PARALLEL TO LONG) NGTH (PARALLEL TO SHORT) ANALYSIS OF 1 Foot WIDE STRIP n nuwsrro •n. AASHTO 3.24.6.1 AASHTO 3.24.6.1 AASHTO 3.24.6.1 1 WHEEL AASHTO 3.8.2.3 ASTM C857-87 0.8330 Feet 0.833 + 1.75 " DEPTH OF FILL. 1.6670 Feet 1.67 + 1.75' DEPTH OF FILL + 6 Feet 23.97 KIPS/Foot . 33.28 KIPS Mid -span moment multiplication factor due SHORT LON degree of fixity: coAKI CPAN r 1 a v 2.5848 4.9168 END TO LOAD (Feet) b 1.6670 0.8330 LOAD LENGTH (Feet) c 2.5848 4.9168 LOAD TO OTHER END (Feet) SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 10.6667 Feet % of LOAD 100.00% 0.00% RII (100% of LOAD) 19.98 9.98 KIPS Mull@1/2=(REDUCED BY"%of LOAD") 21.21 0.00 E short = 2.36 E long = 4.64 Mudi@1/2=(REDUCED by"%of LOAD") -2.73 0.00 Foot -KIPS at MIDSPAN / Foot of Width Mu@1/2 23.93 0.00 Foot -KIPS at MIDSPAN / Foot of Width �d@1/2 15.53 0.00 Foot -KIPS at MIDSPAN / Foot of Width = 12.0000 12.0000 Inches Width of STRESS BLOCK = 8.9375 8.3125 Inches s req'd (Neg. indicates As min.) IR 0.616 0.125 sq. Inches (min or 133% of req'd - or req'd) s provided 0.736 0.460sq. Inches EBAR SIZE # 5 5 # EBAR SPACING I 6L 8 Inches heck CRACK CONTROL: LONG WALL! INSIDE AASHTO 8.16.8.4 MAC( 145 KIPS / Inch IS 31.06 KIPS / sq. inch do 3.0625 Inches _ (2"debar spacing) PER BAR 30.63 sq. Inches 7 Actual = fs•(de'A1A0.3333 11411 KIPS / Inch MOMENT/As in LID OK no h :G r 6070 Trench BASIC DATA SIZE: Standard H INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet ALL THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches INSIDE HEIGHT 6.1700 Feet CANTILEVER WALL DESIGN: % LOAD in CANTILEVER DIRECTION 100.00% % LOAD in LONG WALL / BENDING 0.00% SLAB THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches SHORT SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 Feet LONG SPAN LENGTH 10.6667 Feet DEPTH TO TOP OF WALL .4.9900 Feet DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF WALL 11.1600 Feet LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES: ultimate E = 0.299 KIPS/sq.Ft. @°d" = 0.339 KIPS/sq.Ft. 0.370 KIPS/sq.Ft. SHEAR VALUES: @ TOP OF BASE 1.5000 Inches AASHTO 3.24.6.1 x = SPAN - "d" 5.6544 Feet Vu @ "d" = 2.65 KIPS ACTUAL Vu per Foot b = 12.0000 Inches OK d = 6.1875 Inches 0.75 Vc = 0.75.2 ` SQRT (f'c)• b • d 8.63 KIPS ALLOW. Vc per Foot SHEAR VALUES: @ END OF LONG WALL x = SPAN - "d" 9.0729 Feet u @ "Cr, = 0.00 KIPS ACTUAL Vu per Foot ACI 11.1.3A b = 12.0000 Inches OK d = 5.5625 Inches 0.75 Vc = 0.75. 2' SQRT (f'cr b' d 7.76 KIPS ALLOW. Vc per Foot ACI 11.1.3.1 SHEAR ANALYSIS of BOTTOM SECTIO PAGE 3 ,n,it 6n7n Trench SIZE: Standard Design q'd MOMENT / As IN WALL OF BOTTOMS ON BASIC DATA CONCRETE COVER TO REBAR: INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet 1.5000 Inches INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet ALL THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches INSIDE HEIGHT 6.1700 Feet CANTILEVER WALL DESIGN: STIFFNESS METHOD..AASHTO 8.6 % LOAD in CANTILEVER DIRECTION 100.00% STIFFNESS METHOD..AASHTO 8.6 % LOAD in LONG WALL / BENDING 0.00% STIFFNESS METHOD..AASHTO 8.6 SLAB THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches SHORT SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 Feet LONG SPAN LENGTH 10.6667 Feet DEPTH TO TOP OF WALL 4.9900 Feet DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF WALL 11.1600 Feet LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES: ultimate a = 0.299 KIPS/sq. Foot jWb _ ((d H / 2) 0.185 KIPS/sq. Foot +or -M ANALYSIS of 1 Foot WIDE STRIP CANTILVR BENDING BENDING BENDING AC1318-02 CHAPTER 10 SPAN LONG L CORNER SHORT L SPAN LENGTH 6.1700 10.6667 6.8367 Feet % of LOAD 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.000% Mudl due to Wa 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ft - KIPS per Foot of WIDTH Mudl due to Wb 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ft - KIPS per Foot of WIDTH Mu = 8.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ft - KIPS per Foot of WIDTH Mwsd = 6.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ft - KIPS per Foot of WIDTH b = 12.0000 12.0000 12.0000 12.0000 Inches WIDTH - 6.18751 5.5625 5.5625 5.5625 Inches As req'd (Neg indicates As min) 0.296 0.125 0.126 0.125 (min or 133% of req'd or req'd) heck As provided 0.442 #DIV/01 #DIV/0I #DIV/01 sq. Inches nput REBAR SIZE # 6 # nput REBAR SPACING 12 jInches CRACK CONTROL: LONG WALL / INSIDE AASHTO 8.16.8.4 MAX 145 KIPS / Inch IMOMENT/As of BOTTOM SECTION s = 0.00 KIPS/sq.1n. heck dc = 1.5000 Inches JOK _ (2 ' do `.bar spacing) per BAR 0.00 sq. Inch Z Actual = fs • (de * A)"0.3333 0 KIPS / Inchi 100% OF LOAD CARRIED BY CANTILEVERICRACK CONTROL IS NOT APPLICABLE PAGE 4 6070 Trench SHEAR�ANA BASIC DATA SIZE J INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet ALL THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches RATIO: LENGTH: WIDTH 1.62 ONE-WAY SLAB DESIGN: % OF LOAD IN SHORT DIRECTION 100.00% % OF LOAD IN LONG DIRECTION 0.00% SLAB THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches SHORT SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 Feet LONG SPAN LENGTH 10.6667 Feet DEAD LOADS: ultimate LV ULT 0.725 KIPS/sq.Ft. ERBURDEN 0.287 KIPS/sq.Ft. dl = 1.011 KIPS/sq.Ft. Standard Design ,M SECTION CONCRETE COVWO REBAR: 1.5000 Inch AASHTO 3.24.6.1 AASHTO 3.24.6.1 AASHTO 3.24.6.1 LIVE LOAD: ultimate (Wull only) NOTES: ASTM C857-87 EEL LOAD (P) (above lid) 32.00 KIPS 2 WHEELS TRANSFERRED TO BASE (ultimate) 51.20 KIPS 0.8330 Width of FOOTPRINT on LID IMPACT 0.00% 0.8330 WMAX DISTRIBUTION AREA 85.04 sq. Foot 1.6670 Length of FOOTPRINT on LID Mill = 0.602 KIPS/so. ft. 1.6670 LMAX SHEAR ANALYSIS: SHORT DIRECTION a = 50% of WALL +d 0.8490 Feet 50% of WALL + d ACI 11.1.3.1 u(di)@"d"=%'WudI*(1/2-a) u(II)@"d"=%*WUII)"(1/2-a) IV 2.60 KIPS 1.55 KIPS SHORT SPAN SHORT SPAN u@"d"= 4.15 KIPS ACTUAL Vu per Foot b = d = 12.0000 Inches 6.1875 Inches WIDTH ffj 0.75Vc=0.75'2'SQRT(f 'crb' 8.63 KIPS ALLOW. Vu per Foot ACI 11.3A. SHEAR ANALYSIS of SAM 6070 Trench (VI�MENT/As RASiC DATA SIZE: Standard hecl put '1put INSIDE VAULT WIDTH 6.1700 Feet INSIDE VAULT LENGTH 10.0000 Feet WALL THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches RATIO: LENGTH: WIDTH 1.62 ONE-WAY SLAB DESIGN: % of LOAD IN SHORT DIRECTION 100.00% MOMENT % of LOAD IN LONG DIRECTION 0.00% MOMENT SLAB THICKNESS 8.0000 Inches SHORT SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 Feet LONG SPAN LENGTH 10.6667 Feet DEAD LOADS: ultimate VAULT 0.725 KIPS/sq. Foot OVERBURDEN 0.287 KIPS/sq. Foot OVERBURDEN 1.011 KIPS/sQ.Foot LIVE LOAD: ultimate (Wull only) CONCRETE COVER TO REBW 1.5 Inches AASHTO 3.24.6.1 AASHTO 3.24.6.1 AASHTO 3.24.6.1 51,362 Pounds EEL LOAD (P) 32 KIPS 2 WHEELS IMPACT 0.00% AASHTO 3.8.2.3 DISTRIBUTION AREA 85.04 sq. Foot ASTM C857-87 ull = 0.60 KIPS/sq. Foot Mid -span moment multiplication factor due ANALYSIS OF 1 Foot WIDE STRIP SHORT LONG degree of fixity _r n An I QDAAI SPAN 6 SPAN LENGTH 6.8367 10.6667 Feet % of LOAD 100.00% 0.00% REACTION at END / Foot Width Mudl@1/2 3.94 0.00 Foot -KIPS per Foot Width Mull@1/2 2.35 0.00 Foot -KIPS per Foot Width Mu@1/2 6.29 0.00 Foot -KIPS per Foot Width Mwsd@1/2 4.751 0.00 Foot -KIPS per Foot Width b = 12.00001 12.0000 Inches Width d = 6.18751 5.5625 Inches s req'd (Neg indicates As min.) -0.248 0.125 sq. Inches (min. or 133% of req'd or req'd) s provided 0.368 0.196 sq. Inches (min. or 133% of req'd or req'd) REBAR SIZE # 5 4 # REBAR SPACING 10 12 Inches CRACK CONTROL: LONG WALL / INSIDE AASHTO 8A6.8.4 Z MAX 145 KIPS / Inch fs 27.11 KIPS I sq. Inch do 1.8125 Inches A = (2"dc`bar spacing) PER BAR 36.25 sq. Inches Actual = fs•(dc•A)"0.3333 109 KIPS I Inch MOMENT/As in BASE OK ZZA Wiper Zeman Associates Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting A 1rerracon Company City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Ms. Theresa Umbaugh Subject: Geotechnical Review Proposed Bui Residence 16105 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Plan Review Number: 05-564 RECEIVED J-2322 May 23, 2006 MAY 2 5 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS rREE r FIDE As requested by the City of Edmonds, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. (ZZA) has completed third -party geotechnical review for the above referenced project located within the Meadowdale landslide hazard area in Edmonds, Washington. Preliminary geotechnical review comments were provided by ZZA in a letter dated January 4, 2006. A response letter dated February 23, 2006 by LSI Adapt was provided to us. Based on our review of the provided response, we requested additional information regarding the soil strength parameters used in the slope stability analysis. LSI Adapt responded via email, which is attached to this letter. Overall, the LSI Adapt response letter adequately addresses the review comments, in our opinion. The items discussed below are listed in order of the provided response. Response Number 1: As requested, LSI Adapt reviewed their report and the previous RLA and Geoengineers reports. LSI Adapt concluded that it was unwarranted to modify their analysis as they have performed site specific subsurface explorations and analyses. While the results of their analyses may differ from other investigators, their conclusions are based on site -specific information obtained by the project geotechnical engineers. In our opinion, the analyses provided by the engineer are in accordance with requirements of the ECDC. Response Number 2: LSI Adapt provided further detail on the stability analyses performed and provided further detail on the strength parameters used in the analyses. We requested additional information regarding the soil strength parameters used which can be found in the attached email correspondence. As discussed above, while their interpretations may differ from other investigators, their interpretations are based on site - specific information obtained by the project geotechnical engineers, and, in our opinion, are in accordance with the requirements of the ECDC. 18905 33r1 Avenue West #1 17, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 ZZA• Proposed Bui Atence — Edmonds Washington Job No. 1-2322 May 23, 2006 Page 2 • Response Number 3: As requested, LSI Adapt provided a slope stability analysis for the temporary slope excavations. While there is a reduction in the factor of safety, the minimum factor of safety calculated is above generally accepted geotechnical engineering standards. In addition, the critical failure surface calculated appears to remain within the subject property bounds. Based on this information, and the fact that LSI Adapt performed a site -specific analysis, the provided response complies with ECDC requirements, in our opinion. However, due to the nature of this project, we recommend that the project geotechnical engineer monitor the slope excavations during construction. In addition, we recommend that excavation and grading activities should be limited to the generally accepted dry season (approximately November 1 to March 31). • Response Number 4: The response is acceptable. Based on our review and the provided responses by the project geotechnical engineer, it is our opinion that the geotechnical aspects of the project generally conform to the Edmonds Development Code with respect to the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard code requirements. We trust that this letter meets your needs at this time. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Kristopher T. Hauck, P.E. Project Engineer 676211."41 John E. Zipper, P Principal Enclosed: Email Correspondence (May 4, 2006) CC: LSI Adapt, Inc. — Mr. Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E. EXPIRES 1 / 24 / 1-2322 Final Review052306.doc Hauck, Kristopher T From: Rolf Hyllseth [RolfBH@adaptengr.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:20 PM To: Hauck, Kristopher T Cc: Tung Bui (E-mail); Nega Weyesa (E-mail); Khew Lew Subject: RE: Bui Residence Review Attachments: Seed - Residual strength of liquefied soils.pdf; EPRI - Residual strength of fine-grained soils.pdf %Wi 0 W Seed - Residual EPRI - Residual strength of li... strength of fi... Kristopher, We did use residual soil strength values for the lower soils within the estimated shear zone directly above the base clays, as stated in our report pg. 10 & 11; "...The cohesive soils within the landslide shear zone were modeled in the static case using fully deformed and remolded soil strength values, based on correlations between residual friction angles and the clay fraction/plasticity index. The soils within the potentially liquefiable soil layers were modeled in the seismic case as a liquefied mass with a residual shear strength estimated based on correlations between mobilized critical strength (liquefied) and equivalent SPT blowcounts (pre -liquefaction) reported by Seed et al. (1990) and updated in the 2003 Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC) publication Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework (EERC 2003-06)..." Please see attached pdf scan files of the referenced literature used to obtain the residual soil strength values used in our analysis. If any other questions, please call. Thanks, Rolf Hyllseth, P.E., L.G. LSI Adapt, Inc. 615 Eighth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 ph# (206) 654-7045 mob# (206) 786-1619 fax# (206) 654-7048 -----Original Message ----- From: Hauck, Kristopher T (mailto:kris.hauck@zipperzeman.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:49 PM To: Rolf Hyllseth Subject: Bui Residence Review Rolf, John Zipper and I spoke with K.V. yesterday on the phone regarding the slope stability analyses. For the most part, our question was what soil strength parameters were used for the stability analyses? If residual strengths were used, could you provide summary of conclusions/analysis for the values? If you have any question, please do not hesitate to call. We feel this is the quickest way to complete this process., as opposed to going through an entire round again. This way, with the additional information, we should be able to move ahead. Thanks. 1 0 Kristopher T. Hauck, P.E. Project Engineer Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc - A Terracon Company 18905 33 Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 P 425.771.3304 / F 425.771.3549 Terracon is a dynamic and growing consulting firm of engineers and scientists providing multiple related service lines to local, regional, and national clients. This electronic communication and its attachments are forwarded to you for convenience. If this electronic transmittal contains Design Information or Recommendations and not just general correspondence, Terracon Consultants, Inc., and/or its affiliates ("Terracon") will submit a follow-up hard copy via mail or delivery for your records, and this hard copy will serve as a final record. In the event of conflict between electronic and hard copy documents, the hard copy will govern. This e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it are the property of Terracon and may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The information it contains is intended solely for the use of the one to whom it is addressed, and any other recipient should destroy all copies. F1 • 0 REPORT NO. EERC 2003-06 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK R.B. Seed K.O. Cetin R.E.S. Moss A.M. Kammerer J. Wu J.M. Pestana M.F. Riemer R.B. Sancio J.D. Bray R.E. Kayen A. Faris COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY • ........_.._---- Fig. 40: Post -Failure Configuration of Centrifuge Model Dam with Sand "Core" and Clay Shells Showing Shear Localization Along Top of Sand (Arulanandan et al.,1993) Owing to the very sensitive relationship between post - liquefaction strength (S,,,r) and void ratio (e) for loose to medium density soils, even apparently minor amounts of increase in void space (reduction in dry density) at the top of a sub -layer can result in large reductions in $,r. In extreme cases, water attempting to escape from the sublayer can be temporarily trapped by the overlying, less pervious layer, and can form a "film" or water -filled "blister" at the interface between the two layers (in which case the shear strength, S,,,r, is reduced fully to zero along this interface.) An interesting early example of this behavior was produced in a centrifuge test performed by Arulanandan et al. (1993), as illustrated in Figure 40. In this experiment, an embankment was constructed with a sand "core" and a surrounding clay "shell" to prevent drainage during cyclic loading. The sand core was marked with layers of black sand so that localized changes in volume (and density) could be tracked during globally undrained shearing. When subjected to a model earthquake, cyclic pore pressure generation within the sand occurred, and the embankment suffered a stability failure. During the "undrained" earthquake loading, the overall volume of the saturated sand "core" remained constant, satisfying the definition of globally undrained loading. Localy, however, the lower portions of the sand "core" became denser, and the upper portions suffered corollary loosening. The top of the sand layer suffered the greatest loosening, and it was along the top of this zone of significantly reduced strength that the slope failure occurred. Given the propensity for occurrence of localized void redistribution during seismic loading, and the ability of Nature to selectively push failure surfaces preferentially through the resulting weakened zones at the tops of localized sub -strata (and water blisters in worst -cases), the overall post - liquefaction strength available is a complex function of not only initial (pre -earthquake) soil conditions (e.g. density, etc.), but also the scale of Localized sub -layering, and the relative orientations anrmeabiliiies of sub -strata. Thes qualities that can be reliably characterized, at this ti laboratory testing of soil samples (or "elements") of dimensions. Accordingly, at this time, the best basis for evaluation of post: liquefaction strengths is by development of correlations between in -situ index tests vs. post -liquefaction strengths back -calculated from field case histories. These failure case histories necessarily embody the global issues of localized void redistribution, and so provide the best indication available at this time regarding post -liquefaction strength for engineering projects. Figure 41 presents a plot of post -liquefaction residuallitrength (S,,,r) vs. equivalent clean sand SPT blow count (N1,60,r$). This was developed by careful back analyses of a suite of liquefaction failures, and it should be noted that these types of back analyses require considerable judgement as they are sensitive to assumptions required for treatment of momentum and inertia effects. The difficulties in dealing with these momentum inertia effects (which are not an issue in conventional "static" stability analyses) are an important distinction between the efforts of various investigators to perform back -analyses of these types of failures. In this figure, the original correction for fines used to develop N1,60,0, is sufficiently close to that of Equations 6 and 7, that Equations 6 and 7 can be used for this purpose. Stark and Mesri (1992), noting the influence of initial effective stress on %,r, proposed an alternate formulation and proposed a correlation between the ratio of S,,,r/P and N,,60,c,, as shown in Figure 42, where P is the initial major principal effective stress (dt,i). This proposed relationship overstates the dependence of S,,r on dt,i, and so is overconservative at shallow depths (dt,1 < 1 f mosphere) and is somewhat unconservative at very high it, tial effective stresses (di j > 3 atmospheres). It is also true, however, that the relationship of Figure 41 understates the influence of di j on %,r. Figure 43 shows an excellent example of this. Figure 43(a) shows the stress paths for a suite of four IC-U triaxial tests performed on samples of Monterey #30 sand, all at precisely the same density, but initially consolidated to different effective stresses prior to undrained shearing. (The sample void ratios shown are post - consolidation void ratios.) As shown in this figure, the samples initially consolidated to higher effective stresses exhibited higher undrained residual strengths (Su.,). The ratio between %,r and P was far from constant, however, as shown in Figure 43(b). The influence of dl,t on S,,,r (and on the ratio of $,,O) is a function of both density and soil character. Very loose soils, and soils with higher fines contents, exhibit Su,, behavior that is more significantly influenced by dt,i than soils at higher densities and/or with lower fines content. At this time, the authors recommend that the relationship of Figure 41 (Seed & Harder, 1990) be used as the principal basis for evaluation of Seed et al. (2003) 41 lob a so S °z Z sa �W Cr a -- Lc! 40 :J m� 0 ,E U 20 • MEASURED SPY AT:p CRITICAL 5TRENGTM DATA * E.S11MATED SPt AND CAI11CAL STRENG11i DATA C] COrrSTRUCTION INDUCED LIGUEFACAON -• C%TIMATED DATA 12 16 20 24 EQUIVALENT CLEAN SAND BLOWCOUNT Fig. 41: Recommended Relationship Between S,,,r and Ni,60,cs (Seed and Harder,1990) - 0.5 cO 2 cc s 04 Ir N 03 ir UJ W U W 02 U LU T o.t • MEASQREP SPT AND UN:BAINED GRITWAL SIREN-�TTI OAIA cT E511091(0 SPi AND UNDRMN{D CRITICAL STROMH DATA. GCn�:STRuc liOr� VOUCf.D LIMErACTION -. ESnuATtl) OAIA X1-1D v RASLE 2) 20 it � 4. 12. 16 20 24 28 EGLAVALENT CLEAN SAND SPT SLOWCOUM; (14140-cs Fig. 42: Relationship Between S,,,r/P vs. Ni,60,cs as Proposed by Stark and Mesrl (1992) in -situ SU,r for `relatively clean' sandy soils (Fines Content < 12%). For these soils it is recommended that both relationships of Figures 41 and 42 be used, but that a 5:1 weighting be employed in favor of the values from Figure 41. Similarly, a more nearly intermediate basis (averaging the results of each method, with 3:1 weighting between the relationships of Figures 41 and 42) is recommended for very__ silty soils .(Fines Content > 302 . For fines contents between 12% and 30%, a linear transition in weighting between the two proposed relationships can be used. It must be noted that engineering judgement is still required in selection of appropriate post -liquefaction strengths for specific project cases. Consideration of layering and sub -layering, permeability/drainage, and potential void redistribution, and the potential for confluence of alignment of layering interfaces with shear surfaces must all be considered. For most "typical' cases, use of %.r values in the lower halves of the ranges shown in Figures and 42 (with due consideration for weighting of the ppears to represent a suitably prudent range for most engineering purposes at this time, but lower overall average post -liquefaction strengths can be realized when layering and void redistribution combine unusually adversely with potentially critical failure modes. Finally, a common question is "what happens at Ni,6o,cs values greater than about 15 blows/ft.?" The answer is that the relationships of Figures 41 and 42 should be concave upwards (to the right), so that extrapolation at constant slope to the right of N,6o,ca=15 blows/ft should provide a conservative basis for assessment of Su,r in this range. As these projected values represent relatively good strength behavior, this linear extrapolation tends to be sufficient for most projects. It should be noted, however, that values of %,r should generally not be taken as higher than the maximum drained shear strength. Values of S,r higher than the fully -drained shear strength would suggest significant dilation. Dilation of this sort tends to rapidly localize the shear zone (or shear band), and so reduces the drain path length across which water must be drawn to satisfy the dilational "suction". As these distances can be small, rapid satisfaction of this dilational demand is possible, and "undrained" (dilational) shear strengths higher than the drained strength can persist only briefly. Accordingly, for most engineering analyses the use of the fully drained shear strength as a maximum or limiting value is prudent. Similarly, the maximum shear strength cannot exceed the shear strength which would be mobilized at the effective stress corresponding to "cavitation" of the pore water (as it reaches a pore pressure of —1 atmosphere). The above limit (to not more than the fully -drained strength) is a stronger or more limiting constraint, however, and so usually handles this problem as well. 5.0 EVALUATION OF AN7,CIPATED LIQUEFACTION-INDI CED DEFORMATIONS AND DISPLACEMENTS 5.1 Introduction: Engineering assessment of the deformations and displacements likely to occur as a result of liquefaction or pore -pressure -induced ground softening is a difficult and very challenging step in most projects, and this is an area where further advances are needed. 5.2 Assessment of "Large" Liquefaction -Induced Displacements: For situations in which the post -liquefaction strengths are judged to be less than the "static" driving shear stresses, deformations and displacements can be expected to be "large"; generally greater than about lm., and sometimes much greater. Figure 44 shows examples of global site instability corresponding to situations wherein post -liquefaction strengths are less than gravity -induced driving shear stresses. These are schematic illustrations only, and are not to scale. Seed et al. (2003) 42 �a As �.pp `�1v°i$�;x"' fDDCP'nyi�N pt7'Fi� C o pp�p 0'E. p 1�'• poi .�r ^ O C7 r. tii fD att' CI �(9 d0 pSa`aaa �a(p f �> .t'�M , Za oaEty0Qa OoO�GrooO- .o vp..y n� �rl ., 8 o'E b Cnp •. D p NN .y cD P+ cD ti �p p�{lyD O R. �y' Vi O l/1 O C. 00''* 0$ N `Ca d (n ~ N ,`� �F• "� rp �'• v(9i1 0p N ° •F p � a' p' t/i _ P Er � G .4 O Cr � " py. O r'�' ii+• � . y °10 ° z o$z�c~^v� $ a�': 0Dy'��'rw� o D• g' (App o °'",-, fD ��fo d fD C/� ro-p� [�'N� voi Oti F7' ,C A�� a C7t Ct C . "� p. cP O Co r. O cD �, c o $o � A p� b °ateopa�I�y" co " + �' av'0 S 0. acc R. o p o � CL a y �� 9 0 �• . ey con. ¢' a. a " o a F� N o "' 8 v, O p> tr�o8qa?co N oCO MC9 O a- ti " - 0�o�..o�p r»,o . ppi7 pCGp ,.� ,�1J OCID `r' C t-n•:� �'. s H►'fpoNO0cCO•*,�.< 0opp�Noa � ~ y O Q• OR cr CA 0 coCD085'0 S�(cco co lii cv cb •,oa�cop to�'�rnr'�'.f9aococoaoii. in'.^:co.,H RESIDUAL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, S, (psf) m O C n r � M r m a, a z W a z v En N m O C z z Fl 9 H pOWz oMp�°• �. ap1ppq���.e,aoO,��Oa C 5?OC,R P'p UZI200-m �. �w'tirco M V1Er�.�n�y o , ��ofr o noao w coo " �' � VQ oo a �, o c. to '..g ►, � o' ►n � es13 3 'o 0�n w cD O co ao.a; �•�ry M o�a.� w N p ti p� (A Won Gro on ai d^�' Er o. •�, ~ p o rL OrQ z � N00 ..r ._ •�.. � �. .�_.. . .. .. ... .. �. .., �5..�3. is^v :Je•�c: .•.5. +`l.. c: �t :��tw�iK'.- ,i��=:�.: r+-��^Yai w� ,t • O W ctA�� `� N ti O F p 9 g.fp . (D in' R - O N b tl K' Rp 903 OR 0= CosCp y 'vN N. t.,CD °� spy o Ear Z 00 OR cp � av a C �y p N Q % Nt o,b < C on.1 � co p � ��^ Naafi '•n <p 6co �• C o° o vo o °' Oil vt C. tryf O Ypt c, Cp�pp '47 rb � � N 0 r' O CD �� Z+ MINIS, 3 2 s 9 9 -F y VA ffi aa� 21 s a sa wa P s 1= a a& s a ricp co W�S� �� spctp .lm° � �O° ►np(tDD bc".o,^`gyp' �"�' i�'^+ ' ApG��Cs .VyFCiD' , � ftipm0y , F�CcDY�f0o y ���O,O� "'_'p�A" wpGr I'll r+.0 °taa O r�a'o ° po "Q t rrC/�E' p H p''dEo 0.b,n �A yM ►,sO OarP D �M C'n cp � � '•pp`°'O�p+� cn CD ov 0 0� rcp� rc ,itorC.ri m A,cCFQ oo�p�rnp x�vs � '" o o p o ct y Cp ' �y O� F+ cp t y d ��'. p y rn N O r+ M Oct ; �ty/}rn�� M [l7 `y o Cp �, ty '! �•' ° p4 r+n G ^ C CpS.►�. ° r•�r p cOp G"Y'a,�: ��.c'ti ►+,gyp O'sCO) C cPn'r1 t" ►e cAn p, °. true �" G a ., p�� �, r— ?y P ° Q i� $A (� p b ..ao p � � O �p C �, a p O A go V 00aC ! cp Cp y p�• cp � � O. Ycp � C' yy 47 C O . a 0gd 10e. � ;'• 1 ocrlo. pq o tlDi � Cf' � `�Ofpd 0 O n ' = n p n' ►�i �1' p :� ni �. O� '�1 Q'g t�D A dj p (� oOOoC� `rid' M G �7i�. o a °+ r� �,. � ° go a o C7 "c,o� CryfD •e:;�•p°dam .oto ff 9"o tD I 1 0 m 0— P Opp �.b a dt o rr p� pgco ►• t/i O c► 7c F*+4 8 0 iii' gyp co C d Ma N. M .`i .w �... Mt :! ~.C�p A' Off. . /f"i' .. - Hf Vi - :y `C 0, 1.4 �-1 rA '. H co i_� W EPRI Electric Power Research Institute L J Topics: Soils Testing Foundations Transmission towers Transmission lines Design EPRI EL-6800 . project 1493-6 Final Report August.1990 Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design Prepared by Cornell University Ithaca, New York a Table 4-5 RELATIVE VALUES OF EFFECTIVE STRESS FRICTION ANGLE FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED COHESIVE SOILS Test Type Triaxial compression) (TC) Triaxial extension (TE) Plane strain compression (PSC) Plane strain extension (PSE) Direct shear2 (DS) Friction Angle (degrees) 1.0 etc 1.22 etc 1.10 etc 1.10 (for PSC/TC) x 1.22 (for TE/TC) 1.34 etc tan-1 [tan Op., cos 'cvl or tan-1 [tan(1.10 etc) cos �cv] 1 - CIUC, CKoUC, or CAUC 2 - Speculative, based on results from sand it is understood that the strains necessary to accomplish this remolding may exceed 100 percent. Earlier studies of this subject may not have subjected the soil to the necessary strains, and therefore residual angles quoted in earlier sources may be somewhat on the high side. xtensive research (e.g., 27, 28) has shown that the clay fraction (percent finer than two microns) and mineralogy perhaps are most important in evaluating fir. If the soil clay fraction is less than about 15 percent, the soil behaves much like cohesionless soil, with 'r typically greater than 25° and not much different from 10cv•` If the clay fraction is greater than 50 percent, ¢r is appreciably lower than Ocv and is governed entirely by sliding of the clay minerals. For the most common clay minerals, �r ranges approximately from 15° for kaolinite, to 10" for illite, and then to 5° for montmorillonite. Soils with clay fractions between 15 and 50 percent exhibit transitional behavior, as shown -in Figure 4-24. The value of �r also is stress -dependent because of curvature of the failure enve- lope (22, 27, 29). Values given in Figure 4-24 are appropriate for an effective normal stress equal to about one atmosphere. Figure 4-25a illustrates the typical changes in �r which occur with changes in effective normal stress and plasticity 4-25 'J 40° I$ aT 30' rn c Q 0 u 200 ti _ 0 � Range for 8 field sites �\ with. PI/CF --0.5 to 0.9 Sands \ 0\ '0 Kaolin CO 0 Values of. �r at Qv /pal l 8entonite APB cn en 1!• LV -IV VV VV O Cloy Fraction, CF M) Figure 4-24. Or -from Ring Shear Tests and Field Studies Source: Skempton (28), p. 14. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Plasticity Index, PI M) b" 4° 2e �\ o - e (b) - 4el 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Effective Normal Stress, v/po Figure 4-25. �r for Amuay Soils Source: Based on Lambe (29), p. 144. 4-26 index for the soils at the Amuay landslide sites. These curves essentially are parallel, indicating that the change in Or as a function of stress change is inde- pendent of the plasticity index. Re -plotting these changes in friction angle (A - results Figure 4-25b. Other data (e.g., 27) are consistent with these 4Or values. The final values of �r therefore should be evaluated from Figure 4-24, modified for effective normal stress level as given in Figure 4-25b. UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS - GENERAL EVALUATION BASIS The undrained shear strength (su) may very well be the most widely used parameter for describing the consistency of cohesive soils. However, su is not a fundamental material property. Instead, it is a measured response of soil during undrained loading which assumes zero volume change. As such, su is affected by the mode of testing, boundary conditions, rate of loading, confining stress level, initial stress state, and other variables. Consequently, although not fully appreciated by many users, su is and should be different for different test types (See Figure 1-1 for test types.). As described earlier in this section, it is appropriate to use a standard "test of reference", which is the isotropically consolidated, triaxial compression test for undrained loading (CIUC). With the CIUC test as a standard reference, the results of all other tests can be compared simply and conveniently. It should be noted that simpler forms of,,triaxial test are available, such as the unconsolidated, undrained (UU) triaxia-1 and unconfined (U) compression tests. With the UU test, a total confining stress is applied, but no soil consolidation is allowed under this confining stress. With the U test, the soil is unconfined with a zero confining stress. Many detailed studies (e.g., 11, 23) have shown that the UU and U tests often are in gross error because of sampling disturbance effects and omission of a reconsoli- dation phase. Based on studies stie}, no t-u .u, ,..,,,. _ _ ` be the minimum quality laboratory test for evaluating the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils. Other simple tests such as the torvane and pocket penetrometer D have an error potential that is comparable to that of the UU and U tests. There- fore, these tests should only be considered general indicators of relative beha- vior. They should never be used directly for design. Since su is stress -dependent, its value commonly is normalized by the vertical effective overburden. stress (ovo)'at the depth where su is measured. This 4-27 Stoney Point Agineenny APR -7 '4;1306 March 30, 2006 rre�fi.i11t1fia� ��s�t!��'1'�siE+J"f Mr. James J. Lutz, P.E., S.E. EarthTech 10800 NE Bch Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Bui Residence Retaining Wall PV Task Order # 06-01 Dear Mr. Lutz, As the engineer of record responsible for the lateral analysis and foundation portions of the aforementioned project, I am writing in response to your letter of January 19, 2006, requesting more information on the retaining wall design. My responses are listed below and are numbered with the same format and number as they appear in your letter. 1. The driveway retaining wall has been redesigned for traffic and seismic loads. The basement retaining walls have also been redesigned for seismic loads. Please see revised retaining wall calculations sheets 16-22 of the revised calculation submittal. 2. The walls have been redesigned for the required design loads using a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for both sliding and overturning. Please see revised retaining wall calculations sheets 16-22 of the revised calculation submittal. 3. The top of the driveway retaining wall has been raised .to 18" and has redesigned to accommodate an impact load of 6000lbs at the top of the wall. The impact load has been assumed to spread out at one horizontal to two vertical. This accounts for the 15001b load at 4' and the decreasing load as the wall gets deeper. Please see revised retaining wall calculations sheets 16, and 17 of the revised calculation submittal. If you have any further questions concerning the above please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Dwayne C Barnes, PE President Stoney Point Engineering CA SRC c4,9 CO �p'Z U) 0 0779R� ISTE L P� EXPIRES: 05 / Q5 JQ 12033 SE 4016 Lane Beffevue, W,4 98006 Bhow: 425-644-9500 Ta.Z• 425-644-9509 American Engineering Corporation Engineers • Planners • Surveyors February 24, 2006 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5'h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Jeannie McConnell and Meg Gruwell AEC #0539 APR - 7 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Subject: Plan Check #05-564 Bui Residence @ 16105 75`h Place West CITY COPY American Engineering Corporation is in receipt of the City of Edmonds Plan Review Corrections dated January 18, 2006 as made by Jeanie McConnell. We respectfully respond as follows and address the numbered items as listed.in the Plan Review Corrections: The proposed detention system has been re -designed per the comment letter. The previous system utilized the "Standard Detention System" with the incorrect assumption that existing impervious surface area could be traded for new impervious surface area. Because the total new impervious surface area is in excess of 5,000 SF, the revised detention system could not utilize the "Standard Detention System" details and thus required a separate individual design. Please refer to the Stormwater Detention System Design Report submitted in triplicate with the revised Civil Drawings. 4. The catch basin proposed to be installed over the existing City of Edmonds storm drain system near the north side of the proposed north driveway has sufficient surface area to catch surface flow from the street. In addition, the first 2 feet of the proposed driveway will be back sloped towards 75`h Place West to prevent any flow that may bypass the CB grate due to surface blockage from entering the subject property. 5. The grading quantities as shown on the grading plan have been recalculated and now accurately represent the excavation and fill volumes required to complete construction. Clearing, grubbing, structure excavation, over excavation, foundation backfill and other onsite fill have all been included in the balances shown on sheet C-1. S*MEt7 FILE 4032 148th Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 881-7430 Fax (425) 881-7731 American. engineering Corporation 0 d Engineers Planners • Surveyors 6. The catch basin protection detail has been changed to a filter sock per City of Edmonds standard engineering details. See sheet C-1. 7. The existing laurel hedge adjacent to 75`h Place West will be removed as part of this project and is now indicated as such on sheet C-1. Please also note that American Engineering is in receipt of the City of Edmonds Plan Review Corrections dated January 27, 2006 as made by Meg Gruwell. We respectfully respond as follows and address the numbered items as listed in the Plan Review Corrections: 4. The grading quantities as shown on the grading plan have been recalculated and now accurately represent the excavation and fill volumes required to complete construction. Clearing, grubbing, structure excavation, over excavation, backfll and other onsite fill have all been included in the balances shown on sheet C-1. This concludes the American Engineering response to City of Edmonds Plan Review Corrections for the Bui Residence. If any of the City of Edmonds review staff has. any questions, comments or requires additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION *Cherylard. P.E. Project Engineer STREET FILE 4 D A R C H I T E C T S RECOyED NOV 112005 PERMIT COUNTER November 9, 2005 Jeannine L Graf Building Official City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Tung and Tiffany Bui Residence 16105 75th Pace West Edmonds, WA Building Permit Dear Ms. Graf, I havefbeen working with the Bui's on the design of their home and we are Y submitting this -set of documents for your review and approval. The owner has been involved in most all of the meetings that we have had where we discussed the soils and foundation engineering issues. We have discussed the issues of risk and responsibility that are associated with this site with the owners. The Bui's clearly understand the issues that are part of the site and assume responsibility for those issues related to landslide past and the future. Sincerely, 4217 REGISTERED ARCHITECT' BarbaraJ. c n ar�r�aARA �. Ptcr,�r�s Architect and P ner s1"T� of w«k�P+crow 4D Architects, incorporated T 425.451.1161 3 4 5 1 1 8 t h A v e n u e S. E. S u i t e 1 2 0 B A R B A R A P I C K E N 5 A I A, A r c h i t e c t F 425.455.4376 info@4darchitects.com Bellevue, .Washington 98005 B E N M U L D E R D e s i g n e r OI�C �6 moo. AWz et /P 17, � LSI Adapt, Inc. 615 — 8'" Avenue South 10N.1STREET FILL Seattle, Washington 4 8104 045 Fax (206) 654-7048 TI www.isiadapt.com Adap October 3, 2005 WA05-12239-GEO NOV 2 2 2005 Tung Bui PERMIT COUNTER 18811 —15` Place West Bothell, Washington 98012 Subject: Geotechnical Review of Construction Drawings Proposed Residence 16105 — 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Tung, As required _by the City of Edmonds Development Services Department (DSD), we are writing this letter to summarize our review of the geotechnical aspects of the construction drawings prepared for the above - referenced project, as well as to provide a minimum risk statement regarding the proposed development. LSI Adapt, Inc. (Adapt) previously provided geotechnical design recommendations in our Geotechnical Engineering Report -(dated May _ 23, 2005) for this project. Specifically, we reviewed the following construction documents: • Bui Residence - Drawing Set, dated September 30, 2005, prepared by 4D Architects; drawing set specifically including Foundation Plan (Sheet 3), Architectural Plans (Sheets 1.1 through 13), Civil Drawings (C-1 through C-3), and Structural Drawings (S L I through S 1.2). Project Description Development plans indicate that the new residence will be situated within the central portion of the site. The house will comprise three floor levels stair -stepping up the slope, with the lowest floor level consisting of a daylight basement with a planned finished floor level at about 66.8-feet elevation. Conventional, shallow spread foundation support, combined with subsurface, cantilever concrete walls, are proposed to provide support for the house. It is anticipated that temporary, open -cut excavations will be feasible during construction, within the given site constraints. The areas to the west and the east of the house will be, regraded to accommodate driveways, car parking, and patio areas. Limited site grading will also take place within yard areas north and east of the proposed house. The subject site is located within a documented, recent landslide area designated as the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area by the City of Edmonds. • LSI Adapt, Inc. Review Comments Based on our review of the above -referenced construction documents, we have no comments regarding the geotechnical considerations for the proposed project. In our opinion, the geotechnical aspects of the referenced construction plans adequately conform with the design recommendations given in our Geotechnical Evaluation and subsequent supplemental recommendations. It should be noted that these drawings reflect the following minor changes to our original report recommendations, as approved in our supplemental recommendations: • Subsurface Trench Drain Layout: The schematic layout of trench drains shown in our original Report Figure S — Drainage Plan (dated 5/15/05) has been changed to the layout shown on Sheet C-3 of the current plan set. The perimeter trench drain (along the backside wall of the basement) has been removed and replaced with a tighter spacing of the sub -slab trench drains, in order to achieve the same effective general groundwater drawdown. A footing drain is still planned at the base of this wall, to provide wall drainage. • Trench Drain Elevation: The bottom elevation of the sub -slab drainage system has been changed from El. 62.0-ft (proposed in original report) to El. 62.8-ft, in order to meet the requirements for a tie-in to the existing, on -site, storm sewer system by gravity. The effect of this minor elevation change on the overall efficiency of the sub -slab drainage system will be minimal, in our opinion. • _ Trench Drain Bacll: The washed rock trench drain backfill proposed in our original geotechnical report has been substituted with clean, 2 to 4-inch diameter quarry spall backfill, to achieve additional footing bearing support while still providing adequate free - draining characteristics. Provided that the recommendations of our report and subsequent recommendations are implemented, the . proposed development is considered feasible and is not anticipated to increase the potential for soil movement or adversely affect the stability of the site, the adjacent properties, or the surrounding ,areas. Our report outlines the measures proposed to mitigate or lower the current risk of landsliding as a part of the site development, including installation of a permanent subsurface drainage system to lower the current groundwater levels below the proposed residence. It is our opinion that the subject site will remain stable following development, as defined in Ordinance No. 2661. Based on our site explorations and site -specific slope stability evaluation, we concur with the statistical probability (risk) of earth movement (within a 25-year period) indicated on the landslide hazard map for the Meadowdale landslide area (Roger Lowe & Ass/GeoEngineers, 1985); this map indicates that the northern two-thirds of the subject site is located within a less than 10 percent risk zone, while the southwest corner of the site is located within a less than 30 percent risk zone. As required by the City of Edmonds, it is our understanding that Adapt will serve as the special geotechnical inspector for this project. Uctooer o, tuuu Tung Bui Page 2 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO • LSI Adapt, Inc. Closure It should be realized that our scope of work for this letter was limited to a review of the geotechnical items shown on the documents' supplied to us. Our scope did not include a check of structural calculations and other non-geotechnical items, nor does our review purport to verify the accuracy of the documents. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, LSI Adapt, Inc. Rolf B. gyllseth, ME., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Tung Bui (1) 4D Architects (3) Attn: Ms. Barbara Pickens, AIA Tung Bui October 3, 2005 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO Page 3 Applicant/Owner Liability & Landslide Acknowledgement Applicant/Owner Tung Bui is making application for building permit for the construction of a single-family residence at the address of 16105 751h Place West, Edmonds, WA. Applicant/Owner is making the following statements as required by the City of Edmonds. 1. 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 applicant 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 her/his design professionals and 2. The applicant/owner understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that they will advice, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures on the site, of the slide potential of the Area. Signature t / Owner - Tung Bui �D"2l os� Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this IS day ofGtAboe_/' , 2005. .,:COO I q-It,N, RY `�•o��pTA�N o•� : illk F OF Wp►5�.- tary Public in and f�theState of Washington Residing at M> A V6 V4—n , STREET FILE RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2005 PERMIT COUNTER • 4D ARCHITECTS November9,2005 Jeannine L Graf .Building Official City of Edmonds STREET FILE 121 5ihAve N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Tung and Tiffany Bui Residence 16105 75Th Pace West Edmonds, WA Building Permit Dear Ms. Graf, .-I am'the lead design professional and have been working with the Bui's on the -design of their home and we are submitting this set of documents for your review and approval. We have worked here, in our offices, to develop a set of plans and details that includes all of the recommendations of the soils report and the other engineering design professionals. We have read that report and discussed its findings with the soils engineer Rolf B. Hyllseth. We have submitted our plans to all of the involved engineers for their review. We have completed all of the modifications and shown all of the details that they have requested be included in the'doc'uments. Sincerely, 4217 REGISTERED ARCHITECT Barbara J. s SARSARA J. PICY.ENS 7Architect and artner STATE OF W1,SHINuTON RECE1VE[> NOV 2 2 2005 PERMIT COUNTER 4D Architects, incorporated T 425.45.1.1161 F 425.455.4376 info@4darchitects.com 345 1 1 8 t h Avenue S.E. Suite 1 20 Bellevue, Washington 98005 B A R B A R A P I C K E N 5 A I A, A r c h i t e c t & B E N M U L D E R D e s i g n e r • 0 of ED,t� G � CITY OF EDMONDS 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Addendum to (check appropriate box) 0 DNS ❑ EIS ❑ Other Description of current proposal: Correction of original grading calculations to include clearing, grubbing, structure excavation, over excavation, foundation backfill and other onsite fill. Excavation quantities have been changed from 2,200 to 3,240 cubic yards. The grading plan and design of the house have not changed. Proponent: Tung and Tiffany Bui Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16105 — 75th Place W., Edmonds, Washington Title of document being added to: Determination of Nonsignificance Agency that prepared document being adopted: City of Edmonds Date document was issued: February 3, 2006 Addendum: The above determination was made for demolition of an existing single-family home and construction of a new single-family residence of 5,000 square feet plus a three -car garage, shop, and basement storage of 1,010 square feet. Also included was 2,190 cubic yards of excavation which staff rounded to 2,200 cubic yards. After the City Engineering Division reviewed the original numbers, they requested the applicant to recalculate the grading quantities. The result was the estimate of 3,240 cubic yards of material needed to be excavated when all the grubbing and over excavation was considered, as stated above. Since the design of the house and the grading plan have not changed, the earlier review considered all the environmental impacts of this proposal, and the Determination of Nonsignificance is seen as addressing all the pertinent environmental impacts on the site. Name of agency making addendum: City of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Phone: (425) 771-0220 Responsible official: Rob Chave Position/Title: Planning Manager Phone: 425.771.0220 Address: 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds WA 98020 WAC (4115/98) CAFILMSEPAW OC-05-564.doc 5/16/06 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Demolition of an existing single-family home and construction of a new single-family residence of 5,000 square feet plus. a three -car garage, shop, and basement storage of 1,010 square feet. Also included is 2,200 cubic�yards of excavation (File No.: PC-05-564). Proponent: Tung and Tiffany Bui Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16105 — 751h Place W., Edmonds, WA Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-117-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(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. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by F_.t Zoo6, Responsible Official: Meg Gruwell Position/Title: Senior Planner - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: 2/ 31 Zaa L, Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than Fe-�6. 17 , 2006. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on Ae,s. 3 , 2006, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Pagel of 2 PC-05-564D.DOC 2/3/06.SEPA 0 Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section XX Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 410 Valley Ave NW #12 Puyallup, WA 98371-3317 XX National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Attachments pc: File No. PC-05-564 SEPA Notebook Applicant: Barbara Pickens 4D Architects 345 — 118 h Ave. SE, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Owners: Tung and Tiffany Bui 18811 —1$' PI. W. Bothell, WA 98012 Page 2 of 2 PC-05-564D.DOC 2/3/06.SEPA OF`yfi D 1�0 &TY OF EDMONAS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST St. 1 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions.. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for -Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies ' use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring.preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the"most precise information -known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you "should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not. know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. - Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.. The checklist questions apply -to all parts of your: proposal, even if you plan to.do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. .The agency fo which you submit this checklist may, ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information seasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. new traffic will be required to submit a Traffic Study prepared by a licensed Professional Civil Engineer. NOTE: Projects generating Specific requirements for the Traffic Study mayvary depending upon the project, and will be provided by the City Engineer upon request. Please contact the Engineering Division at 425-771-3202 for specific study requirements. City review of the Traffic Study may require assessment of the "Development Project Peer Review" fee of $45 plus the cost of the review. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, thejeferences in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or. site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. CONCURRENT BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION P/C SC� PZAVA,r-T ;�_733 RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2005 PERMIT COUNTER A. Background 1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable: Tung and Tiffany Bui Residence 2. Name of applicant: Tung and Tiffany Bui, owners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Tung and Tiffany Bui Contact Person: Barbara Pickens 18811 1st PI. West 4D Architects Bothell, WA 98012 345 118th Ave SE Ste. 120 425-345-8864 Bellevue, WA 98005 425-451-1161 4. Date checklist prepared: October 17, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction in Spring 2006. Work should take 12 to 18 months. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Landscape work 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. This site is part of Meadowdale Slide area. The city has numerous documents explaining and documenting this. We have had prepared a geotechnical report by LSI Adapt Inc. dated May 2005. Also see final review letter dated October 3, 2005. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 2 of 19 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. I know of none. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. We need a permit to construct a single family residence and all related grading, plumbing, and electrical permits. 11. Give brief complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) We propose to demolish an existing single family residence and detached shed. Both are wood frame structures. Hazardous material inspections have been completed and clean up completed. We propose to construct a new single family residence of 5,000 square feet plus a basement three car garage of 797 square feet plus a shop and basement storage of 1,010 square feet. This new structure will be two stories and a daylight basement. We are within all zoning envelope requirements. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 16105 75th Place W, Edmonds, WA, Snohomish County. Lots 6, 7, and one-half of Lot 8, block 58, including vacated part of 74th Place W. Tax Lot # 005131-058-006-00. Section 6 T27N R4E SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 3 of 19 • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. Environmental elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle or check one): ❑ Flat ❑ Rolling X1 Hilly ❑ Steep slopes ❑ Mountainous The property is approximately 41 % of an acre or 18,041 square feet. The property fronts on a developed public right-of-way - 75th Place W. The property slopes uphill from the right-of-way. It has previously been developed with a single family residence and outbuilding. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of slope 20% along the north property line. The steepest section of the site is at the northeast corner of the lot, where it raises 14 feet in 40 feet. We do not propose to work in this corner of the lot. c. What general types of soil are found on the site (i.e., clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Please see soil report, boring logs. Sands at top, going to silty clays, to silts, to sand, underlying clay. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so describe. This is land that is designated as part of the Meadowdale Slide Area. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. We will be excavating 2,190 cubic yards of material from the site. We will be filling 15 cubic yards of materials as approved by the soils engineer. Back fill at footings will be as approved by the soils engineer. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 4 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, erosion could occur during construction. Please review sheet C-1 for erosion control measures. This design was completed by Cheryl Girard, civil engineer. �hu+t 1 Z (- Z w e ror a+*aN.3 is 'h. l c A.,& It kc g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (i.e., asphalt or buildings)? 39.6% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces at the completion of the project. The home's footprint will be 3,185 square feet. Drives and terraces will be an additional 3,370 square feet. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any: During construction we will be installing and maintaining a construction silt fence on all downhill section of the site, and a temporary catch basin protection. See sheet C-1. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known? Exhaust emissions from trucks, excavators, and other equipment is expected. We do not expect to do any burning at the site. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None we are aware of. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 5 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: We will be using standard construction practices. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Puget Sound is down hill from the site approximately 300 feet west. There are no streams, lakes, or wetlands around the site. 2. Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckI-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 6 of 19 10 0 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known? No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground 1. Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known. We are installing a subsurface drainage system, see sheet C-3, designed by Cheryl Girard, civil engineer. No water will be discharged to ground. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (i.e., domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals:...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. This single family residence will be connected to the local sanitary sewer system. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 7 of 19 10 .• TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any. Include quantities, if known. Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? if so, describe. We will be collecting all surface water run-off into a detention system, then discharging into the existing city system. A S10rm Ara;`-, 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. It is possible for oil to leak onto the impervious driveway then into the detention system - we are installing a sump area and a limited orifice. See sheet C-2. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: During construction, see sheet C-1. After construction we will have completed the system detailed on sheet C-2. These systems should control ground and surface run-off. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ® Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® Shrubs: rhododendrons and others ® Grass ❑ Pasture ❑ Crop or grain ❑ Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑Other SEPA Checklist Ic-ckI-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 8 of 19 0 • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most all of the site will be cleared of vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. We know of no endangered or threatened species. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A landscape design will be developed toward the end of the construction phase. At that time we will have a better idea as to final grades. 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ® Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: standard local birds ❑ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: none ❑ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: none b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 9 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Domestic water heating and space heating will be done using natural gas. There will be supplemental electric air conditioning. We do not anticipate installing any solar or other alternative energy systems. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, our project is centered on the property. All shading should occur on our property. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: We will comply with all state and local energy codes. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 10 of 19 0 0 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (i.e., traffic, equipment, operation, other)? This is a single family residential neighborhood and as such does not appear to have sources of noise beyond household sounds. Exot, (� 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (i.e., traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. We will have equipment present at the site intermittently during construction. We will limit operation of equipment to the city -required limits. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: We will see that the equipment is maintained in good working order. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 11 of 19 0 • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Single family residential is the current site usage and all neighbors' properties are single family residential. There is an abandoned marina on the water to the west and south. ta� - us b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. A single family residence and a shed. Both are wood frame construction and quite old. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, both the single family residence and shed will be demolished e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Single family - RS20. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family residential. S F"av- P.i W-a. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 12 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, the site is part of the Meadowdale Landslide geotechnical environmental hazard area. Ana P, C Nr 4( Erat.a. 1 fr3.�^ A"- . i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Five people will live here. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not required. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: We have designed the structure to comply with all land use regulations that we are aware of. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing. One single family residence, middle to high. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing. One single family residence, unknown. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckI-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 13 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest ridge elevation will be 104.125 feet. The home varies with some one story areas, some two story areas, and a west facing daylight garage/basement. The house will be stucco with a concrete tile roof. MAyVvr...��1-i�hF' Pf1o.J�-A :S 75graA.t What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The home to the east will be affected since the main floor of that home appears to be about four feet below our maximum ridge. That home appears to be to the south of our project, which might allow the home owners to see down the setback area of our lot, so our impact might be less. There is no home immediately to the northeast. The properties south and and north will be minimally affected. Their views are westerly. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: We have set back from the street and have used a sloping roof - a hip to limit impact and reduce the ridge to approximately eight feet long. The mass of the upper floor has been reduced to 45 feet wide which is only 30% of the lot's width. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light and glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare could reflect off of the home's windows. That will occur as the sun moves around the site from south to west. Morning or east light is blocked by a hill. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 14 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Adjacent homes also have windows and one home has a metal roof. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not at this time. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None that we are aware of. (;4., P" A-4- L-W-A.j G� tu, fa M..ti, b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 15 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Perhaps the old marina, but it is not adjacent to the site. It is about 250 feet away. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The project fronts on 75th Place West. We also have access from an alley on the east side of the home. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Q.�any. Z Mkt SEPA Checklist Ic-ckI-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 16 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The new home will have three indoor spaces. As many as nine additional cars could park in the driveway. Previously, it looked as if three cars could park outdoors. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). We do not propose to improve roadways or streets. MCa E+rn Di Vi l;&^ rt j Iwnwrw_ e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. On ►tic 1A^di("PI W`t c l�.cAh."ti SUn'tc ,✓dI 0Pe-� Van-h i f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately three to five trips per day. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 17 of 19 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. We are replacing an existing single family residence. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Not applicable. 16. Utilities a. Check or circle utilities currently available at the site: X❑ Electricity X❑ Natural gas ® Water ® Refuse service ® Telephone ® Sanitary sewer ❑ Septic system EJ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. We will reconnect to all services that will be disconnected at the time we demolish the existing home. Other than our work to connect to the existing systems and storm drainages, we do not anticipate any additional system upgrades. SEPA Checklist Ic-ckI-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 18 of 19 LJ C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.pov/ddes SEPA Checklist lc-ckl-SEPA.pdf 04/01/2005 Page 19 of 19 • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS - r�o� p�,�,;,� e,,�tv (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This single family residence will have minimal impact on the items listed above. We will release no toxic or hazardous waste or create any air emissions of consequence. Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Good construction practices shall be employed throughout construction. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The site currently has no significant plant or animal life on it. The major trees at the site are experiencing age related end -of -life conditions. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Normal construction practices to control erosion. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Although we are constructing a larger home, this home will be far more energy efficient than the existing structures on the lot. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: High efficiency domestic and heating equipment will be used throughout the home. p. 23 of 24 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? We are part of a geologic hazard area. We are talking advice from our soils engineer to design appropriate structures. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See soils report and construction documents for retaining walls and subsurface soils drainage. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts exist that we are aware of. p. 24 of 24 K-.S VE]V'.ef'i'•.,>�)r Zt�'..x'"�"l M,... t, MIN,AZoreozz A w�'.tid �,.;3.:.�, �a�ul�lts`k 0 ..:. -..� .:...:: 15519 I —LA t •` - 15518 CL40 u��ry P 15520 15515 7215 15508 7111 7107 7101 7031 7009 5 U ND STSW 156TH . 15605 7222 15602 7124 7100 .. 7026 .. I5600 I 15601.E .... _tB.,.. .� 15604 156t5 W a nzo 71,o s6zt sets sels ' 15625 15610 0 N n d 7029 7019 1583t 6812 CL 2 581, . . 15620 15631 7119 7,17 d 1 1 15700 15620 15715 15702 15703 15705 ^` 60\I'� 15706 15701 15719 15712 t5709 t5707 6809 6801 I 15714 15722 15721 15729 15728 % 15724 ' m 15730 15725 15730 15732 ^ v ^ m 15720 1 I i5810 400 7324 15808 158W 15808 t 15609 5814 ' 15812 15821 15911 I J15824 ff I 15814 15810 > 15818 i - 15825 15915 15824 3 W 15827 15826 1 15828 4� 15908 Q = 1. ^ 15925 15805 15805 15902 > 3: ~o 15911 ,5907 1 115904 15902 tC ' e 15910 15917 15910 r 4 5 5927 15912 15917 15902 5915 6907 15908 15906 d 1� 7309 15920 7429 /\�, 15926 6921 6909 6815 0 16000 1r FAIt R� qi 16006 180,2 ® �� m 15931 /6123 6121 1SOTHSTSW 16608 ,60t0 6910 6820 160.72 7220 \ 6970 1 16024 \ 6916 6826 16034 ,6008 m 16116 18119 �� 18115 16020 � 16031 16010 (n �� 6960 6920 ,6038 16036 ? 4em w - 1 - 18105 pA 16118 16106 01 ^ ro p 18105 T t) 6918 6809 6803 ' 18111 � � \6\ 18120 ,ry � 18Z I 6912 6908 ' 1 McBdOwdale_` Medna�_•' 16115 1 ,g 6� `` 16215 6804 0� �. 16121 16122 \b \� 18131 162ND ST \12\1 16116 1 1 16209 18202 18209 �^ ��\ 16216 3 3: 16214 6925 Dµl A 16206 �Ib , 16220 y 16221 16238 C, 16220 Z. bey\6 6801 16310 16238 r 9 ro ,6228 16�' \ �!.\ �� P g 5 Y� s 16311 7212 18222 c /8232 1 16M m ^ � 18315 18318 16315 18 � 320 ( b � o mm \ > 16330 3 16340 Q 7318 16319 7109 16318 r 16323 16322 \ n 6901 318404 a 16321 m 16414 i 16411 f77 7404 7317 4 n n 3� 7114 6803 �0 7110 7040 M30 7014 \\� , 16420 a 16429 1 H PL SW 16419 ..., 1 16431 165M 7406 7314 � � m o 7010 6811 a n n n 16423 7028 7020 .� 6801 Meadowdate 16510 m Communey "\[7Q n m 16520 16510 ,6500 1650, m n ^ 1'170 CIL•b 1 I SOOZ 148uAdo'� Oj I e uw,ad alo4 •.•panss� III ilhl!�� uua-Qauuu� uuuduvclSv C CA Pj ��Li» W g RUM - mom ®moan �L W 2 =�� N L Nut W Ci �J R W W i u V Lae, �9 $� I I, t II \ 1 ; , I U F U L-� II II II I I \\ I II II II � II I I \ � II 1 \ II II F ----------1i ---------- I .I I \ w W - \ •V II I 5-� J Z�uj F-� oe CL w,^ §o _ Um Oui XQ CL to p �� gggg gggggg 33��•yp� V � = a F 8 � � � Lo F LLJ 3 ggW WLU F- ? o' z fV .— N O W N U o W � cc w a. LO M fi Ul I uj � Z o g R O J i p6 � W A � NMI S � �. Ja41 �7P� SaP!S 8P!3�a m IUOJ� A JUL"12-03i 17=17 FROM:HWA GEOSCIENCES INC ID=4257742714 PAGE 2/3 Alie q y� n „I dAjP -dol k HWAGEOSCIEN'CES INC y�b�'1� 19730.64TN AVE. W., SUITE 2D0 TO: Chien Nguyen, Property Owner LYNNWOOD, WA MOS6•5957 TEL. 425-774-0106 W- 425-774-2714 CC: Jeannine Graf, Building Official, Edmonds Development Services--h—geoscien«.-corn Lyle Chrisman, En,ine g Program Manager, Edmonds Dev. Svcs. BY: Erik Ander�& Lo a anko, HWA GeoSciences'Inc. SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF IJNURSTANDING �® Proposed Single Family Residence JUt 16 2002 16108 75"' Ptuee West Edmonds, Washington PERMIT COVNTEf� DATE: July 12, 2007 This summarizes the highlights of today's meeting at Edmonds Development Services_ Attendees were: Chien Nguyen (owner); Jeannine Graf, Lyle Chrisman, David Gebert, and Don Fiene (City of Edmonds Development Services); Erik Andersen, and Lorne Balanko (HWA GeoSciences). BACKGROUND HWA were retained by Mr. Nguyen to review the proposed residential project plans and supporting information, to develop conceptual site stabilization alternatives in support of the proposed project. The information provided and reviewed includes: • Revised Geotechnical Report, dated June 8, 2000; and Addendum No. 5, dated October 30, 2000, by Dodds GeoSciences Inc.; Site survey information by Burton Reamer, PLS,- • Architectural plans by Frederick C.M. Chen, and structural plans by Mosen Abdi, P.E. We also reviewed City of Edmonds Development Requirements for the Meadowdale area, as well as recently -completed residential projects in the Meadowdale area with which we were involved. The existing geotechnical data indicates that the Nguyen lot is overlain by approximately 20 feet of ancient landslide debris (colluvium), over native hard silt, with a seasonally high ground water table. The ground water is likely to perch over the hard silt. There are tension and settlement cracks along 75re Place West immediately east of the subject lot, indicative of downslope soil movement (creep) and/or incipient slope failure. Based on the available data, our analyses indicate a potential for block failure along the contact between the coiluvium and the hard silt. The potential failure mass includes City right- of-way to the east, but the majority of the potential failure mass lies within the Nguyen property. GEOLOGY GEOENvIRONMENTALSERVICES MYOROGEOLOGY GEOTECHNIrAL ENGINEERING TESTING & X"pkCTION JUL+12-02;17=16 FROM:HWA GEOSCIENCES INC ID-4257742714 July 12, 2002 • HWA project 'No. 2000 9-21 PAGE 3/3 DEVELONWNT CONCEPTS We brainstormed potential site development options and concluded that there are two conceptually feasible development concepts: Design and build a slope -stabilization structure east of and exterior to the house (Figures 2A and 2B); or design and build a slide -resistant house foundation system (Figures 2C and 2D). In our opinion, an exterior slope -stabilization wall located along the east property line is the best solution, because it will provide protection to the structure from any surfieial slides, and it will stabilize 75'h Place West. A better understanding of ground water conditions is necessary to determine whether drainage measures are warranted. Additional explorations are needed to further define the soil stratigzaphy and ground water conditions along the subject slope and roadway. Because of the significant depth of colluvium that will need to be retained, a cantilevered wall (Figure 2A) would be considerably more expensive than a tied -back wall (Figure 2B). Permanent tiebacks would extend beyond the Nguyen property and encroach City right of way. However, because of the slope geometry, property Iine location with respect to the roadway, and the inclination of the proposed tiebacks, the tiebacks would be approximately 40 feet below the side of the roadway, as shown on Figure 2B. It is our understanding that the City.is receptive the proposed permanent tieback concept. An encroachment permit, and appropriate insurance coverage will be required. It is our understanding that an encroachment permit is likely to be granted for this project, provided appropriate requirements are met. We are proceeding with this in mind. ADDITIONAL WORK Additional subsurface explorations are necessary to better define soil stratigraphy and ground water conditions. As a minimum, we will drill three borings. At least one boring will be located along 75`" Place West, and one on the west (downslope) side of the proposed house. The third boring will be located during the exploration program. Slotted standpipe piezometers will be installed in each boring to monitor ground water levels. We will complete detailed engineering analyses to develop appropriate design parameters for the proposed retaining wall. We will evaluate the potential benefit of, and need for an interceptor drain. We will contact Ms. Graf to schedule a progress meeting to discuss the results of our analyses and recommendations, in approximately 2 months. Mceting Mauro of Undemanding doc 2 H WA GEOSC! ENCES INC. ID:4257742714 PAGE 1J3 ULT HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. 19730-54TM AVE. W,. SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD. WA 98036.5957 TEL. 425-774-0106 FAX. 425-774-2714 JUL-'12-02:17:17 FROM:HWA GEOSCIENCES INC • FAXA�I TTAL DATE: '—�tl� TO/FAX #: RECEIVED FROM:LL• JUL 15 2002 Total Number of Pages Including Cover' OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SUBJECT: frwD-4el f r» le F4 rhcCti RECEIVE® Original To Follow By Mail Yes No JUL 12 2002 REMARKS: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOTE: The information in this Fax message is confidential and intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If you receiver! this Fax in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error. please notify us by telephone immediately and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. IF YOU CID NOT RECEIVE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, OR IF THE COPY IS UNCLEAR. PLEASE CALL US AT 425.774,0106 R • 19730-64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 • LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-5957 U Z, TEL.425-774-0106 2714 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. FAX. hwageo4 fence www. hwageoscie nces. com To: Chien Nguyen DATE: 18311 71st Avenue West TRANSMITTAL July 15, 2002 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 HWA PROJECT NO 2002-099-21. BUrLOING ATTN: Mr. Nguyen J U L 16 2002 RE: Proposed Single Family Residence, 16108 75th PL W, Edmonds, WA WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: DATE COPIES DESCRIPTION Memorandum of •- • • THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: Y,1 FOR YOUR ❑ FOR ACTION ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ AS REQUESTED INFORMATION SPECIFIED BELOW AND COMMENT COPIES TO: Jeannin�e Graf '& Lyle Chrisman �' �=� �_�_..,. (Edmonds__Development Services 1 BY: Erik 0. Andersen, P.E. TITLE: Geotechnical Engineer ULAa HWAGEOSCIENCESINC. 19730-64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200 TO: Chien Nguyen, Property Owner LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-5957' TEL.425-774-0106 FAX.425-774-2714 CC: Jeannine Graf, Building Official, Edmonds Development Serviceswww.hwageosc;ences.com Lyle Chrisman, Enginepqg Program Manager, Edmonds Dev. Svcs. BY: Erik Andersen & Lo a anko, HWA GeoSciences Inc. SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Proposed Single Family Residence BUILDING 16108 751h Place West J v L 16 2002 Edmonds, Washington DATE: July 12, 2002 This summarizes the highlights of today's meeting at Edmonds Development Services. Attendees were: Chien Nguyen (owner); Jeannine Graf, Lyle Chrisman, David Gebert, and Don Fiene (City of Edmonds Development Services); Erik Andersen, and Lorne Balanko (HWA GeoSciences). BACKGROUND HWA were retained by Mr. Nguyen to review the proposed residential project plans and supporting information, to develop conceptual site stabilization alternatives in support of the proposed project. The information provided and reviewed includes: • Revised Geotechnical Report, dated June 8, 2000; and Addendum No. 5, dated October 30, 2000, by Dodds GeoSciences Inc.; • Site survey infon-nation by Burton Reanier, PLS; •. Architectural plans by Frederick C.M. Cheri, and structural plans by Mosen Abdi, P.E. We also reviewed City of Edmonds Development Requirements for the Meadowdale area, as well as recently -completed residential projects in the Meadowdale area with which we were involved. The existing geotechnical data indicates that the Nguyen lot is overlain by approximately 20 feet of ancient landslide debris (colluvium), over native hard silt, with a seasonally high ground water table. The ground water is likely to perch over the hard silt. There are tension and settlement cracks along 751h Place West immediately east of the subject lot, indicative of..downslope soil movement (creep) and/or incipient slope failure. Based on the available data, our analyses indicate a potential for block failure along the contact between the colluvium and the hard silt. The potential failure mass includes City right- of-way to the east, but the majority of the potential failure mass lies within the Nguyen property. GEOLOGY GEOENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES HYDROGEOLOGY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TESTING & INSPECTION July 12, 2002 HWA Project No. 2002-099-21 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS We brainstormed potential site development options and concluded that there are two conceptually feasible development concepts: Design and build a slope -stabilization structure east of and exterior to the house (Figures 2A and 2B); or design and build a slide -resistant house foundation system (Figures 2C and 2D). In our opinion, an exterior slope -stabilization wall located along the east property line is the best solution, because it will provide protection to the structure from any surficial slides, and it will stabilize 75th Place West. A better understanding of ground water conditions is necessary to determine whether drainage measures are warranted. Additional explorations are needed to further define the soil stratigraphy and ground water conditions along the subject slope and roadway. Because of the significant depth of colluvium that will need to be retained, a cantilevered wall (Figure 2A) would be considerably more expensive than a tied -back wall (Figure 2B). Permanent tiebacks would extend beyond the Nguyen property and encroach City right of way. However, because of the slope geometry, property line location with respect to the roadway, and the inclination of the proposed tiebacks, the tiebacks would be approximately 40 feet below the side of the roadway, as shown on Figure 2B. It is our understanding that the City is receptive the proposed permanent tieback concept. An encroachment pen -nit, and appropriate insurance coverage will be required. It is our understanding that an encroachment permit is likely to'be granted for this project, provided appropriate requirements are met. We are proceeding with this in mind. ADDITIONAL WORK Additional subsurface explorations are necessary to better define soil stratigraphy and ground water conditions. As a minimum, we will drill three borings. At least one boring will be located along 75th Place West, and one on the west (downslope) side of the proposed house. The third boring will be located during the exploration program. Slotted standpipe piezometers will be installed in each boring to monitor ground water levels. We will complete detailed engineering analyses to develop appropriate design parameters for the proposed retaining wall. We will evaluate the potential benefit of, and need for an interceptor drain. We will contact Ms. Graf to schedule a progress meeting to discuss the results of our analyses and recolrunendations, in approximately 2 months. Meeting Memo of Understanding.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: . k dfl Proposed Single Family Residence Conceptual Site Development Feasibility Review 16108 75th Place West B U L D t N G Edmonds (Meadowdale), Washington JUL 12 2002 OWNER: Chien Nguyen Lynnwood, Washington GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT: HWA GeoSciences Inc., Lynnwood, Washington HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. GOALS: 1) Review Proposed Structure and Site Conditions 2) Present and Discuss Development Alternatives • Potential impacts of proposed development on site stability 3) Discuss Design Schedule and City Requirements 4) ?? 9 DODDS RECEIVED GeoSciences Inc. Post Office Box 2385 `(V Kirkland, WA 98083 M Tel: . 425.827.1084 1 `� Fax: 425.828.9443 1CY Chien Dinh Nguyen 18311 - 71St Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 Subject: Addendum No. 5 160XX 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Chien: MAR 16 2001 BUILDING DEPT. Job Number 8042 October 30, 2000 STREET FILE In accordance with your request, we have completed an additional test boring and engineering analysis of the slope above the proposed retaining wall. The test boring data is enclosed. In addition, significant laboratory testing was completed to verify accuracy of the field soil classifications and designations. Computer stability analysis of the slope above (east of) your property was completed. We assumed for this analysis that the standing groundwater table was at six feet below grades at the location of Test Boring #3 as that was the highest depth at which we observed oxidation in the soils. Further, we observed a zone of heavy fracturing at about 22.5 feet below existing grades in Test Boring #3. Our analysis assumed a failure surface which included three critical points. First, the crack in the roadway was assumed to be on the failure scarp. Second, the fractured zone noted in Test Boring #3 was assumed to be in the failure circle. And finally, it was assumed the failure surface would also be somewhere near the toe of the existing slope. Our analysis parameters were selected for the specific failure circle and are not meant to be general parameters for the soil layers. First, we performed a parameteric study of the input parameters until we got a static Factor of Safety (F.3.) of 1.06. We felt this was within the ballpark for the observed conditions. Then we added a horizontal and vertical load to simulate earthquake loading in a moderate earthquake. A horizontal coefficient of 0.2g and a vertical coefficient of 0.1g was deemed adequate for this site. This resulted in a dynamic F.S. of 0.57, or failure. • CHIEN ADDENDUM # 5 October 30, 2000 Job Number 8042 Page 2 Analysis was then completed of the driving and resisting forces in the dynamic (earthquake) situation. This resulted in an unresolved driving force of 20113 pounds for the slice being considered during an earthquake. Using the 65 pounds per cubic foot designated in our Addendum #2 for the height and depth specified resulted in modeled active load of 28,283 pounds for the earthquake condition. It is therefore our opinion that the geotechnical engineering parameters which have been previously specified for this wall are adequate and appropriate. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions. Thank you, DODDS Geosciences Inc. rt V 3° INo Mark K. Dodds, P.E. s Hole No. 6-3 . PROJECT: 75th Place West •TE DRILLED: 09/29/00 DRILL RIG: Trailer Mounted Rig LOGGED BY: MKD HOLE DIA: 8 in. SAMPLER: SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: 16.0 ft. HOLE ELEV: = 71.0 MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 16.0 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 28.0 ft. w DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC i BLOWS REMARKS TYPE LOG a /FT. to Brown Silty Sand with some Gravel, moist, loose. SM Gray -brown with oxidation Clayey Silty Sand with some Gravel, moist, SM loose. Brown Silty Clay with lenses and layers of Silty Sand and Silt, wet, CL soft to firm. ' Groundwater table at 16.0 feet during drilling. Gray Silty Clay, highly plastic, wet to saturated, stiff. CH Small lens (1.5" thick) of heavy fracturing. cotton or test Wring at Ztt.0 feet. urounawatef table near 16.0 feet during drilling. 0 2 4 5 Moisture Content = 11.9% 6 7 Moisture Content = 14.8% 8 10 2 Moisture Content = 28.5% 12 6 Moisture Content = 31.7% 14 8 Moisture Content = 34.4% 16 5 Moisture Content = 39.6% 18 20 6 Moisture Content = 35.1% 22 9 Moisture Content = 34.6% 24 21 Moisture Content = 31.7% 26 23 Moisture Content = 30.0% 28 DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. _ PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING LOG SB-SLOPE Simplified Bishop Slope Stability Analysis PROJECT: LOCATION: 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington FILE: C HIE N COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS 1 231.7 111.4 66.9 0.58 360 320 280 240 7- 0 H H CC zee w J w 16e 12E 86 4{ —41 40 80 120 160 200 Z40 280 320 360 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE r DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. y ,1 j/ e •�I .. / • V pp dCD ""• .�PRV I El LIFT I S50iy.� I STATILIN m I gx.HM �- m m Ln B-2, I * "'.. . 5 7:25 HAVE A Gk�-41 UAL DODDS aL*Oscdences Inc. Pose Qffice Box Z3,65 eaH ewZ Kirkland, U(lA 98083 Tel: 425.827,1084 A(�� Fax; 425.828.9443 � `n p ���M1 A n r y 1 Job Number 8042 Chien Dinh Nguyen August 16, 2000 18311 - 71ffit Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 Subject: Review Response Proposed Residence 16108 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Geotechnical Review Letter By Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., dated 8/ 10/00 Dear Mr. Nguyen: The following are our comments regarding the review letter referenced above: 1) The plans should be changed to specifically state that the plans are based upon our original report and subaequent letters (or the revised report). The plans must meet the .requirements of the revised report. 2) The analyses suggested by the reviewer were completed using correlated data acquired during completion of other projects in the immediate area. These analyses resulted in the geotechnical engineering recomm endations in our report. 3) The data collection efforts that the reviewer suggests are necessary require trespassing on property other than the subject site. According to our recollection, this is not an option.. 4) There seems to be some confusion regarding the engineering requirements of the regulations. We have provided, through cur recommendations, a site that meets the requirements of the code. However we did nothing to stabilize adjoin`ng properties. We do agree that the road above the property is currently failing and will most probably fail in the future. We even said so in a meeting with City of Edmonds officials over one year ago. At that time I recommended the City of Edmonds take immediate ,Action to investigate the subsurface below the roadway and stebibze it. The city officials declined, and my recollection is that it was their stated opinion the roadway was stable and that no future work was required or even being contemplated. Td WdTZ:LO 000Z ZT 'daS ZT2-Z-S26 90E : 'ON Xdd 109iIHObti Od : WONd r 08/15i1'��0> g7:25 4258299 0 CHIEN PLAN REWEW August 16, 2000 HAVE A GREAT DA" * rA= 0.& Job Number 8042 Page 2 5) The roadway is failing, will continue to fail, and at some point in the future will catastrophically collapse. SZit, the failing soil will not overflow onto the subject site because we have conatructed a massive soldier pile wall to prevent it. This soldier pile wall is along the property line. In our opinion, we have utilized conservative assumptions in our geotechnical engineering recommendations. If the reviewer believes our recommended pressures and the wall desiga*_ are not conservative, then I require the basis for his opinion which I will then cvaluate and make corrections as necessary• the need for b) We seriously disagree with the reviewer regarding additional borings under the building pad or on the western side of the site. No fiarther, work is necessary. No additional testing is necessary. The plans as prepared (after the correction in Item 1, above) are adequate, and the construction should be allowed to proceed without delay. PleFAse contact us if there are any questions. Thank you, DODDS Geosciences Inc. IL .o . /ONAL v Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Ed Wdzz:Lo 000E ET .das ETZE-SEG 90E : 'ON Xdd 1091IH3dd OU : WOad • DODDS Q1� b GeoSciences Inc. Post Office Box 2385 Kirkland, WA 98083 Tel: 425.827.1084 Fax: 425.828.9443 Chien Dinh Nguyen 18311— 71 sc Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 Subject: Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report 160XX 75 h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Chien: RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 2000 We are pleased to present the revised Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed new residence to be constructed on the Chien Property east of the wharf at 160XX — 75" Place West in Edmonds, Washington. This revised report has been updated to reflect the four addendum letters. The purposes of our work were to professionally evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, recommend general procedures for the grading and underslab treatment in the building area, recommend a foundation method with design parameters, and present a slope stabilization method for the slope on the eastern portion of the portion. The scope of our services included: 1) Logging and sampling two test borings drilled in the vicinity of the proposed house to a maximum depth of 34.25 feet below existing grades. The test borings were drilled with a truck -mounted drill rig and logged by the undersigned registered engineer. Selected samples were taken of subsurface soils. 2) Reviewing collected soil samples in our office, and . assigning appropriate laboratory tests consisting of moisture contents, sieve gradation, and Atterberg Limit tests. At the conclusion of the testing program, laboratory results were analyzed and compared with field notes and logs. 3) Preparation of this summary report in accordance with our understanding of project requirements and generally recognized local geotechnical engineering practices, including Meadowdale permit requirements. No warranty is expressed or implied. Plate 1, attached, provides the guidelines in the use of this report. a, • • CHIENRESIDENCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 1998 Page 2 Project Understandings: This office was provided with a topographic plan which documented existing conditions including topography. We were also provided with a complete set of plans. Our knowledge of this project is generally limited to the information on this site plan and information from your architect. We anticipate the new structure will be a wood -frame and multiple storied. It will be located near the center of the property. We anticipate the driveway will access the site from the roadway near the wharf. General Site Conditions — Surface: The proposed new residential structure will be constructed on the vacant parcel just east of the existing wharf in the Meadowdale Area of Edmonds, Washington. The attached Vicinity Map, Plate 2, shows the general vicinity of the site. At the time of our fieldwork, the flat area of the site was covered primarily with long grass and small shrubs, while the slope down from the roadway was covered with blackberry brush and other shrubs. The proposed building site is located in the flat area of the site. The proposed building site had a very gentle to fair slope down towards the west. Subsurface Exploration and Description: Two test borings were drilled with a truck -mounted drill rig to a maximum depth of 34.25 feet below existing grades at the location shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The test borings were logged and sampled by the undersigned registered engineer during drilling. The test boring logs are attached to this report. Recovered soil samples were subjected to moisture content, sieve gradation, and Atterberg Limit tests. Test results and field density information are summarized on the test boring logs and attached plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/or conditions may not be readily apparent from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation will be essentially correct: Our test borings revealed that the site is immediately underlain with fourteen to more* than eighteen feet of variable, soft to firm silts that are interlayered with sand lenses. These soft soils are wet and compressible. Under these soft surficial soils is a stiff to very hard silty clay. Groundwater was observed in our test borings at eight to nine feet below the existing ground surface. 0 . % CHIEN RESIDENCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 .June 8, 1998 Page 3 The final test boring logs attached to this report presents our interpretation of the field data and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration location. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities and moisture descriptions on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on observed conditions during drilling. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at each location tested. Conclusions and Recommendations General: The following general geotechnical conclusions can be drawn from our field and laboratory test data: 1) The native undisturbed stiff to very hard clay below the topsoil and soft silt soils can provide adequate bearing to the structure. 2) A drilled pier foundation is appropriate for this site. Floor slabs should also be pile -supported. 3) A permanent soldier pile wall consisting of steel beams and lagging to support the portion of the slope on your property is required. 4) We recommend footing drains around all uphill sides of footings at the elevation of the footings. Positive drainage to an appropriate drainage structure is recommended. 5) Soils with a high percentage of silt and/or clay (>15%) are moisture sensitive and difficult to impossible to utilize as structural fill is the soil is more than two to three percent wetter or drier than the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Most of the soils at this site are silty and/or clayey, and are moisture sensitive. Foundations — Drilled Auizercast Piles: The structure can be supported on drilled augercast piers. Minimum fourteen -inch - diameter steel -reinforced concrete augercast piles embedded a minimum of ten feet into the underlying stiff to very hard silts are recommended. Fourteen -inch -diameter piers installed a minimum of ten feet into the stiff to very stiff silts will have a vertical capacity of fifteen tons. We estimate that individual piers will experience total and differential settlements on the order of one-half inch. CHIENRESIDENCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 1998 Page 4 The augercast method of pile installation involves drilling the hole with the auger equipment and then continuously pumping concrete grout through the center of the hollow -stem auger during auger extraction. Steel reinforcement in then placed in the hole through the entire depth. A head of concrete must be maintained above the auger tip to ensure an intact column of concrete has filled the drilled hole after the auger has been removed. Generally, this can be achieved by withdrawing the auger slowly while maintaining a suitably high pump pressure. As a general rule, the rate of auger extraction should not exceed about five feet a minute, and the pressure of the concrete grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 pounds per square inch (psi). The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that concrete volumes may be calculated. We can provide design criteria for different pile diameters and embedment lengths, if desired. For transient loads, such as seismic, the allowable load may be increased by one-third. A moderate to major seismic event may result in some shifting of the piers and ground. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be accommodated by the piles and by passive pressure on the grade beams. We anticipate piles will have a lateral capacity of 1.0 ton per pile. Additional lateral capacity, if needed, can be achieved through the installation of battered piles. Piles may be battered up to a gradient of 1:5 (Horizontal:Vertical) without reducing the vertical load capacity. Lateral loading is also resisted by friction between the slab and the subgrade, and by passive earth pressure on the sides of the grade beam. A coefficient of 0.30 may be assumed between the bottom of the grade beam and the subgrade. Passive earth pressures on the grade beam can be assumed to be equal to that exerted by a fluid having a density of two hundred fifty (250) . pounds per cubic foot. As augercast piles cannot be inspected after installation, it is important that an engineer or geologist from our office be present during installation. This will allow us: 1) To confirm that the encountered subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration; 2) To evaluate whether soldier pile construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications; and, 3) To provide recommendations for design changes in the event unanticipated subsurface conditions are encountered. We would be delighted to provide these construction observation services, however it must be understood that we will not supervise the contractor during his operations, nor are we responsible for job and site safety during construction. • • CHIEN RESIDENCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 1998 Page 5 Slope Reinforcement: Our recommendation is to construct a soldier pile wall along the eastern property line and then backfill behind the soldier piles to the elevation where a 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope is created. This proposal will provide a safe. environment for the residence. The soldier piles should consist of steel H-beams which are embedded in concrete -filled drilled holes of adequate depth. The soldier piles should stick up above the finish exterior grade a minimum of one foot. As soldier piles do typically shift on the order of one half inch or more, we recommend the structural engineer rigidify the frame of the house behind the soldier piles to decrease potential movement. The soldier pile wall should consist of minimum twenty -four -inch -diameter steel -beam - reinforced concrete augercast piles embedded a minimum depth of fifteen feet into the underlying hard clayey soils. Minimum pile lengths of forty-five feet should be anticipated. Permanent lagging should be utilized between the piles. Provisions should be made to accommodate drainage which may percolate through the wall. The following design pressures can be used by the structural engineer for the structural design of the wall: 1) An Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting from the top of the pile to a depth of five feet below the lower floor slab elevation. 2) A Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 125 pcf acting over 1.5 times the pile diameter starting at a depth of five feet below the floor slab elevation and extending to a depth of twenty feet below the floor slab elevation. The shoring piles will be installed in the same manner as the augercast pile method described above. We can provide design criteria for different shoring pile diameters, if desired. For transient loads, such as seismic, the allowable load may be increased by one-third. A moderate to major seismic event may result in some shifting of the piles and ground. We should be on site during shoring pile installation also. The quarry spalls placed behind the wall should extend up the slope to at least the middle of the slope to be able to provide some support to the slope. This will require an easement from the City of Edmonds. Criteria given for installation and inspection of the augercast soldier piles is equivalent to that presented for augercast pile foundations. The slope on either side of the residence can either be reinforced with additional soldier piles or perhaps with a geogrid buttress depending on the required bearing pressure at the base of the buttress. 1 CHIEN RESIDENCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 1998 Page 6 Seismic Design: The site is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. We recommend the designer utilize site soil coefficient SE in their analysis. Basement Walls: We understand the structure may have a daylight basement. Basement walls must be designed to support the lateral earth pressures which abutting soils will impose. As standing groundwater was noted at eight to nine feet below existing grades, adequate drainage must be provide around the wall and under the lower floor slabs. The following recommendations are for adequately drained walls which are less than twelve feet high that support level backfill: Active Earth Pressure .........................45 pcf Passive Earth Pressure .......................200 pcf Unit Weight of Soil ..........................115 pcf Coefficient 'of Friction ......................0.30 The Active Earth Pressure recommended above 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 wall pressure given above. 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 (such as traffic) are placed above, or near the walls. Design values can also be exceeded if heavy construction equipment is allowed within twelve feet of the wall. If any of these conditions exist, then the above design values should be augmented be appropriate additional pressures. If walls higher than twelve feet are required for this project, please contact our office for additional recommendations. Foundation walls should be appropriately waterproofed, and then backfilled with a clean, compacted, free -draining granular soil or an approved drainage composite. This will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The wall backfill should contain no more than five percent silt and clay, no organics, and no cobbles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of sand (from the #4 sieve to the #200 sieve) should range from 25% to 75%. During compaction of the 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. M • CHIEN RESIDENCEIEDMONDS June 8, 1998 Job Number 8042 Page 7 Footing drains are required and should consist of a slotted four -inch -diameter PVC pipe bedded in, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock. The invert of the pipe should be placed at the bearing elevation of the footings. A non -woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or other 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 down -gradient and away from the structures. The pipes should discharge to an appropriate discharge facility Subslab Drainage: a Any lower floor slabs should be underlain with at least six inches of free -draining gravel or sand. A plastic visquine barrier should be placed between the sand and the slab. Subslab trench drains may be required depending on site conditions during construction. Site Drainage: The site should be graded during construction so that surface water is directed away from any excavation. Water should not be allowed to pond where foundations, pavements, or slabs are to be constructed. Final site grades adjacent to the building should be sloped away from the structure for a minimum distance of ten feet. Roof and surface water drains should discharge to an appropriate facility. Footing drains are required,and should consist of a slotted four -inch -diameter PVC pipe bedded in, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock. The invert of the pipe should be placed at the elevation of the footings. A non -woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or other 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 down -gradient and away from the structures. The pipes should discharge to an appropriate discharge facility. Erosion Control: Construction of this project will require excavation and grading. Erosion control measures are required. We recommend, as a minimum, that the contractor provide a properly installed filter fabric fence down -gradient from all construction activities. Depending on the amount of surface runoff, hay bales and/or the placing of straw on denuded slopes may be required. If surface runoff is channeled into a nearby storm water system, then the grate should be protected with an approved geotextile fabric to prevent the migration of an silt or clay particles into the storm water system. 0 0 CHIEN RESIDENCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 1998 Page 8 Excavations and Slopes: Temporary and permanent excavation and slopes for this project must meet all applicable government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet may be attempted vertical, although they may not hold. Excavation slopes greater than four feet in depth should be cut no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Flatter slopes may be required depending upon location variations in soils conditions and whether there is groundwater present. Contractors working in excavations should use caution at all times. Sudden caving of the side slopes is possible. Permanent cut and fill slopes which are not otherwise reinforced should not exceed 2:1 (H:V). General Earthwork and Structural Fill: Site construction should begin by stripping and clearing the property of vegetation, organic -rich topsoil, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials may have to be removed from the site. Groundwater seepage was noted during our fieldwork at eight to nine feet below existing grades. The contractor should anticipate, and be prepared to accommodate moderate to heavy seepage into even shallow excavations. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed below structures, including slabs, where the fill soils would need to support loads without unacceptable deflections or shearing. Structural fill should be placed above unyielding native site soils in maximum eight -inch - thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557). Soil is typically difficult to place and compact as structural fill if more than three percent from 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 than five percent silt or clay (measured on that portion which passes the'/4-inch sieve). During dry weather, water may have to be added to the soil to achieve the required soil density. Wet Weather Construction: This project should be completed during the dry summer months. This project will be very difficult to complete during the winter due to slickness of the silty/clayey soils and the abundant water. M 4b CHIEN RESIDENCE/EDMONDS Job Number 8042 June 8, 1998 Page 9 Closure: We recommend we be retained to provide professional geotechnical consultation and observation services during design and construction. This allows us to: 1) Confirm that { design conforms to specific subsurface requirements; 2) Confirm that subsurface soils conditions exposed 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 work, now will we be responsible for providing on -site safety or dimensional measurements during construction activities. It has been a pleasure providing you with our professional services. If there are any questions concerning this report, please contact me directly at 425-827-1084. Thank You: DODDS Geosciences Inc. MKD/ms DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. PLATE 1 GUIDELINES IN THE USE OF THIS REPORT This report for Job No. 8042 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 boring logs, and/or text discussions are based upon our testing, analysis, experience, and judgment. There is no warranty that these subsurface interpretations represent subsurface conditions other than that which occurred at the exact locations tested at the time the fieldwork was conducted by this firm. 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. The recommendations contained in the report are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as may be specifically described 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. Job Number 8042 - Plate 1 Guidelines Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. Job Number 8042 - Plate Vicinity Map Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington I DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. LEX-MM Br X \ a .. / FOCKERY dce '"• •®PRV I I: L(Fi ' Ss", I SiAifpw 1 ' ' B-2 Job Number 8042 - Plate 3 Site Plan Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington I M 1 Hole No. 1 PROJECT: 75th PI. West 'jpATE DRILLED: 4/30/98 DRILL RIG: Truck -Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds P.E. HOLE OIA: 8 in. SAMPLER: SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft. HOLE ELEV:: 50' MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 9.0 It. TOTAL DEPTH: 31.4 ft. to W DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC d BLOWS REMARKS TYPE LOG /Ft. rn 0 2 4 8 5 Moisture Content = 30.0% 8 10 8 Moisture Content = 31.5% 12 14 18 f 14 Moisture Content = 35.9% 18 20-f 72 Moisture Content = 31.3% 22 24 28 81 Moisture Content = 32.3% 28 oorrom or boring i. urounawater table near 9.0 feet during drilling. +100 1 Moisture Content = 17.3% DODDS Geosclences Inc. PAGE 1OFI BORING LOG Hole No. 2 w PROJECT: 75th PI. West ".ATE DRILLED: 4/30/98 DRILL RIG: Truck -Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds P.E. HOLE DIA: 8 in. SAMPLER: SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: 8.0 ft. HOLE ELEV: 1 42' MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 8.0 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 34.25 ft. rA W DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC a BLOWS REMARKS TYPE LOG /Ft. N ' 0 surface -Grass. SM Dark brown Silty Topsoil, wet, loose. 2 Gray Sandy Silt, wet to very wet, soft to firm. ML 4 7 Moisture Content = 36.4% 8 Standing groundwater table. There are some small sand lenses in the 8 Silt. 8 Moisture Content = 37.0% 10 12 Sand become medium -grained. k. 14 8 Moisture Content = 35.2% 18 18 Gray Silty Clay, wet, firm. CL 10 Moisture Content = 36.0% 20 22 Becomes stiff to very stiff. 24 34 Moisture Content = 24.7% 28 28 - - f 32 Moisture Content = 21.1% 30 32 Becomes hard to very hard. 34-U +100 Moisture Content = 30.6% Bottom of Boring 2. Groundwater table near 8.0 feet during drilling. DODDS Geosclences Inc. PAGE IOFI BORING LOG a DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: B-1; 5.01- 6.5' DATE: 4/30/98 SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING #10 100.0 #40 12.2 3.9 96.1 #100 35.0 11.3 88.7 #200 93.3 30.0 70.0 X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 Job Number 8042 - Plate 6 Sieve Analysis Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. D MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: B-2; 3.01- 4.5' DATE: 4/30/98 SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING #10 100.0 #40 1.5 0.6 99.4 #100 3.2 1.2 98.8 #200 6.8 2.6 97.4 X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 Job Number 8042 - Plate 7 Sieve Analysis Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. 70 60 50 40 Plasticity Index 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit Job Number 8042 - Plate 8 Atterberg Limits Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Symbol Test Hole Depth (ft.) L.L. P.I. USCS B-1 20'-21.5' 30.5 22.3 CL Q B-1 25'-26.5' 30.3 3.8 ML 13 DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. 70 60 50 40 Plasticity Index 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit Job Number 8042 - Plate 9 Atterberg Limits Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Symbol Test Hole Depth (ft.) L.L. P.I. USCS B-2 23'-24.5' 41.6 29.6 CL O B-2 28'-29.5' 29.7 16.2 CL io - L DODDS GeoSciences Inc. Post Office Box 2385 Kirkland, WA 98083 Tel: 425.827.1084 Fax. 425.828. 9443 Chien Dinh Nguyen 18311 — 71St Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 Subject: Plan Review Proposed Residence 160XX 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Number 8042 May 24, 2000 Reference: 1) Basement Floor Plan — Foundation Plan By Mosen Abdi, Last Revised 7/ 19/99 2) Site Plan By Mosen Abdi, Fredrick Chen, Last Revised 7/ 19/99 3) Grading & Drainage Plan, Topo Map, & Soldier Pile Wall by Bruton Rainier, dated 9 / 30 / 99 3) Initial Geotechnical Review Letter By Landau Associates, dated 12/ 15/98 Dear Mr. Chien: We have reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the above referenced plans and find that they are in conformance with our geotechnical engineering report and four addendums. Our analyses indicate there is less than a thirty percent (<30%) probability of a landslide on this property over the next 25 years. The proposed on -site improvements increase the stability of the site by providing slope reinforcement via walls and controlled drainage. In our judgment the plans and specification prepared by the structural engineer conform to the recommendations in our geotechnical report and the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties is minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report. The proposed development does not increase the potential for slope movement. CWyoNT F F�MOIVZS CPI? CHIEN PLAN REVIEW Job Number 8042 May 24, 2000 Page 2 The geotechnical review letter by Landau Associates indicates that it is their opinion that there may be a deep-seated landslide though the property with the head of the slide in the roadway and the toe of the scarp near the BNSF railroad right-of-way. It is our opinion that this is very unlikely given the topography of the site, the soils conditions observed on the surface, and the subsurface soils encountered in our test borings. It is much more likely that any slumping soils are confined to the roadway embankment and hence our recommendations regarding the installation of a soldier pile wall along the east property line. Also, please note that the entire structure is founded on piles which extend to the competent soils. It is our opinion the geotechnical aspects of this site have been adequately addressed in the latest set of plans (referenced above). Please contact me directly if there are any questions. Thank you, DODDS Geosciences Inc. K & 00+4 . � � M • tl s • • t y %'Pal ��TNAL ovims ti v Mark K. Dodds, P.E. / Y 1 04/26/1999 12:51 42582894.0 OEOSClENCES INC. Post Office Box 2385 Kirkland, WA 98083 Telephone (425) 827--1084 Facsimile (425) 8Q8-9 443 Chien Dinh Nguyen 18311 — 71" Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 HAVE A GREAT DA$a PAGE 01 l� fp Subject: Addendum No. 2 160XX 750s Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Initial Geotechnical Review By Landau Associates, Inc., dated 12/15/98 Dear Mr, Chien: RECEIVED AUG 13 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CM CITY OF EDMONDS Job Number 8042 February 19, 1999 This letter presents recommendations to allow construction of your proposed single- family residence. The current proposal is to incorporate a soldier pile wall into the eastern wall of the residence and then backfill behind the soldier piles to the elevation where a 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope is created. This proposal will provide a safe environment for the residence. The soldier piles should consist. of steel H-beams which are embedded in concrete -filled drilled holes of adequate depth. The soldier piles should stick up above the finish exterior grade a minimum of one foot. As soldier piles do typically shift on the order of one half inch or more, we recommend the structural engineer rigidify the frame of the house behind the soldier piles to decrease potential movement. The soldier pile wall should consist of minimum twenty -four -inch -diameter steel -beam - reinforced concrete augercast piles embedded a minimum depth of fifteen feet into the underlying hard clayey soils. Minimum pile lengths of forty-five feet should be anticipated. Permanent lagging should be utilized between the piles, Provisions should be made to accommodate drainage which may percolate through the wall. CHIENADDENDUMNO. 21 February 19, 1999 Job Number 8042 Page 2 The following design pressures can be used by the structural engineer for the structural design of the wall: 1) An Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting from the top of the pile to a depth of five feet below the lower floor slab elevation. 2) A Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 125 pcf acting over 1.5 times the pile diameter starting at ,a depth of five feet below the floor slab elevation and extending to a depth of twenty feet below the floor slab elevation. 3) A Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 225 pcf acting over twice the pile diameter starting at twenty feet below the lower floor slab elevation. Criteria given for installation and inspection of the augercast soldier piles is equivalent to that presented in our original report for augercast pile foundations. The slope on either side of the residence can either be reinforced with additional soldier piles or perhaps with a geogrid buttress depending on the required bearing pressure at the base of the buttress. We disagree with the conclusions of Reference No. 1 that some sort of deep landslide mass may exist through the subject site. To come to this conclusion requires ignoring encountered subsurface conditions. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please contact the undersigned at (425) 827-1484. Thank. you, DODDS Oeosciences Inc. 00.9. tF A% — Mark K. Dodds; P.E. GEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 2385 Kirkland, WA 98083 Telephone (425) 827-1084 Facsimile (425) 828-9443 Chien Dinh Nguyen 18311 — 71" Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 Subject: Addendum #1 Geotechnical Engineering Report 160XX 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Chien: M The following should be added to the original geotechnical report: Slope Reinforcement: 00" Job Number 8042 June 14, 1998 The quarry spalls placed behind the wall should extend up the slope to at least the middle of the slope to be able to provide some support to the slope. This will require an easement from the City of Edmonds. Basement Walls: We understand the structure may have a daylight basement. Basement walls must be designed to support the lateral earth pressures which abutting soils will impose. As standing groundwater was noted at eight to nine feet below existing grades, adequate drainage must be provide around the wall and under the lower floor slabs. The following recommendations are for adequately drained walls which are less than twelve feet high that support level backfill: Active Earth Pressure .........................45 pcf Passive Earth Pressure .......................200 pcf Unit Weight of Soil ..........................115 pcf Coefficient of Friction ...........................0.30 The Active Earth Pressure recommended above assumes the wall can deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height. If this assumption is incorrect, a unif- - -' - --- -- -r one hundred psf should be added to the wall pressure given above. 0 k1l PROPOSED CHIEN RESIDENCE ADD # 1 Job Number 8042 June 14, 1998 page 2 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 (such as traffic) are placed above, or near the walls. Design values can also be exceeded if heavy construction equipment is allowed within twelve feet of the wall. If any of these conditions exist, then the above design values should be augmented be appropriate additional pressures. If walls higher than twelve feet are required for this project, please contact our office for additional recommendations. Foundation walls should be appropriately waterproofed, and then backfilled with a clean, compacted, free -draining granular soil or an approved drainage composite. This will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The wall backfill should contain no more than five percent silt and clay, no organics, and no cobbles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of sand (from the #4 sieve to the #200 sieve) should range from 25% to 75%. During compaction of the 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. Footing drains are required and should consist of a slotted four -inch -diameter PVC pipe. bedded in, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock. The invert of the pipe should be placed at the bearing elevation of the footings. A non -woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or other 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 down -gradient and away from the structures. The pipes should discharge to an appropriate discharge facility Subslab Drainage: Any lower floor slabs should be underlain with at least six inches of free -draining gravel or sand. A plastic visquine barrier should be placed between the sand and the slab. Subslab trench drains may be required depending on site conditions during construction. E • PROPOSED CHIEN RESIDENCE ADD #I June 14, 1998 Please contact this office if there are any questions. Thank you, DODDS Geosciences Inc. EXPIRES Mark K. DoAds, " MKD/ms Job Number 8042 Page 3 t A e 10/04/1994 08:55 2068618641 • QEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box Q385 Kirkland, WA 98083 Telephone (425) 827--1084 Facsimile (425) 828-9443 Chien Dinh Nguyen 18311 — 71 'Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98037 UULDS GEUSlAENULb rHu� ul S ,17, T J� Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report 160XX 75" Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Chien: Job Number 8042 May 26, 1998 We are pleased to present the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed new residence to be constructed on the Chien Property east of the wharf at 160XX — 75`' Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The purposes of our work were to professionally evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, recommend general procedures for the grading and underslab treatment in the building area, recommend a foundation method with design parameters, and present a slope stabilization method for that portion of the slope on the property. !Me City of Edmonds -is responsible for ensuring stability of their property_ along the. roadway.. The scope of our services included: 1) Logging and sampling two test borings drilled in the vicinity of the proposed house to a maximum depth of 34.25 feet below existing grades. The test borings were drilled with a truck -mounted drill rig and logged by the. undersigned registered engineer. Selected samples were taken of subsurface soils. 2) Reviewing collected soil samples in our office, and assigning appropriate laboratory tests consisting of moisture contents, sieve gradation, and Atterberg Limit tests. At the conclusion of the testing program, laboratory results were analyzed and compared with field notes and logs. 3) Preparation of this summary report in accordance with our understanding of project requirements and generally recognized local geotechnical engineering practices, including Meadowdale permit requirements. No warranty is expressed or implied. Plate 1, attached, provides the guidelines in the use of this report. OCT 2 i 19913 10/04/1994 08:55 2068818641 Duoub GtUSUitN�t� rain CHIEN RESIDENCREDMONDS Job Number 8042 May 26, 1998 Page 2 Project Understanding: This office was provided with a topographic plan which documented existing conditions including topography. Our knowledge of this project is generally limited to the information on this site plan and information from your architect. We anticipate the new structure will be a wood -frame and multiple storied. It .will be located near the center of the property. We anticipate the driveway will access the site from the roadway near the wharf. General Site Conditions — Surface: The proposed new residential structure will be constructed on the vacant parcel just east of the existing wharf in the Meadowdale Area of Edmonds, Washington. The attached Vicinity Map, Plate 2, shows the general vicinity of the site. At the time of our fieldwork, the flat area of the site was covered primarily with long grass and small shrubs, while the slope down from the roadway was covered with blackberry brush and other shrubs. The proposed building site is located in the flat area of the site. The proposed building site had a very gentle to fair slope down towards the west. Subsurface Exploration and Description: Two test borings were drilled with a truck -mounted drill rig to a maximum depth of 34.25 feet below existing grades at the location shown on the Site Plan, Plate 3. The test borings were logged and sampled by the undersigned registered engineer during drilling. The test boring logs are attached to this report. Recovered soil samples were subjected to moisture content, sieve gradation, and Atterberg Limit tests. Test results and field density information are summarized on the test boring logs and attached plates. Although there may very well be some variation in the subsurface and/or conditions may not be readily apparent from the ground surface, we expect the following subsurface interpretation will be essentially correct: Our test borings revealed that the site is immediately underlain with fourteen to more than eighteen feet of variable, soft to firm silts that are interlayered with sand lenses. These soft soils are wet and compressible. Under these soft surficial soils is a stiff to very hard silty clay. ' Groundwater was observed in our test borings at eight to nine feet below the existing ground surface. 1.0/04/ 1994 08: 55 2068818641 LUUL`a 6LUbL.AL U=) r • CHIEN RESIDENCE/EDMONDS May 26, 1998 Job Number 8042 Page 3 The final test boring logs attached to this report presents our interpretation of the field data and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration location. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities and moisture descriptions on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on observed conditions during drilling. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at each location tested. Conclusions and Recommendations General: The following general geotechnical conclusions can be drawn from our field and laboratory test data: 1) The native undisturbed stiff to very hard clay below the topsoil and soft silt soils can provide adequate bearing to the structure. 2) A drilled pier foundation is appropriate for this site. Floor slabs should also be pile -supported. 3) A permanent soldier pile wall consisting of steel beams and lagging to support the slope behind the house is required. This will provide some stability to the slope although the City of Edmonds must stabilize the road subgrade above the property, and they are responsible for their road. 4) We recommend footing drains around all uphill sides of footings at the elevation of the footings. Positive drainage to an appropriate drainage structure is recommended. 5) Soils with a high percentage of silt and/or clay (>15%) are moisture sensitive and difficult to impossible to utilize as structural fill is the soil is more than two to three percent wetter or drier than the optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Most of the soils at this site are silty and/or clayey, and are moisture sensitive. Foundations — Drilled Auuercast Piles: The structure can be supported on drilled augercast piers. Minimum fourteen -inch - diameter steel -reinforced concrete augercast piles embedded a minimum of ten feet into the underlying stiff to very hard silts are recommended. Fourteen -inch -diameter piers installed a minimum of ten feet into the stiff to very stiff silts will have a vertical capacity of fifteen tons. We estimate that individual piers will experience total and differential settlements on the order of one-half inch. 1,0/ 04/1994 08: 55 2068818641 • VUW)b utUSl 1clvl cJ ^u� u- • CHIEN RESIDF.NCEIEDMONDS May 26, 1998 Job Number 8042 Page 4 The augercast method of pile installation involves drilling the hole with the auger equipment and then continuously pumping concrete grout through the center of the hollow -stem auger during auger extraction. Steel reinforcement in then placed in the hole through the entire depth. A head of concrete must be maintained above the auger tip to ensure an intact column of concrete has filled the drilled hole after the auger has been removed. Generally, this can be achieved by withdrawing the auger slowly while maintaining a suitably high pump pressure. As a general rule, the rate of auger extraction should not exceed about five feet a minute, and the pressure of the concrete grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 pounds per square inch (psi). The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that concrete volumes may be calculated. We can provide design criteria for different pile diameters and embedment lengths, if desired. For transient loads, such as seismic, the allowable load may be increased by one-third. A moderate to major seismic event may result in some shifting of the piers and ground. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be accommodated by the piles and by passive pressure on the grade beams. We anticipate piles will have a lateral capacity of 1.0 ton per pile. Additional lateral capacity, if needed, can be achieved through the installation of battered piles. Piles may be battered up to a gradient of 1:5 (Horizontal:Vertical) without reducing the vertical load capacity. Lateral loading is also resisted by friction between the slab and the subgrade, and by passive earth pressure on the sides of the grade beam. A coefficient of 0.30 may be assumed between the bottom of the grade beam and the subgrade. Passive earth pressures on the grade beam can be assumed to be equal to that exerted by a fluid having a density of two hundred fifty (250) pounds per cubic foot. As augercast piles cannot be inspected after installation, it is important that an engineer or geologist from our office be present during installation. This will allow us: 1) To confirm that the encountered subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration; 2) To evaluate whether soldier pile construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications; and, 3) To provide recommendations for design changes in the event unanticipated subsurface conditions are encountered. We would be delighted to provide these construction observation services, however it must be understood that we will not supervise the contractor during his operations, nor are we responsible for job and site safety during construction. 1.0/04/1994 08:55 2068818641 DODDS GEOSCIENutb rHuc uU CHIEN MSIDF.NCEIEDMONDS Job Number 8042 May 26, 1998 Page S Slope Reinforcement: We recommend the slope behind the proposed house be reinforced with a permanent soldier pile wall. This soldier pile wall should consist of minimum fourteen -inch - diameter steel -beam -reinforced concrete augercast piles embedded a minimum of fifteen feet into the underlying stiff to very hard clay which underlies the site. Pile embedment may need to be deepened to a depth where pile stickup above finish excavation grade equals embedment into the hard clay. Treated lagging should be utilized between the piles. The piles and lagging should stickup above finish grade to a minimum distance to provide for a maximum 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope behind the wall, plus an additional two feet. The wall should be backfilled with quarry spalls, and provisions should be made to accommodate drainage which may percolate through the wall. No structures should be constructed upslope of the soldier pile wall. The following design pressures can be used by the structural engineer for the structural design of the wall: 1) An Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for that portion of the piles above elevation 48 feet (including the two feet of stickup). 2) An Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 40 pcf for that portion of the pile from elevation 48 feet to the top of the stiff to very hard clay (elevation 36 feet). 3) A Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure of 300 pcf acting over twice the pile diameter starting at a depth of 36 feet. The shoring piles will be installed in the same manner as the augercast pile method described above. We can provide design criteria for different shoring pile diameters, if desired. For transient loads, such as seismic, the allowable load may be increased by one-third. A moderate to major seismic event may result in some shifting of the piles and ground. We should be on site during shoring pile installation also. Seismic Design: The site is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. We recommend the designer utilize site soil coefficient SE in their analysis. Site Drainage: The site should be graded during construction so that surface water is directed away from any excavation. Water should not be allowed to pond where foundations, pavements, or slabs are to be constructed. 10/04/1994 08:55 2068818641 .0 llUllLS UtU�latNl.,to L J CHIEN RESIDE,NCE/EDMONDS Job Number 8042 May 26, 1998 Page 6 Final site grades adjacent to the building should be sloped away from the structure for a minimum distance of ten feet. Roof and surface water drains should discharge to an appropriate facility. Footing drains are required and should consist of a slotted four -inch -diameter PVC pipe bedded in, and covered with a minimum of six inches of drain rock. The invert of the pipe should be placed at the elevation of the footings. A non -woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or other 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 down -gradient and away from the structures. The pipes should discharge to an appropriate discharge facility. Erosion Control: Construction of this project will require excavation and grading. Erosion control measures are required. We recommend, as a minimum, that the contractor provide a properly installed filter fabric fence down -gradient from all construction activities. Depending on the amount of surface runoff, hay bales and/or the placing of straw on denuded slopes may be required. If surface runoff is channeled into a nearby storm water system, then the grate should be protected with an approved geotextile fabric to prevent the migration of an silt or clay particles into the storm water system. Excavations and Slopes: Temporary and permanent excavation and slopes for this project must meet all applicable government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet may be attempted vertical, although they may not hold. Excavation slopes greater than four feet in depth should be cut no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Flatter slopes may be required depending upon location variations in soils conditions and whether there is groundwater present. Contractors working in excavations should use caution at all times. Sudden caving of the side slopes is possible. Permanent cut and fill slopes which are not otherwise reinforced should not exceed 2:1 (H:V). 1igi 04i 1994 08: 55 2068818641 UUUUM UtUbl ir-11 r-a DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. GUIDELINES M THE USE OF THIS REPORT This report for Job No. 8042 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. Geotechnicai 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 boring logs, and/or text discussions are based upon our testing, analysis, experience, and judgment. There is no watrant�+ that these subsurface interpretations represent subsurface conditions other than that which occurred at the exact locations tested at the time the fieldwork was conducted by this firm. 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. The recommendations contained in the report are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as may be specifically described 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. Job Number 8042 - Plate 1 Guidelines Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 1,0/04/1994 08:55 2068818641 DODDS GEOSC1tNVt5 r"u�- u" 1p U4i 1y94 b8: 55 2Ubt d1Ub4l � ww • UUUUD %3aUJl11C- Y 1aD DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. �ce 3 r 1a & I T� �e ssn+l I ..'. ' STA e I � s�nTia ss.r ot B-2 Job Number 8042 - Plate 3 Site Plan Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 10i 04i 1994 08: 55 2068818641 UUUL� utuuulr=iv�c� ^u� -� Hole No. 1 PROJECT: 75th PI. West DATE DRILLED: 4/30/98 BRILL RIG: Truck —Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds P.E. HOLE DIA: 8 in. SAMPLER: SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: 9.0 It. HOLE ELEV: 2 50' MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 31.4 ft. rA DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE GRAPHIC00 i t. SLOWS REMARKS of 0 2- 4- 6 Moisture Content = 30.0% 8 10 8 Moisture Content = 31.5% 12 14 18 14 Moisture Content a 35.9% 18 20 72 Moisture Content - 31.3% 22 28 81 Moisture Content - 32.3% 28 +00 1 Moisture Content = 17.3% Bottom of Boring 1. Groundwater table near 9.0 feet during drilling. DODDS Ososclence• Inc. PAGE IOFI BORING LOG 10/04/1994 08:55 2068816641 DODDS GEOSCTENCES rwu� 11 AdIRL AWL i Hole No. 2 PROJECT: 75th PI. West DATE DRILLED: 4/30/98 DRILL RIG: Truck -Mounted LOGGED BY: Mark K. Dodds P.E. HOLE DIA: 8 in. SAMPLER: SPT INITIAL WATER DEPTH: 8.0 ft. HOLE ELEV: 1 42' MSL FINAL WATER DEPTH: 8.0 fI. TOTAL DEPTH: 34.25 ft. N to DESCRIPTION SOIL GRAPHIC BLOWS REMARKS TYPE LOG 9 /Ft. rn Surface - Grass. Dark brown Silty Topsoil, wet, loose. SM Gray Sandy Silt, wet to very wet, soft to firm. ML Standing groundwater table. There are some small sand lenses In the Silt. Sand become medium -grained. Gray Silty Clay, wet, firm. CL Becomes stiff to very stiff. Becomes hard to very hard. 0 2 4 7 Moisture Content = 38.4% 8 8 B Moisture Content = 37.0% 10 12 14 8 Moisture Content = 35.2% 18 18 tO Moisture Content = 36.0% 22 24 34 Moisture Content = 24.7% 28 28 32 Moisture Content - 21.1% 32 +100 1 Moisture Content = 30.6% Bottom of Boring 2. Groundwater table near e.0 feet during arming. DODOS Gececlence• Inc. PAGE IOFI BORING L0G 1.0/04/1994 08:55 2©68818641 DODDS GEUbUitNULb a rr-+sac i4 DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. MATERIAL: Native Soil SAMPLED BY: Mark K. Dodds, P.E. SOURCE: B-1; 5.01- 6.5' DATE: 4/30/98 SCREEN SIZE ACCUM- WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams) ACCUM- PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT PASSING #10 100.0 #40 12.2 3.9 96.1 #100 35.0 11.3 88.7 #200 93.3 30.0 70.0 X ASTM C136 ASTM D1140 10/04i1994 08:55 2068818641 UUUUS UtUbGILNVt5 1,0i 04i 1994 08: 55 2066818641 VUJUS UtUbl;ltNUtb r-Huc iti 9 DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. 70 60 50 40 Plasticity Index 30 20 10 a 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit Symbol Test Hole Depth (ft.) L.L. P.I. USCS B-1 20'-21.5' 30.5 22.3 CL 0 B-1 25•-26.5, 30.3 3.8 ML Job Number 8042 - Plate 8 Atterberg Limits Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 10/04/1994 08:55 2068818641 a DODDS GEOSCIENCES rout 1� DODDS GEOSCIENCES INC. 70 60 50 40 Plasticity Index 30 20 10 0 L 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit Symbol Test Hole Depth (ft.) L.L. P.I. USCS B-2 23'-24.5' 41.6 29.6 CL O B-2 28'-29.5' 29.7 16.2 CL Job Number 8042 - Plate 9 Atterberg Limits Chien Residence 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington I STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 *PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE* STATUS: ISSUED ENG20060173 RIGHTOF T PERIVI IT PARROM Permit Number: ENG20060173 Expiration Date: 7/30/2006 Job Address: 16105 75TH PL W, EDMONDS APPLICANT CONTRACTOR BUI TUNG& TIFFANY VERIZON NORTHWEST 18811 IST PL W P.O. BOX 1003 BOTHELL, WA 98012 EVERETT, WA 98206 425-290-9287 LICENSE #: EXP: JOB DESCRIPTION Underground aerial facilities. Verizon to set 2 poles within the limits of the subject property and backhoe 148 feet to bury cable in front of this address. Property line was redefined. This is a second request - spoke with Jeanie McConnell. DISRUPTION INFORMATION ASSESSED VALUE: $0.00 PROPERTY AREA: 0 SIDEWALK: (OXO) DURATION IN MONTHS: 0 FEE: $0.00 STREET DISRUPTION TRENCH CUT: ( 0 X 0 ) PARKING: ( OXO) DURATION IN MONTHS: 0 FEE: $0.00 YEAROF OVERLAY: 0 FEE: $0.00 ALLEY: ( OXO) DURATION IN MONTHS: 0 FEE: $0.00 INDEMNITY The Applicant has signed an application which states he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims ofany kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any ofits departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense ofany legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason ofgranting this permit. TNECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLEFOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OFONEYEAR FOLLOWING THEFINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCEOFTTIEWORK. Traffic Control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger Trust be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possesion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the workday- NO EXCEPTIONS. Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIA -A DIG(1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION CALL FOR INSPECTION (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1326 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS THIS APPLICATION IS NOTA PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS/HER DEPUTY: AND FEES ARE PAID, AND RECEIPT IS ACKNOWLEDGED IN SPACE PROVIDED. Printed: Thursday. Julv 06.20( RELEASED BY Ej FLECOPY XINSPECTOR COPY DATE ❑ APPLICANT COPY I ISSUED' ENG20060173 • Restore ROW to City standards • Restore Landscape to like or better conditions. • Call for locates of underground utilities prior to any excavation. • Alert affected residents and/or businesses prior to work start. • Conform to approved working drawings and Traffic Control plan. • Public utilities maintain 5'separation from City Utilities. • Verify clear bore crossings • Utility patch restoration to be in accordance with Edmonds Standard detail E2.3 • CDF is required for trench backfill. Refer to Edmonds Standard Detail E4.4 • Maintain erosion & sedimentation control. Keep street clean. • Constriction hours are Monday -Friday 7am-6pm and Saturdays 10am-6pm No work on Sundays or Federal Holidays. • Call for required inspections as noted. • &Engineering Final PARTIAL INSPECTION PARTIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED DATE: DATE: DATE: INITIAL: INITIAL: INITIAL: NOTES:. NOTES: 0 Adapt Engilneering, Inc. 615 - Ir Avenue south Seattle, Washington 98104 Memorandum CONTACT: MR. TUNG BUt; MRS. TIFFANY BUI CC: CITY OF EDMONDS ATTN: ANNE BULLIS; ADAPT FILE TELEPHONE: 425 345.0000 PROJECT: BUI RESIDENCE DATE:11r710T TIME:8:30 PREPARED BY:KURT GROESC14 PE SUBJECT: ROCKERY EVALUATION Tel (206) 654-7045 Fax i206) 854-7048 www.adeptengr.com At your request, we have completed our recent site visit to evaluate the site's rockeries concurrently with a site visit to review the erosion protection issues at the site. This memo is intended to transmit the rockery design calculations requested by the City, and address the City's plan review comments included in the City's September 25, 2007 memo. At the time of our most recent site visit, we observed you and your contractor have completed the placement of strew over the remainder of the exposed soils at the site. Earthwork is essentially complete. The rockeries constructed at the site are generally less than 4 feet in height. The highest rockery at the site is present along the northern property margin and has a Currently exposed height of about 5.5 feet. We understand that an additional thickness of topsoil (—'/2-foot) will be placed above the rockery subgrade soils which consist of compacted silty gravelly sand with abundant large gravel. The lower courses of the rockery consist of large rock particles (4 man rock) with observed diameters of 3 to 4-feet. We observed the emplacement of drainage material behind the rockery, with the inclusion of a drainage fabric at the interface between the native soils and drainage soils. In addition, a longitudinal drain was provided behind the rookeries. The rockeries have been 'chinked" using quarry spalls, with no evidence of excessive voids apparent behind the rockeries, and appear to have been constructed in accordance with generally accepted rockery construction practices. We trust this memo satisfies your current needs. Respectfully submitted; Kurt W. Groesch PE Signature and Date GRo�r G1�TEt�Cy ONAL trla Fx�IRes: os r tsr v8 STREET FILE i4UIt.D;t< G DEPARTMEc 1 Project : ADAPT ENGINEERING, INC. 58 8 n Avenue South N 8812'36' E 0-al' 00, TO 'I,00' 4 l d4 \ T , I gil `,m 4 ry to. soolf C�� a� / so `i sl�P �Y—`s+yK�r t - - a- K�r':. ,�c•.'.?% ;t {,� t Via':: �. ',, Cr M. k 16 -- 7&4 � q/ NZ, / /0 �r mZ ry mm C U) o as m I J m V� 0 m 0 gN _2 _.'O Z fL rLA M ro Ato!" co 1J 1J-m nrrl ^'mmmm Ad to N mN�ON.�100 cn — 1♦ m N0,N A � $ji C) O yy�O m NNO i/j c �C= OOOVD mmmy — m c L4 m C m z ZZZZZ�Z �ZN `� PPPPP� Nag ro ��� a II 11 p a p. � 11 N N N" N � u ANNO,AO m � o 2O Z 2RZ]µ —� 9 W f f N* E n A N .-i 1 C Cl" -0-0 C7 n n 8 8 Z naw VAutr z a z z� 11 x D v Qa. BUI RESIDENCE ►r1 o a STORM DRAINAGE PLAN e�rl"" �i w FIELD REVISIONS Corpora"«'_ , SITE V.M. _ PIT 74�65 ROCK F ( I I / GA$ / 3 SS• ::FOLINISAWARf 7�1 SEWER Ssa OISRNG GiTCN am , R41= 65.214 QAS BEN(iy MARL 3 i / [E t is RIt EL=65.0 (MATCH SURFACE) WV. EL-62.0 (E) (12• ADS PIPE) INV. EL-612 (EX. 12 CONC. Otln INSTALL NEW TYPE I CB APPRO ATELY 2OFF DOWNSTREll1d / (SOUTH) OF E705TWG CIL ( fY IS SMa 6 5.5 INTERIOR OR I PIPE S-2x is / I I -ry\80/ _ N W712'3C E 127V F 8?F \ C ROCK WALL If+ I'll+ 14 ••ff1' � 1 e lip v a86.00' / IN EL=42_4 (NEW 6• PVC FRNCER DRAIN) \ / 41� / NV. EL6OR 1 C PVC FOOTNG DRAW) \ / Irv. EL-621 2a (II TY) Nv. EL=62s (art 17� ���WV. EL=62.4 (NEW 4' PVC FOOTING DRAW VAULT) � � fh°�� 11/1 S �Y iNEERINpFvk= d�N m / / t,flN im NON-EXCLUSIVE FABMENT FOR INGRESS. EGRESS / RECORDING Na 9010120364 VARYING WIDTH ) PROPERTY OWNER NAME: TUNG AND TIFFANY BUI PROPERTY ADDRESS: 16105 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL OD5131-058-006-00 # — LOT COVERAGE BURRING FOOTPRINT 3.815 SF. DRIVES AND TERRACE 3.370 ST TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 7.209 SF LOT AREA 18.042 SF PERCENTAGE BUILDING COVERAGE 21.15 x MAX. PERCENTAGE ALLOWED 35 % CODES THIS OESIiN IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES AS AMENDED BY THE WASMGT0 4 STATE BLIlLM CODE. NO INTERNATIONAL FZS 004M CODE 2003 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2003 UNFOR,I PLtAlM CODE 2003 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE 2003 WASHINGTON STATE VRNTIATION & INDOOR AIR OUNJTY CODE 2001 NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION BUILDING HEIGHT CALC. CORNER MARK CORNER ELEVATIONS A 70-W 8 855O' O 87.50' 0 78 50, TOTAL = 320 I 1 = 80.00' AVE EXISTWG GUM 80.00' + 25' = 105.00' MAXMW RIDGE M. PROPOSED RIDGE ELEVATION = 104.125' LOT SLOPE: 18% SQUARE FOOTAGES LOWER FLOOR 517 S.F. MAIN FLOOR 2.532 S.F. UPPER FLOOR 1.948 S.F. TOTAL LIVING SPACE /,997 S.F. CARAGE 797 SF. STORAGE AND SHOP 1.010 SF. DECKS. PATIOS. TERRACES. PORCH 1,348 SF. CONTACT LIST RELATIONSHIP CONTACT /NAME PHONE ADDRESS avow Rma 425) 451-1161 6E1tkYUE. a 96005 5A19WRM 91GO 1 smwv 1'IM " Ia11[ awm (4r7 µ" 12M SE Oft INN gQuvw_ a mm plp� 19 law Rm KAL" CrA-mms 615 Im M S. 9umm a 96104 OK UGNMR CM QUM CHUM wm C15TYI601 425) H61-1 4052 1 1 S 1( UE0110iQ a A052 SJNY 11Cumm WD S R,E w GCE Nol"m 251) 9•p-y077 PABOR 513 1HNLa "m mm 9A V w1 m 4 ASSOC117F5 41c HUNT i6YAk XW) n4_7611 17614 R6t WA SL IIOmm a 98272 SITE PLAN scM1E t•=1o•-0 aw'Hc SCALE FILE TREt 0 5 t0 20 30 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. - CONTOUR LEGEND f �pL� CK= TITLE INSURANCE CO. 0�R No, 5216682: 66FPROPOSED Comm Av s± �p'�yJ PCTS 6. 7 AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 8. BLOCK 58. --66 EXISTING CONTOURS SEP1 1 MEADOWONE. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT ;�n9�-77 THEREOF RECORDED W VOLUME 5 OF PATS. PAGE 38. RECORDS of SNOHMM COIRM. WASFINGTON; 13L- 1 EXtFPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED To THE CRY OF N714WND5 TINDER AIIOITORS FIE 7Ao1BER 9010110121; BUILDING DEPA 3TMEN-f HIGH MOULD ATTACH OPERATION 1 u74TH PLACE WEST. f :ITV (11= r.( x4nN0�. SIUATE IN THE COMITY OF SN%m]sH, STATE OF WASHNGTON. BUI RESIDENCE 16105 75TH PLACE W. EDMONDS. WA SNOHOMISH COUNTY 1 08/17/2007 1 I SITE PLAN AS —BUILT I QO 06/ 26/2007 ISSUED FOR SITE PLANAS-BUILT JDM A08/17/2007ISSUED 1 08/17/2007 FOR REVISED SITE PLAN AS -BUILT JDM NOTE: ROCERY WALLS INSTALLED PER DETAIL AND DO NOT EXCEED 6*-0' IN HEIGHT AND PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS 00 NOT REEOVRE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 1 FT MIN WIDTH BETWEEN ROCKS AND EXCAVATION. PROVIDE SWALE. GRADE AND DRAIN TO APPROVED SYSTEM. 12' OF COMPACTED SOIL OVER GEOTEXTILE \' NDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 2111V \�2 ROCK FiLTt LAYER. 12' MINIMUM WIDTH QUARRY SALS I 3/4' TO 4NSIZE GEOTE XTILEFlLTER FABR IF Y ABUTS A PR1V OR AY.DRIVE SHY ANTE SHALL BE SLOPE TO DRAIN v�FACE� EBGE DF ROAD SN2FACE EXISTING/ORIGINAL GRADE ' 1 1 6R-0OUND O LEVEL LINE V G�W I \ } Y 0 Of R 1 URFACE i �� Z2 DIAMETER OF LARGEST ROCK 2gy SLOPE IN BOTTOM COURSE OR 12'. 1AN 6' DIA PERF RIGID WHICHEVER IS GREATER DRAW PIPE CENTERED THIS DISTANCE SHALL NOT HORm W BEDDING. SLOPE E E LESS THAN THE HE TO GRAM AND CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OF THE ROCKERY AND NOT PROVIDE CLTANOUTS. '—D" DF ROAD WHENLESS THAN 10 FSIDEWALT FROM KS ARE NOT PDGE THANRESENT. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK, AS REQUIRED ROCKERIES SHALL OT BE CONSTRUCTED iN R.O.W. OR OVER PUBLIC EASEMENTS GENERAL NOTES+ L SPECIAL DISPEC SHALL VERIFY ROCKERY HEIGHT, FOUNDATION MAT , AND ROCK SIZE. 2 QUARRY SPALL AND CRUSHED ROCK SHALL BE PLACED DIRECTLY FROM T OR ROCK SCHEDULE OTHER SUITABL CONTAINER IN ORDER TO MAINYTADN CLEAN BACKFDI. WALL MINIMUM ROCK SIZE 3. OPENINGS BE 'CHINKED' WITH QUARRY SPALLS, HEIGHT BASE TOP 2 FEET 2-MAN 2-MAN 4. R SHALL BE DESIGNED AND STAMPED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL 4 FEET 3-MAN 2'MAN ENGINEER GREATER THAN S FEET IN HEIGHT OR IF VARYING FROM THESE 6 FEET 4-MAN 2-MAN STAND S, OR IF THE CITY DETERMINES THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS (SUCH AS FEET 5-MAN 2-MAN CRITI AREA OR MEADOVDALE EARTH SUBSIDENCE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA) EXIST. Islo s STANDARD DETAIL APwewm er w,c , D. GEB13(T 09/09/2005 ROCKERY DETAIL 4�890-1990 DATE 4/1/Os saJ E ITS 1 ROCK WALL DETAIL ELEVATION SIT 12 V-WILDING DEPARTIAEK' r� ry ni= mumW)�, Fr ! BUI RESIDENCE 16105 75TH PLACE W. EDMONDS. WA SNOHOMISH COUNTY =CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 08/17/2007 ISSUED FOR: SITE PLAN AS -BUILT —DG1.: IIATC. nCC/`DIDTlf%Kl. DV-- 0 O6/26/2007 ISSUED FOR SITE PLAN AS —BUILT JDM 1 08/17/2007 ISSUED FOR REVISED SITE PLAN AS —BUILT JDM ' / t- �, ! i - -N CHAIN-UNK FENCE 1 CALL DIAL —.A —DIG.. AT 1-800-424-55M. A MINIMUM OF 48 KOM BEFOG CONS/RUCRON BEGINS m 120.15' t LANDSCAPE PLAN .< _.SCALE: I" -AD' .,._ . r.;fl7/1;.y1�Ip►II�7A���i� J 1,\ •I t�If�t1j�1•=�1�_j�4= m ��iV1�:rILi;rlfll�ll�J/,�l �1 ALAy!�llL1�� Ilil�lll�l, •111\ • •It �qf lq` • _I �1',•i `t •Ijl �� •l1�1•� e � �0 11 \r • 11 �l I m / / / / I PLANT LIST: S)WOL SCIENTIFIC NAME - COMMON NAME PLANTING SIZE SPACING I ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI - KINNIKINNICK 4' POTS 18" O.C. IIIIIII ® VINCA MINOR - PERIWINKLE 4' POTS 18" D.C. HYDROSEEDED TURF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED ® PAVERS GARDEN ' CRUSHED GRAVEL EXISTING DECIDUOUS"- TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING LARGE SHRUB - TO REMAIN . C EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE - TO REMAIN GENERAL NOTES: THIS PROPOSED TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO SPECIFICALLY STABILIZE THE SITE AND ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PLANT COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. THE PROPOSED "HARDY VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVER" WILL BE ESTABLISHED QUICKLY, TO FURTHER PROTECT THE SLOPES FROM RUNOFF WATER EROSION. AT A LATER TIME THE APPLICANT WILL INSTALL A MORE ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE SITE FROM EROSION AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN PHASES SO THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED AT ONCE. LANDSCAPE NOTES: CONTACTS: Offi 1EVELOPER, TUNE & TIFFANY BUI 18811 1ST PLACE WEST BOTHELL. WA 98012 425-345-8864 (WORK) SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR VICINITY MAP SEE GVIL/ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CLEARING UMITS HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC KEVIN J. TEAGUE ASLA INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE CERTIFIED ARBORIST CERTIFICATION NUMBER: PN-2766A 1. PLANTING AND TURF AREAS TO RECEIVE 4" MIN. DEPTH OF AMENDED THREE WAY TOPSOIL. SUB -GRADES FOR ALL TURF AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE SCARIFIED, CLEARED OF ALL WEEDS, ROCKS AND DEBRIS, AND ROUGH GRADED. TOPSOIL SHALL BE ROTOTILLED INTO SUB -GRADE TO A MIN DEPTH OF 6". 2. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE LIGHTLY COMPACTED AND FINE GRADED PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE TOP -DRESSED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" DEPTH OF MULCH (STEERCO, FERTILE MULCH, CEDAR GROVE COMPOST OR LIKE PRODUCT). 4. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES, HEALTHY, WELL FORMED AND IN EXCELLENT CONDITION. 5. USE NO PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDES ON THIS PROJECT SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THROUGH THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS. 6. FERTILIZE ALL NEW PLANTS WITH 6-4-3 TRANSPLANT FERTILIZER PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. Z ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF SHALL BE WATERED WITH A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM. A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY BE A PORTABLE SPRINKLER ON A HOSE MOVED MANUALLY AROUND THE PROPERTY. WATER APPLICATION SHALL BE EVEN AND CONSISTENT OVER ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF WATER TO KEEP PLANTS AND TURF IN A HEALTHY CONDITION. EXTREME CARE SHALL BE TAKEN NOT TO OVER WATER AND CREATE WASHOUTS OR SOIL EROSION. 8. FINISHED GRADE FOR ALL PLANTING AND TURF AREAS ADJACENT TO WALKS AND CURBS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF CURBS AND WALKS, WHILE MAINTAINING POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 9. TURF HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE DONE AFTER MARCH 15TH AND BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH. 10. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED AND FERTILIZED. SEED WITH THE BELOW SEED MIX OR APPROVED EQUAL TURF SEED MIX: 40X PERENNIAL RYE GRASS 20X RED CREEPING FESCUE 15% CHEWING FESCUE 15X ANNUAL RYE GRASS IOR TURF -TYPE TALL FESCUE APPLICATION RATE OF 4LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET II. FER77UZE ALL TURF AREAS WITH A 15-15-15 LAWN STARTER AT A RATE OF 6.6LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET. 12. SEEDING AND FER17UZING SHALL BE DONE ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER WORK IS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY OWNER. 13. EXTREME ATTENTION AND CARE MUST BE GIVEN TO PREVENT EROSION DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE APPROVED T.ES.C. PLAN MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO DURING THE LANDSCAPE PREPARATION, PRIOR TO SEEDING. _ [ EVISI" APPROVED RV p AN ING � i F l LL� SEP 11 Lull I I z U F WILDING, DEPARTMENT C-rrY OF EDMONDS O DRAWING: L1.1 SHBfT1': I OF I t 111, RIGHT -OF -WA ~'tbf Edmonds CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit No: �(./� �lo — A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: �o� U5 -75tt� k. U-) (_.kMon�):_z, B. Type of Work -C Contractor:yef ; Mailing Address: State License #: City Business License #: { D. Building Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Multi -Family INSPECTORS Contact: Zi rnm eDuwo c Phone: 4,�)'5 c_) 0 - �1' c)%_? ' %�,�( �'�'� �2• Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Seiwer Permit # (if applicable): ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project X_EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVW,SD) ❑ Single Family ❑ Other ��� ���ABC_,c�4 V �.4 1''U i ba ►A► UOS`/ sl h[d, PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES ". CONCRETE PVT: ❑ YES ~ G. Mail Approved P t ❑ Call for Pickup G. SIZE OF CUT X ,_—INDEMNITY.- Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. 'ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. - �- .ffraffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS.,, ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE . THAT I MUST M,^ THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS g • �/ ip lei Si nature: '' i'D .�✓ Date: o (Contractor or Agent) OR °CITY, VSE ONLY Approved by: _ i'�. Right of=.way Feed Time Authorized: Void'After Disruption Fee/Fund ;11=1 Special. Conditions:. Ll�/'10 139, L4rkTVD SM-1'4 6F W I.nspeetion: ee::.100 (i Q t. AS Total Fee: ' L Receipt, Issued=by: REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line. FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: DATE: Inspector'signature „ 1 WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE C:\Documents and Settings\CurtisNy Documents\Forms\Engnrng\ROWpermit_ doc Revised 10/01/03 w .►= ;,i McConnell, Jeanie From: jami.ducote@verizon.com Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:16 AM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: Fw: Edmond's 75th Pole Placement STREET RLE pic05841.bmp (1 MB) Jeanie, Good morning! I just wanted to share our Customers latest findings. In researching as much as possible I believe we are in the Right Of Way. Can you give me a call please. I know Mr. Tung is very concerned that this will delay the building of his home. If you need me to do anything else please let me know. Again I want to Thank you for your assistance on this. Jami H. Ducote Engineer - OSP Engineering Network Engineering & Planning - Washington Division Office: (425) 290-9287 Fax: (425) 710-4152 E-mail: jami.ducote@verizon.com ----- Forwarded by Jami H. Ducote/EMPL/WA/Verizon on 04/17/2006 06:06 AM "Tung Bui Verizon" <tung.bui@verizon To .net> Jami H. Ducote/EMPL/WA/Verizon@VZNotes 04/16/2006 11:20 cc PM Subject Edmonds 75th Pole Placement Jamie, In reviewing the survey conducted on my property (Tiffany sent you a copy of this), and having visited the site, it is clear that north pole location is well within the right-of- way and is on my property side. Note that the garage wall is built about 3 feet within my property line. I visited with Ms. Margaret Ebert yesterday, the owner of the north property (blue house). Her concern was that the city at one time took away 2 feet in front of her property and gave her 15 feet in the back to compensate. She does not want the city to take anymore away. But this concern has nothing to do with work in the right-of- way. In fact, the City having taken the 2' away 30 years ago gives the utitilities the right to do exactly what you are doing now. I think your caution is a wise move to review all issues involved. I don't believe a property line issue is present here. Ms. Ebert just wants to raise some unrelated history to the property. I think it is safe to move forward now. 1 Thx, Tung P.S. If you feel you need to go further south than your current pole marking, let's discuss first. I would not want to have a pole stand in the way of the construction entrance (construction double bed trucks will enter from the north and leaving from the south). (Embedded image moved to file: pic05841.bmp) 2 x E � 1 8. 64 V fb PO .. .. �' staff 74 St- LMt- V gL 78 �, n Note that prop. line is north of existing reference wall Page 1 of 2 McConnell, Jeanie From: Cheryl Beyer [cherylb@snohomishlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:12 PM To: McConnell, Jeanie Cc: beyercL@aol.com Subject: 16031 75th pl w Verizon pole issue Dear Ms. McConnell: Thank you for returning my call today. Attached is the SWD deed given by my parents Melvin and Margaret Ebert in 1990 to the City of Edmonds. The SWD is for a swap of the right of way behind the property in exchange for the pavement being constructed on the private property on the East side of 75th PI W 15 - 20 years earlier. Also attached is a recorded survey of my parents property done in 2000. My parents property is Meadowdale Beach vol 5 Pg 38 Block 58 lot 5. You can see on the survey where the pavement went onto my parents property. The survey also identifies monuments that we located in 2000. The SWD deed transfers' the pavement property + (as far as I can tell) 2 feet east of the pavement to the City. See the second page of the legal description 3rd or 4th line down where it references Blocks 30, 58 and 61. See the language "a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement." While I'm not a surveyor - I believe this is the language that addresses 75th pl w in front of my parents property. It appears that there is right of way 2 feet East from the 1990 pavement line. The deed does not make a reservation or have utility easement or language in it. I believe that the 2 feet covers the water, sewer, storm and gas (?) that are in located in the 2 feet east of the pavement. The road alignment on 75th PI W is located to far east of the Right of Way. The remainder of the Right of way is over the slope on the West side of 75th PI W. I don't see how Verizon can construct or place a new pole in the right of way area 2 feet from the pavement and not disrupt the other underground utilities. Also I don't see how they can safely construct a pole with in 2 feet of the traffic lane of the street. The white line is the edge of the payment.(There may be a very good reason why Verizon is not underground in that location prior to this) I have checked records and the survey and have not been able to locate any documentation that there is a utility easement in addition to the 2 feet of the road right of way. It appears that the Verizon pole would in fact be constructed on my Mothers property without an easement. We do not want to cause problems - however, the front of my Mother's property has been "taken" and encumbered enough the addition of an additional pole - placed safely off the road with significantly impact the front of her property and further impede her ability to use the front of her property in the future. Please give me a call if you have any questions, concerns or in put. Please pass this information on to Verizon if you can. Please respond to both Beyercl _ ao.com and cherylC@snohmishlaw.com Thank you. Cheryl L. Beyer 425-359-9897 Cheryl L. Beyer Weed, Graafstra & Benson, Inc., P.S. 21 Avenue A Snohomish, WA 98290 (360) 568-3119; (425) 334-1480; (206) 283-1819 FAX: (360) 568-4437 e-mail cheryl a snohomishlaw.com 4/13/2006 c, • LAWYERS TULE COMPANY ( THtS SPACE PROVIDED FOR RECOROER'S USE' i' OF WASHINGTON, INC PILED FOR RECORD AT REOUEST of , WHEN RECORDED mtunN TO Nana CITY Ut' .::II,.()I; I):i ti./ ���v�• Y Adaraa 250 -5th ave. ({. �t ary.9lue.Z.p ad'nDnds ..ash. 9E02C) Statutory Warranty Dees! THE GRANTOR I.ELV1T: ... wl:i::,^ and i:�:ii(:re:.::`" T.. formidiincosideratlonof 'the WIC.ttion by the City of IAmonrin of 74th ill. nest between U. inerldowdale Ittl. and 162nd :;t. -". . h+hand Wd.cnnve."w%da'ertanteto Citv of c:tlnonds the Eoftowinedescribedrealstab,situatedlaUiaCountyof S)lohotr.isli State ofwaak(ntton: wee attached legal rieaerlption NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRED it /999P OCT 111990 IYZ e . nmputy Dated ...... ._....... •'• ...�.. /...... ............. .19 9e, IN'Dl1'IUt:AL A(;KNOWLEOGENIF1VT F0101: REPRE.•iE\TATt1'E ACKNOµ'i.t:1H0101' FO1t11: State of Wash,AEt n Slate of washinetun It. County ....7 -`-~ l,f County Of ..._....__... .,... �I certify that 1 krt"!Qr.0a ve satisfactory erldence the: 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ...... ,,,••_, 'fc LUYi+ /'�ii l.r. CJ� (• �Ul'f signed this instrument. . �F!'i�li� signed � 1 ) sixnthis ita{riuiit;�ttrrls�a-1 1vdged?t to be I�shar) ................... _ ... ..................... .... on oath stated that (he -she) was authorized to execute the instrument •4'ifA free and voluntarytWt (gr46"Ai t and purposes mentioned and acknouiediled It as the..,_.. ...... ........ ... _......„.. „......._ in the inslrument)TAI]hed%Q�/ ;j °f...........» ..... - .....». _ „ _... .... to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in _. the Instrumem. » ........ Kotary Public for the Stite t lnmqon/( -my appointment explrea':..� JJ..l V................. D nn _ PAG .. ... et �OL. �W .�_......._....._......__.._... m ... -' - •••••••••• '••. a Per theirus °f'asf�1ngion -%1Y >i3'rt�a {Pn® 6 4 oint appointment ,11y appointment e><t:irvs .............» ........................._....» ........ t .. 64-4008 9/21/go Rev. 10/2/90 Page t of 3 ATTACHMENT "A" Rlaht-Of-Way 7s1. (WESTERLY LINE) Those portlons of Tract 24 and of Blocks 28, 29, 59 and 60, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, Records of Snohomish Count.-, Washington, lying easterly of a line described as follows: COMMENCING at the monumented intersection of the centerline of 164th Street S,W, and the centerline of 75th Place W., as shown on said plat; thence N87035'43'W along said centerline of 164th Street S.W, a distance of 20,67 feet to Intersect a line parallel with and 20 feet westerly of said centerline of 75th Place W.; thence Ni6o59'17'W along said parallel line 20.67 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 10 In said Block 60; thence N87035'43"W along the South line thereof 0.60 feet to intersect a fine 2 feet westerly of the westerly edge of pavement and the POINT OF BEGINNING of this One description; thence northerly along sold westerly line by the following courses and distances: N10008'43"E 34.92 feet; N1O029'050E 50.33 feet; N13005'53'E 50.12 feet; N20032'O7'E 50.09 feet, and N26011'22"E 4.38 feet to intersect the westerly line of the easterly 10 feet of Lots 7, 6 and 5 of sold Block 60, said line being 30 feet westerly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W., sold line also being the westerly line of that certain right of way conveyed to the City of Edmonds bar deeds recorded under Auditor's File Nos. 8709160166 and 8905100086; thence N16 59'17E along said westerly line 150.69 feet to the Northerly line of Lot 5 in said Block 60; thence S87 35'43.E along said northerly One 10.33 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said lot at a point 20 feet westerly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence N16059'17"E along the Easterly line of said Block 60 (being a line parallel with and 20 feet westerly of said monumented centerline) a distance of 198.01 feet to the beginning of that certain tract conveyed to the City of Edmonds by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 6697M and the beginning of a curve to the left with a radius of 30.93 feet, thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 104035,00" an arc length of 56.45 feet to a point on the north line of Lot 1 in said Block 60; thence N47027'27"E 56.62 feet to the westerly line of the easterly io feet of Lots 10 through 1 In said Block 59, being a line 30 feet westerly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of sold 75th Place W., also being the westerly margin of said road as established by City of Edmonds vacation ST-3a approved March 6, 1990; thence N16059'17'E along said westerly One 653.95 feet to the northerly line at said Block 59; thence 872420'17"W along said northerly One 36.47 feet to the easterly line of that portion of N. Meadowdele Road vacated by City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2073; thence N16059'17"E along sold easterly line 48.82 feet to a point on the southerly tine of Lot 11 In said Block 29; thence N72020'17'E along sold southerly line 31.44 feet to an angle point thereon, thence S88045'430E 14.68 feet to the easterly line of said Block 29 at a point 20 feet westerly, as measured at right angles; to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence N16058'17E along Bald easterly line (being a line parallel with and 20 feet westerly of sold monumented centerline) 4.37 feet to an angle point thereon; thence N9044'17"E along said easterly line 629.76 feet to the northeast corner of said block; thence N3009'54'E 30.01 feet to the southeast comer of said Block 28 at a point 20 feet westerly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence N2048'17"E along the easterly [iris of said block (being a line parallelvAth and 20 feet westerly of said monumented centerline) a distance of 386.60 feet to the northeast comer thereof, also being a. point on 'the south One of said Tract 24; thence N0039'53°VII 264.22 feet to a point on the north line of said tract and the tarrnlnus of the line herein described, at a point 20 feet westerly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W. Meld. pout hereinafter referred to as Point °A". 1fiO3oR1�7i�w�d�aWayN.t:. uo�.238iPAGt2441) Bothell, We 98011 .f 84-4008 9/21/90 Rev. 10/2/90 Page 2 of a (EASTERLY LINE) ALSO, those portions of Lois 25, 26 and 27, Meadowdole Beach Supplemental Plat, according to the plat thereof recorded In Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, records of Snohomish County, Washington, and of Tracts 24, 62 and 63 and of Blocks 30, 58 and 61 in said plat of Meadowdals Beach, lying westerly of a line described as follows: COMMENCING at said Point'A; thence S88009'431E along the north line of said Tract 24 a distance of 40.04 feet to intersect a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the line herein described, thence southerly Wong said easterly line by the following courses arid distances: S5018'31"E 7.46 feet; S0026'08"E 50.00 feet; Si 000'31"E 50.00 feet; S0001'22'W 50.00 feet; S1055'30'E 50.01 feet, and S00aT47W 56.79 feat to a point on the north One of sold Tract 25, Mesdowdale Beach Supplemental Plat; thence S88009'431E along said north line 10.00 feet to the east line of the west 10 feet of said Tracts 25 and 26 sold line being 30 feet easterly, 'as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of 75th Place W., said line also being the east line of that certain right of way conveyed to the City of Edmonds by deed recorded under Auditor's Fie No. 2254338; thence S2048'17"W along said east line 268.60 feet to a point on the south fine of said Tract 26; thence NB8°09'43"W along said south line 8.52 feet to Intersect a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement; thence S2°34'32'W along said easterly line 27.91 feet; thence S4017'38"W along said easterly line 50.02 feet; thence S4047'35"W along said easterly line 42,16 feet to a point on the south line of said Tract 27; thence N88009'43W along said south line 0.83 feet to the southwest comer thereof being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence S2026'36"W 30.00 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1 in said Block 30 being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence S9044' 1 T W along the westerly fine of said block a distance of 19.95 feet to Intersect a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement; thence 86059'07"W along said easterly line 10.35 feet; thence S11020'31°W along said easterly line 17.76 feet to a point on the westerly fine of said Block 30 being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centarline of said 75th Place W,; thence S9044'17'W along said westerly fine 311.98 feet to the north One of Lot 7 In said block being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence S88009'43"E along said north line 10.10 feet to the easterly line of the westerly 10 feet of Lots 7 and 8 and a portion of Lot 9 In sold block, said line being 30 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerOne of 75th, Place W., said One also being the easterly line of that certain right of way conveyed to the City of Edmonds by deeds recorded under Auditor's Re Nos, 2078773 and 2078776; thence S9044'171W along said easterly line 184,90 feet to the north line of the south 10 feet of said Lot 9; thence N8800943`W along said south line 6X4 feet to Intersect a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement; thence 88001'11"W along said easterly line 35.89 feet; thence 810"01179W along said easterly line 52.65 feet to a point on the south line of said Block 30; thence N8804543V Siang said south One 4.39 feet to the southwest corner thereof being a point 2b feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence S18o14'42W 41.41 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 58 being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of sold 75th Piece W.; thence S88045'43"E along the north line thereof 4,59 feet to Intersect a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement; thence southerly along said easterly line by the following courses and distances; S17007'10"W 9.04 feet; 818014'68"W 50.01 feel; S18001'111W so.01 feet; S17°13102"W 50.00 feet; S140411521W 50.04 feet; 814028'07'W $0.05 feet; S14048'35"W 50*04 feet; S14007'41"W 50.08 feet; 814034'59"W 50.04 feet; 614°28'04'VV 50,05 feet; S1"T06"W 50.01 feet; S16P38139"Vd 50.00 feet; S17054'08'W 50.01 feet and S18026'47"WA8.80 feet to a point on the south One of said Block 58; thence N87. 35'43"W along said south line 15.25 feet to the Southwest comer thereof, being a point 20 feet 0910 11 0 .it 2 4 CROUP FOUR, INC. y m. Z 4 PAGE 2 4 41 16030 Juan n-Woodinvilla Way N.E. . da;dvi4 wa 08011 84. MS 9/21/90 Rev. 10/2/9t3 Page 3 of 3 easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence S16059'1 M 41.33 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 61 being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W.; thence S87035'43"E along the north line of said block a distance of 15.23 feet to intersect a line 2 feet easterly of the easterly edge of pavement; thence southerly along said easterly line by the following courses and distances: S17012'58"W 9.88 feet; S19035'54"W 50,05 feet; S18036'58"W 50.02 feet; S19051'02°VI+ 50.08 feet., S20025-14"W 50.10 feet; S22021'34"W 50.22 feet, and 825038'02"W 5.32 feel to a point on the westerly lute of Lot 5 in said Slock E1 being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W., thence S18059'17V along said westerly line 38.71 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract 62, being a point 20 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of said 75th Place W,; thence S67035'43"E along the north line of said tract a distance of 10.33 feet to the easterly line of the westerly 10 feet of Tracts'62 and 63, said line being 30 feet easterly, as measured at right angles, to the monumented centerline of 75th Place W.. said line also being the easterly line of that certain right of way conveyed to the City of Edmonds by dead recorded under Auditor's File No. 8908010308; thence $16059'17"W along said easterly line 280.17 feet to the South line of said Tract 63 and the terminus of the line herein described, being a point which bears S87035'43"E 10.33 feet from the Southwest corner of said tract. warrrEH e 1 a z o CHECKED a 1 1 GO PROOFED 9AJZ Q I� GROUP FOUR, INC. 18030 Juanha.WoodlavNe Way NJ: 8othall, Wa 98011 9,01011012 4 VOL.2384PAGE2442 I Snohomish County Online Property Information Page 1 of 1 Snohomish County Online Property Information w -.._ .AW °�►005131029011 Al .00513105001CC 0079040OW000300 vo513105900100 ` � r S °• 0 � � r �j .•° s • ` 0 �� � C051310580o4COtl 0051310590030!{� 00790460JT004C0 r -- C0513105800500. i } r T .L Legend Street Names ., 007904C0D09900 00513105900400 Gibes +a= 00513105600E0O_, U Pm � +` a rt Tax Parcels • 'Si ❑ 00519105900BC0 ^. : �•� - j .+`Y .-�� C0513 Jo580lD802 ¢ Rural Maas ��� •s :, '� `�' 400513105900001 j �, , • , .' ® TownshipMange Grid r� ,; Ik 0079040000ICOD r� ❑ Section Grid +k+44„;: o_ 2003 Photo Extent 8C C05131059908CO 00513105090o z 2003 Aerial Photo 0079040QlPIIlD90 0079040000'0700 S0051310590 1000� 005131,05801 Disclaimer: Snohomish County disclaims any warranty of merchantability or warranty of itness of this data for any particular purpose, either express or implied. No representation or warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, completeness or quality of data depicted. Any user of this data assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Snohomish County harmless from and against any damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this data. Printed on: 4/18/2006 http://gis.co.snohoniish.wa.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=Overview... 4/18/2006 Snohomish County Online Property Information Page 1 of 1 'VVVSnohomish County Online P 00513ra5900J00 00513105000100 00513105900400 t;�5r3ro59co3�� � � 005J3J05B00S00 �, Legend Street Wines 0079040009990-0 R' Gtias ` c UrmOmpcaaledcwdy Tax Pamels Rural Was 00513105900600 - Township/Range Grid lot Section Grid D Airports 2003 Photo Extent ' 2003 Aerial Photo cos r3 rtD5900002 0D7904Q4°0 1000 �. - ,. Information ohomish County disclaims any warranty of merchantability or warranty of less of this data for any particular purpose, either express or implied. No )resentation or warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, mpleteness or quality of data depicted. Any user of this data assumes all -ponsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Snohomish County rmless from and against any damage, loss, or liability arising from any e of this data. on: 4/18/2006 http://gis.co. snohomish.wa.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=Overview... 4/ 18/2006 IN •�� � ' d � a �; x� �a 1 �� r4� i� I i� t*tt tt�Y. 1 � `�,1 , •l� •ekt I itY_ r ~�,T-e'er .'� ,, '. 1�: R Ai '7. .' `' McConnell, Jeanie From: Sibrel, Ed Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:31 PM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: Meadowdale pud pole Move the are over: _ .96 o J O p O Cw- Ed Sibrel Engineering Technician City of Edmonds 425-771-0220 sibrelgri edmonds. wa. us 'Some people achieve immortality through their work. / want to achieve it by not dying " N 1 Tylessage 16 Page 1 of 2 Gebert, David From: Tung Bui Verizon [tung.bui@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:29 PM To: Gebert, David Cc: 'Bui, Tung' Subject: Indefinite permit held needing City action Dear Mr. Gebert, yK I own a property in the Meadowdale area, address 16105 75th Place West in Edmonds. I was in the01 process of having Verizon bury the aerial phone cable by moving two phone poles to the corner edges of my property. This is needed in preparation for tall construction equipment at the site (taller than the phone lines). Our adjacent neighbor, Ms. Margaret Ebert, complained to Ms. Jeanie McConnell (Edmonds' engineering technician) that the pole placement would encroach on her property based on a survey nail placed on the street from a 2001 survey of the Ebert property. My survey conducted last year conflicts with the nail location by about 3 feet to my favor. In response to the Ebert inquiry, Ms. McConnell informed me that she has placed my permit on an indefinite hold, pending my resolution with my neighbor. The neighbor, of course, has never raised any issue with me, has no dispute with me, so the case is not ripe for me to take any civil actions with my neighbor. My neighbor also is not motivated to discuss this situation with us because City staff has already taken her position and the project is now indefinitely stopped. I had my surveyor re -surveyed my property again (the first was done last year). This time, the survey took into account 9 monuments and 6 control points. A certified letter was provided to Ms. McConnell stating that the survey has extensively confirmed the four corners of my property and a discrepancy still exists with the Ebert property. Ms. McConnell correctly states that the City does not get involved in property boundary disputes. However, contrary to that position, the City has assumed Ms. Ebert's position and placed my project on indefinite hold without proper recourse for me. My only recourse is through the City for placing a hold on my project without administrative review. On May 15, 2006, 1 placed a call to your office and left a message. The next day, I received a call from Mr. Lyle Chrisman, Project Manager, from your office. He was briefed by Ms. McConnell and takes the same position that the City does not take sides on property boundary disputes. He then encouraged me to resolve this matter with my neighbor. However, your staff does not understand the concept of ripeness of issue for me to resolve with my neighbor. So far, my neighbor and I have no disputes and thus I cannot take any actions against her. My dispute is with the City for placing an indefinite hold on my project without offering a practical course of resolution. I offered to Mr. Chrisman that I would like to indemnify the City of any liability if my survey results proved to be wrong later. The City already accepts indemnification as a form of legal protection, because the City has required me to indemnify the City in the SFR construction. Additionally, I have asked Mr. Chrisman for the Code section specifying that I must place the pole a "couple of feet" inside my property line instead of just on my side of the survey property line. I have repeated my request two weeks ago but still have not heard back from Mr. Chrisman. Other department officials feel that I need to bring this matter to your attention for a quick resolution. I have requested Ms. Ebert's surveyors to review their work. I have made repeated requests to them .for three weeks now, but this does not appear to be a high priority for them as the potential for discovering their own mistakes for no compensation is not sufficient motivation. Dave, I am appealing to you for a prompt resolution this matter. As we push closer to the construction of the SFR, the demolition equipment and cranes taller than phone lines will cause inevitable damages to the lines unless I can get the cables buried very quickly. Verizon is standing by to resume the work pending your approval. 6/6/2006 Message Page 2 of 2 I look forward to your response on how we can move towards a resolution to this matter. Sincerely, Tung Bui, Esq. (425) 345-8864 6/6/2006 McConnell, Jeanie From: McConnell, Jeanie Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:37 PM To: 'jami.ducote@verizon.com' Subject: RE: 75th PL W. Edmonds SIREET FILE Hi Jami, I just met with the City Engineer and our Program Manager and here's the conclusion: The pole is to be placed in the location it is currently staked, which is at least 2' south of the property line as depicted by Eberts survey. We will only allow the pole to moved further to the North if Mr. Bui decides to work out the survey differences with the Eberts. This would be on his own, not through the City. I have left a message for Mr. Bui explaining this and told him the City and Verizon were anxious to issue the permit/get the work done, but the pole would have to be placed as currently staked. If I hear from him I'll let you know and if you would do the same I would appreciate it. Thanks, Jeanie -----Original Message ----- From: jami.ducote@verizon.com [mailto:jami.ducote@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:47 AM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: RE: 75th PL W. Edmonds Jeanie, No problem. Thank you for the information. I feel like I have opened a can of worms sorry! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Jami H. Ducote Engineer - OSP Engineering Network Engineering & Planning - Washington Division Office: (425) 290-9287 Fax: (425) 710-4152 E-mail: jami.ducote@verizon.com 1 L December 2000 Page 6H-25 Figure 6H-10. Lane Closure on Tivvo-Lane Road Using F/aggers (TA-10) 5. e, Note:r r r r r• symbols and/or codes used in this figure wiffso" V)0 fZv. I N 96ZL CANO or -75-Tt- PLftcF_ vJ . + use Pao f0- P, P,frc--,M1F,P1 o r SA N P & C-,7 4 rLAfi6 EAS CY0 E�nhta (911,0_044� T Typical Application 10 STREET FILE One Lane Two -Way Traffic Taper 30 m (10011) MAXIMUM Sect. 6H.01 2�. i December 2000 Figure 6H-1& Lane Closure on Minor Street (TA-18) Wog10 1 -!a &"O L,kNIE,of-19-►LW. LI`� P1i71i VlvU11 lv�- QlS'1 N C- lq-LA OtNS . p�2an►�Is�, �u.DuJ Lftwcl �iEntJ�fZE CoN--10 �2 ��(ynntl�l Lk I Ir, tuo 4 Typical Application 18 Page 6H-41 See Tables 6H-2 and 6H-3 for the meaning of the symbols and/or letter codes used in this figure. le (optionaq ted Altenuator (optional) Buffer Space (optional) ft) max. STREET FILE `."°' McConnell, Jeanie From: Gebert, David Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:57 PM To: McConnell, Jeanie . Cc: Chrisman, Lyle; Bowman, Duane Subject: Mr. Bui Verizon ROW permit E E R Jeanie, 0K.... I spoke to Mr. Bui: I explained to him that there was nothing hard and fast in the 2 feet that I said the pole needs to be away from the property line. I explained that 1 determined 2 feet because I know that when they auger the hole for the pole it will be a foot or so in diameter, and that they probably won't locate it precisely, and I want some room for error to be sure the pole is entirely south of where the neighbor thinks the property line is, not a fraction of an inch over the line. I don't want to be involved with the neighbor thinking it is in front of their property after the pole is moved. I told him the main thing is that when the pole is installed, it is entirely on his side of the line that the neighbor believes is the property line. He said he will string a line from the nail in the road (where the neighbor thinks the property line is) and ensure that the pole is south of it. I said that is OK. So .... approve the ROW permit with a note that says something to the effect that the pole must be located entirely south of the tag/nail in the road that the neighbor thinks is the property line. No portion of the pole is to touch or extend beyond that line. Let me know if any problems with this. By the way, Mr. Bui said he has talked, to the neighbor's surveyor who supposedly has acknowledged a mistake in his survey. As far as I am concerned that is irrelevant until we hear from that neighbor that they agree with Bui's survey. Dave Message Page 1 of 2 McConnell, Jeanie From: Gebert, David Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:08 AM To: Tung Bui Verizon' Cc: Bowman, Duane; Chrisman, Lyle; McConnell, Jeanie; Graf, Jeannine Subject: RE: Indefinite permit held needing City action Mr. Bui, First, let me just clarify that the Engineering Division is not holding up your building permit. The permit in question is the right of way permit submitted by Verizon to underground their aerial facilities in front of your property. Verizon has restaked the location for the relocated pole so that it will be placed so it is clearly in front of your property based upon where your neighbor believes the property line is. Verizon has revised and resubmitted their plans for approval showing this revised pole location. Jeanie McConnell has informed me that the right of way permit has been ready for approval and issuance since the end of April. However, since you had stated to her that you did not want the pole located where it is presently staked in the field, she has been waiting for a decision from you before approval and issuance of the right of way permit. The decision we need from you is whether: 1. You want us to approve the right of way permit as presently submitted by Verizon which provides for the relocated pole to be placed south of where your neighbor believes the property line is so that the relocated pole is in front of your property, again based upon where your neighbor believes the property line is, or 2. You will resolve the property line issue with your neighbor so that the pole can be placed in front of your property based upon an agreed property line. However, we will not approve a right of way permit for the relocated pole to be placed where your neighbors believe it would be in front of their property until resolution is reached between you and your neighbor as to an agreed location of the property line. Please let us know your decision. Dave Gebert City Engineer -----Original Message ----- From: Tung Bui Verizon [mailto:tung.bui@verizon.net) Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:29 PM To: Gebert, David Cc: 'Bui, Tung' Subject: Indefinite permit held needing City action Dear Mr. Gebert, I own a property in the Meadowdale area, address 16105 75th Place West in Edmonds. I was in the process of having Verizon bury the aerial phone cable by moving two phone poles to the corner edges of my property. This is needed in preparation for tall construction equipment at the site (taller than the phone lines). Our adjacent neighbor, Ms. Margaret Ebert, complained to Ms. Jeanie McConnell (Edmonds' engineering technician) that the pole placement would encroach on her property based on a survey nail placed on the street from a 2001 survey of the Ebert property. My survey conducted last year conflicts with the nail location by about 3 feet to my favor. 6/8/2006 Message Page 2 of 2 In response to the Ebert inquiry, Ms. McConnell informed me that she has placed my permit on an indefinite hold, pending my resolution with my neighbor. The neighbor, of course, has never raised any issue with me, has no dispute with me, so the case is not ripe for me to take any civil actions with my neighbor. My neighbor also is not motivated to discuss this situation with us because City staff has already taken her position and the project is now indefinitely stopped. I had my surveyor re -surveyed my property again (the first was done last year). This time, the survey took into account 9 monuments and 6 control points. A certified letter was provided to Ms. McConnell stating that the survey has extensively confirmed the four corners of my property and a discrepancy still exists with the Ebert property. Ms. McConnell correctly states that the City does not get involved in property boundary disputes. However, contrary to that position, the City has assumed Ms. Ebert's position and placed my project on indefinite hold without proper recourse for me. My only recourse is through the City for placing a hold on my project without administrative review. On May 15, 2006, 1 placed a call to your office and left a message. The next day, I received a call from Mr. Lyle Chrisman, Project Manager, from your office. He was briefed by Ms. McConnell and takes the same position that the City does not take sides on property boundary disputes. He then encouraged me to resolve this matter with my neighbor. However, your staff does not understand the concept of ripeness of issue for me to resolve with my neighbor. So far, my neighbor and I have no disputes and thus I cannot take any actions against her. My dispute is with the City for placing an indefinite hold on my project without offering a practical course of resolution., I offered to Mr. Chrisman that I would like to indemnify the City of any liability if my survey results proved to be wrong later. The City already accepts indemnification as a form of legal protection, because the City has required me to indemnify the City in the SFR construction. Additionally, I have asked Mr. Chrisman for the Code section specifying that I must place the pole a "couple of feet" inside my property line instead of just on my side of the survey property line. I have repeated my request two weeks ago but still have not heard back from Mr. Chrisman. Other department officials feel that I need to bring this matter to your attention for a quick resolution. I have requested Ms. Ebert's surveyors to review their work. I have made repeated requests to them for three weeks now, but this does not appear to be a high priority for them as the potential for discovering their own mistakes for no compensation is not sufficient motivation. Dave, I am appealing to you for a prompt resolution:this matter. As we push closer to the construction of the SFR, the demolition equipment and cranes taller than phone lines will cause inevitable damages to the lines unless I can get the cables buried very quickly. Verizon is standing by to resume the work pending your approval. I look forward to your response on how we can move towards a resolution to this matter. Sincerely, Tung Bui, Esq. (425) 345-8864 6/8/2006 1 1 1 1 1 1 engineers • Manners • burveyors Sto r water Deten� ..R i System Design Report AM Residence" City of Edmonds., �V;4s�i.sk .ton ' - Py-oject Site .Location.: 161015 75±" Place `Nest Ed:o iv; eels, Washington C wr �O �A F Mary 1 SiR EET FILE Tung Eui ' c,'o 4D Arc rhi.ect�- 345 1.18'h Aveijue SE — SWIe. 91.20 Consulting Engineer's Bellevue, WA. QR'005 Creative Solutions... Superior Service t m M . ' APR -7 2006 �S,EC .fob 0,530 BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' CITY OF EDMONDS Bui Residence Stormwater Detention System Design Report City of Edmonds, Washington Project Site Location: 16105 75 h Place West Edmonds, Washington Prepared For: Tung Bui c/o 4D Architects 345 118`h Avenue SE — Suite #120 Bellevue, WA. 98005 Prepared By: American Engineering Corporation Rob Stewart, E.I.T. / Cheryl Girard, P.E. February 22, 2006 AEC Job No. 0539 o� w 0 z 33190 <v F F01 STERF'OG�Z 11 /0NAL EXPIRES 05-07-2007 V TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION1- PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................1 Figure1: Vicinity Map............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Existing Conditions Map............................................................................................4 Figure 3: Developed Conditions Map........................................................................................ S SECTION 2 - CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY...........................................6 SECTION 3 — DETENTION VAULT DESIGN........................................................................8 SECTION 4 - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE..........................................................11 American Engineering Corporation Page i SECTION 1-PROJECT OVERVIEW Project: The Bui Residence —16105 751h Place West City of Edmonds Plan Check #05-564 Site Information: AEC Job #0539 The proposed Bui Residence project consists of the removal of an existing 1,000 SF unoccupied single-family residence and detached garage and replacement with a new ' 3,500 SF (footprint area).home with attached garage. The applicant has submitted an application for building permit to the City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds permit plan check tracking number is 05-564. The generally rectangular site is located within the City of Edmonds at 16105 75`h ' Place West. This site is also known as Snohomish County Tax Parcel 005131-058- 006-0. Please refer to Figure 1: Vicinity Map. More generally, the site is located within the Southwest '/ of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M. The site is bordered by a single-family residence to the north and south, 75`h Place West to the west, and an access drive and additional single-family residences to the east.. Pre -Developed Site Conditions: The site contains a single-family residence, a gravel access drive and a detached garage. All surface improvements and structures will be demolished as part of this. project. The site slopes downward from east to west at an average of about 25%. The site is served with electricity, power, water, gas and telephone from 75`h Place West. ' There is an existing City of Edmonds Sanitary Sewer trunk line running north south beneath 75`h Place West to which most of the existing (and future) residences are connected for sanitary sewer service. The most current City as-builts were obtained and the location of this main is shown on the plans. The site lies with the Puget Sound drainage basin and per discussions with City of Edmonds Surface Water Engineering division, the site must provide stormwater detention system design and construction due to the size of the redeveloped impervious surface area. Runoff patterns for the site are generally from east to west. Vegetation on site consists mainly of overgrown grasses, shrubs and trees with some impervious surface areas in the form of buildings and walkways. Please refer to Figure 2 Existing Conditions Map. American Engineering Corporation P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc � I Post -Developed Site Conditions: A new 3,500 SF single family residence, attached garage, driveway, walkways and landscape areas will be constructed. Please refer to Figure 3: Developed Conditions Map. Runoff from the roof, driveway, walkways and landscape areas will be collected, conveyed to the proposed detention facility, detained to pre -developed flow rates and released to the existing public storm drainage system. Subsurface drainage will be collected as required by the geotechnical engineering report and conveyed 1 directly to the City of Edmonds storm drainage system in 75th Place West. tAmerican Engineering Corporation P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc Figure 1: Vicinity Map American Engineering Corporation ' P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc 3 v SITE B.M.=74.65 / / 72 ,o / W 0 / Co I N3 U Z V / \ss U � I / I o N I ! VJ co � / is 4.0 BOARD FENCE / 10 ON wAll S I 88'12'36" E _ _ 12 7.81 ' 0 U RETAINI WILL i0 10 100 ... / T WEST HALF / VACATED 74TH N P L W. 12"(DEAD) / R _A gg �� • 1� tit. r - �. �`�''',����� • ',�` ri.3 � 9... ���_;' c�'W 'y.='+E-�+' �,yy.�"iy� `�_ � 1 ,�a+J�NG` _ � MIN r ©lip / / mco o / \ d _ s, W CHAIN -LINK FENCE N87'57'16"W 120.73' 0 U \U 4J J _ \ 01 / i SCALE : 1' = 20 FEET gisting Feature - Area SF Garage Remains 200 Front Yard Gravel Parking Area 200 Concrete Stairs 84 House and Covered Porch 1158 Shed 343 Back Yard Gravel Driveway 360 Total Existing ` pervious 1 2345 . BUI RESIDENCE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION IN 1911 ADDITION IN t 950' S i 0539 Cr t: 1 HLOWDZ SP& FAcpw: r Fro ••._..--� cSxr< , m"' SITE PLAN 1 :/.wiF, r.ica O 5 . 10 -20 BO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FM cmwC#w TITLE 16UPA+IE co. OFWM Te. 5216652, LOTS 6, T MID THE NORTH HALF OP LOT 0, BLOOK 50. . ►EApO1'OALE. AO44ROI46 TO THE PLAT THEREOF REWWW IN VOLLFE 5 OF PLATS. PAGE 56, r N C Q)' 0 V E LU Al Cl— CieLO _ • O � r �o r s a s s ` j e o UQ ,�B � oO W 05013 SECTION 2 - CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The City of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 regulates stormwater treatment and control for new development within the City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds Engineering Handout E72 defines the stormwater design requirements for new development with over 2,000 SF of impervious surface area. The proposed project will provide an on -site detention vault other than the City of Edmonds Standard Plan Detention System. The detention vault will be sized to detain developed flows from the proposed development to pre -developed rates. The project will provide an on -site stormwater detention vault using the requirements set forth by City of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The developed 10 and 100-year/24-hour storms will be released at the pre -developed rates of 10 and 100-year/24-hour storm events respectively. The runoff will then outfall into the existing downstream public conveyance system in 75a` Place West. Methodology / Precipitation The SCS methodology within the "Stormshed" hydrologic modeling program by Engenious Inc. was used to create the flows and size the detention vault. This methodology was verified by the engineer as acceptable to the City of Edmonds Engineering Division (Damon Roth) prior to ' detention system sizing. The SCS Type I rainfall was used to compute the flows from the site. Precipitation for the 2, 10, and 100-Year 24-hour events areas follows: 2-year = 1.50 inches 10-year = 2.0 inches 100-year = 3.0 inches 6-month = 1.00 inches ' Existing Site Hydrology Since all existing impervious surface areas on the site are either being completely removed or disturbed and re -developed, the existing conditions were modeled using all forest per City of Edmonds stormwater standards. The curve number associated with this land cover per Table III- 1.3 — Runoff Curve Numbers as described in the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual is as follows: CN for second growth forested condition with light underbrush = 81 The time of concentration ("Tc") for the site is listed in the StormShed Output shown on the following page. The Tc was calculated using a length of 245 feet with a slope of 14.7%. American Engineering Corporation ' P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc Pre -developed Conditions Areas Total Area On -Site = 0.41 ac Forested 2° Growth Area = 0.41 ac Pre -developed Conditions Peak Flows 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 0.1 A cfs 0.379 cfs 0.704 cfs v Developed Site Hydrology The preliminary proposal is to develop the site with a single family residence, driveway, and associated walkways. The curve number associated with the developed conditions land cover per Table III-1.3 — Runoff Curve Numbers as described in the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual is as follows: CN for landscape = 86 CN for impervious (roof, driveway, and walkways) = 98 The time of concentration Tc for this site in the developed condition is the minimum of 10 minutes for both pervious and impervious areas. Developed Conditions Area Total Area = 0.41 ac On -site Imp = 0.17 ac 1 (roof, walkway, driveway) Landscape = 0.24 ac Developed Conditions Peak Flows 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 0.522 cfs 0.846'cfs 1.25/efs American Engineering Corporation ' P.\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc 7 SECTION 3 - DETENTION VAULT DESIGN Detention Vault The developed condition runoff was routed through the proposed detention facility using Level Pool Routing, see the table below which summarizes the StormShed output listed on the following pages. Release Rate Table From Detention Vault Storm Event Predeveloped Flows Allowable Release Rates Actual Release Rate 10- ear 0.036 cfs = 0.036 cfs 0.035 cfs 100- ear 0.103 cfs = 0.103 cfs 0.101 cfs Storm Shed Routing Output Running P:\2005\0539\Engineering\StormShed\RL Pool Report.pgm on Thursday, February 23, 2006 Summary Report of all RLPool Data Project Precips [2 yr] 1.50 in [10 yr] 2.00 in [100 yr] 3.00 in [6-month] 1.00 in BASLIST2 [Predeveloped] Using [TYPE IA] As [10 yr] [Predeveloped] Using [TYPE IA] As [100 yr] [Developed] Using [TYPE 1 A] As [ 10 yr] [Developed] Using [TYPE IA] As [100 yr] American Engineering Corporation P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc 8 LSTEND BasinID Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac Predeveloped 0.0356 8.17 0.0205 0.41 Predeveloped 0.1026 8.17 0.0445 0.41 Developed 0.1174 8.00 0.0418 0.41 Developed 0.2084 8.00 0.0720 0.41 BASLIST [TYPE1A] AS [10 yr] DETAILED [Predeveloped] [Developed] LSTEND Drainage Area: Predeveloped Method Raintype Event /Loss SCS/SCS.-TYPEIA 10 yr SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr SCS/SCS - TYPEIA 10 yr SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number> > Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Inty: 10.00 min \ 80 v Area CN TC Pervious 0.4100 ac 81.00 0.41 hrs Impervious 0.0000 ac 0.00 0.00 hrs Total 0.4100 ac ��Im Pervious CN Data: Forest 81.00 0.4100 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Segment 1 - whole site 245.00 ft 14.70% 0.4000 .4 min Drainage Area: Developed Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.2400 ac 86.00 0.17 hrs Impervious 0.1700 ac 98.00 0.17 hrs Total 0.4100 ac American Engineering Corporation P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc 9 Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscape Impervious CN Data: Imp (Roof / Driveway / Walkway) Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Fixed Fixed Tc - minimum Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Fixed Foixed Tc -Min. HYDLIST SUMMARY [ 10-Yr Out] [ 100-Yr Out] LSTEND HydlD Peak Q Peak T ------- (cfs) (hrs) 10-Yr Out 0.04 9.33 100-Yr Out 0.10 8.50 86.00 0.2400 ac 98.00 0.1700 ac Length: Slope:.. Coeff: Travel Time 0.00 ft 0.00% 10.0000 10.00 min Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time 0.00 ft 0.00% 10.0000- 10.00 min Peak Vol Cont Area (ac-ft) (ac) 0.0413 0.4100 0.0714 0.4100 American Engineering Corporation P:\2005\0539\Docuinents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc 10 1 STORLIST [Vault] Node ID: Vault Desc: Underground Vault Start El: 63.0000 ft Max El: 65.2500 ft ' Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 40.0000 ft 6.2500 ft 100.00 DISCHLIST [Orifice] LSTEND Control Structure ID: Orifice - Multiple Orifice Structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice Start El Max El Increment 63.0000 ft 65.2500 ft 0.10 Orif Coeff: 0.62 Bottom El: 63.00 ft Lowest Diam: 1.0500 in out to 2nd: 1.3500 ft Diam: 1.6000 in RLPCOMPUTE [RL Pool] SUMMARY 10 yr Match Q: 0.0356 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.0354 cfs - Peak Stg: 64.35 ft - Active Vol: 337.61 cf 100 yr Match Q: 0.1026 cfs Peak Out Q: 0. 10 12 cfs - Peak Stg: 65.05 ft - Active Vol: 513.69 cf SECTION 4 - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE There are two new Type I catch basins being installed in the public right-of-way as part of this project. There are no other public storm drainage improvements proposed to be constructed as part of this proposal. The private storm drainage elements requiring maintenance by the residential owner include: catch basins, trench drains, collection/conveyance pipe and the private detention vault/flow control structure. Please refer to the following pages for maintenance guidelines. American Engineering Corporation P:\2005\0539\Documents\Word\SDReport\0539SDReportBody.doc 11 REPORT NO. EERG 2003-06 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK R.B. Seed M.F. Riemer K.O. Cetin R.B. Sancio R.E.S. Moss J.D. Bray ;- A.M. Kammerer R.E. Kayen J. Wu A. Faris J.M. Pestana RESUS MAY 2 2 2006 B4b9N00FMC 'STREET FILE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Fig. 40: Post -Failure Configuration of Centrifuge Model Dam with Sand "Core" and Clay Shells Showing Shear Localization Along Top of Sand (Arulanandan et al., 1993) Owing to the very sensitive relationship between post - liquefaction strength (Su,,) and void ratio (e) for loose to medium density soils, even apparently minor amounts of increase to void space (reduction in dry density) at the top of a sub -layer can result in large reductions in $,,. In extreme cases, water attempting to escape from the sublayer can be temporarily trapped by the overlying, less pervious layer, and can form a "film" or water -filled "blister" at the interface between the two layers (in which case the shear strength, S,,,,, is reduced fully to zero along this interface.) An interesting early example of this behavior was produced in a centrifuge test performed by Arulanandan et al. (1993), as illustrated in Figure 40. In this experiment, an embankment was constructed with a sand "core" and a surrounding clay "shell" to prevent drainage during cyclic loading. The sand core was marked with layers of black sand so that localized changes in volume (and density) could be tracked during globally undrained shearing. When subjected to a model earthquake, cyclic pore pressure generation within the sand occurred, and the embankment suffered a stability failure. During the "undrained" earthquake loading, the overall volume of the saturated sand "core" remained constant, satisfying the definition of globally undrained loading. Localy, however, the lower portions of the sand "core" became denser, and the upper portions suffered corollary loosening. The top of the sand layer suffered the greatest loosening, and it was along the top of this zone of significantly reduced strength that the slope failure occurred. Given the propensity for occurrence of localized void redistribution during seismic loading, and the ability of Nature to selectively push failure surfaces preferentially through the resulting weakened zones at the tops of localized sub -strata (and water blisters in worst -cases), the overall post - liquefaction strength- available is a complex function of not only initial (pre -earthquake) soil conditions (e.g. density, etc.), but also the scale of localized sub -layering, and the relative orientations and permeabilities of sub -strata. The; qualities that can be reliably characterized, at this laboratory testing or soil samples (or "elements") dimensions. Accordingly, at this time, the best basis for evaluati< liquefaction strengths is by development of correlations between in -situ index tests vs. post -liquefaction strengths back -calculated from field case histories. These failure case histories necessarily embody the global issues of localized void redistribution, and so provide the best indication available at this time regarding post -liquefaction strength for engineering projects. L Figure 41 presents a plot of post -liquefaction residu4l.strength (Su,,) vs. equivalent clean sand SPT blow count (N1,60,W). This was developed by careful back analyses of a suite of liquefaction failures, and it should be noted that these types of back analyses require considerable judgement as they are sensitive to assumptions required for treatment of momentum and inertia effects. The difficulties in dealing with these momentum/inertia effects (which are not an issue in conventional "static" stability analyses) are an important distinction between the efforts of various investigators to perform back -analyses of these types of failures. In this figure, the original correction for fines used to develop 141,6o,,-, is sufficiently close to that of Equations 6 and 7, that Equations 6 and 7 can be used for this purpose. Stark and Mesri (1992), noting the influence of initial effective stress on S,,,,, proposed an alternate formulation and proposed a correlation between the ratio of &,WP and N1,6o,ri, as shown in Figure 42, where P is the initial major principal effective stress (di j). This proposed relationship overstates the dependence of Sw, on di j, and so is overeonservative at shallow depths (dt,i < 1 r tmosphere) and is somewhat unconservative at very high ii, tial effective stresses (dt,i > 3 atmospheres). It is also true, however, that the relationship of Figure 41 understates the influence of di., on Su,,. Figure 43 shows an excellent example of this. Figure 43(a) shows the stress paths for a suite of four IC-U triaxial tests performed on samples of Monterey #130 sand, all at precisely the same density, but initially consolidated to different effective stresses prior to undrained shearing. (The sample void ratios shown are post - consolidation void ratios.) As shown in this figure, the samples initially consolidated to higher effective stresses exhibited higher undrained residual strengths (S.). The ratio between 5,,, and P was far from constant, however, as shown in Figure 43(b). The influence of d1 j on S„ j (and on the ratio of %.,/P) is a function of both density and soil character. Very loose soils, and soils with higher fines contents, exhibit S,,,, behavior that is more significantly influenced by dt,i than soils at higher densities and/or with lower fines content, At this time, the authors recommend that the relationship of Figure 41 (Seed & Harder, 1990) be used as the principal basis for evaluation of Seed et al. (2003) 41 100 80 0 60 Z am ca cc 40 coU O ~ 20 c� MEASURE1 SI'T AnD CRITICAL STRENGTH DATA O ES1IUATED SPT ANO C MDCAL STAENG11i DATA l7 CQTtS1TiUCT10N INDUCED LICIUEFACTTGN C'NIIMATED DATA 12 1s 4u EQUIVALENT CLi AN SAND BI.OW000NT Fig. 41. Recommended Relationship Between S.,, and N1,60,Cs (Seed and Harder,1990) 05 co Y W cc U7 04 ¢4 to Q 03 LU D2 U O LIL 1 0.1 65 24 MCAiVRCO SPT AND U1.6RAINED E.fHK AL SIRENSW OAIA (� ESnYAILO SP1 AND UNDRAWD CWTICAL SW(14etN OATA DCDN51NUC11MI "OUCr.D uDUUACTION - WWA1rO OA1A c'� DT 4/ is V12 CTA t.E 2) S%, •11 Ta O_■ 3 8 12 1tl -du C% 26 EULilvALENT CLEAN SMD SPT BLOWCOUNT, tN11$0_cg Fig. 42: Relationship Between SD,,/P vs. N1,69,cs as Proposed by Stark and Mesri (1992) in -situ S,,,, for "relatively clean" sandy soils (Fines Content < 12%). For these soils it is recommended that both relationships of Figures 41 and 42 be used, but that a 5:1 weighting be employed in favor of the values from Figure 41. Similarly', a more nearly intermediatn basis (averaging the results of each method, with 3:1 weighting between the relationships of Figures 41 and 42) is recommended for very - silty soils _(Fines Content > 30%). For fines contents between 12% and 30%, a linear transition in weighting between the two proposed relationships can be used. - It must be noted that engineering judgement is still required in selection of appropriate post -liquefaction strengths for specific project cases. Consideration of layering and sub -layering, permeability/drainage, and potential void redistribution, and the potential for confluence of alignment of layering interfaces with shear aurfaces must all be considered. For most "typical" cases, use of S,,, values in the lower halves of the ranges Seed et at. (2003) shown in Figures 41 and 42 (with due consideration ror weighting of these) appears to represent a suitably prudent range for most engineering purposes at this time, but lower overall average post -liquefaction strengths can be realized when layering and . void redistribution combine unusually adversely with potentially critical failure modes. Finally, a common question is "what happens at N1.60,., values greater than about 15 blows/ft.?" The answer is that the relationships of Figures 41 and 42 should be concave upwards (to the right), so that extrapolation at constant slope to the right of N,60,,=15 blows/ft should provide a conservative basis for assessment of S,,,, in this range. As these projected values represent relatively good strength behavior, this linear extrapolation tends to be sufficient for most projects. It should be noted, however, that values of %,, should generally not be taken as higher than the maximum drained shear strength. Values of $,, higher than the fully -drained shear strength would suggest significant dilation. Dilation of this sort tends to rapidly localize the shear zone (or shear band), and so reduces the drain path length across which water must be drawn to satisfy the dilational "suction". As these distances can be small, rapid satisfaction of this dilational demand is possible, and "undrained" (dilational) shear strengths higher than the drained strength can persist only briefly. Accordingly, for most engineering analyses the use of the fully drained shear strcngth as a maximum or limiting value is prudent. Similarly, the maximum shear strength cannot exceed the shear strength which would be mobilized at the effective stress corresponding to "cavitation" of the pore water (as it reaches a pore pressure of —1 atmosphere). The above limit (to not more than the fully -drained strength) is a stronger or more limiting constraint, however, and so usually handles this problem as well. 5.0 EVALUATION OF AT*M.CIPATED LIQUEFACTION -MI CED DEFORMATIONS AND DLSPLACEMENTS 5.1 Introduction: Engineering assessment of the deformations and displacements likely to occur as a result of liquefaction or pore -pressure -induced ground softening is a difficult and very challenging step in most projects, and this is an area where further advances are needed. 5.2 Assessment of "Large" Liquefaction -Induced Displacements: For atuations in which the post -liquefaction strengths are judged to be less than the "static" driving shear stresses, deformations and displacements can be expected to be "large"; generally greater than about 1m., and sometimes much greater. Figure 44 shows examples of global site instability corresponding to situations wherein post -liquefaction strengths are less than gravity -induced driving shear stresses. These are schematic illustrations only, and are not to scale. 42 RHco co CL oa UE��++.a �' in.aa Gc. A 0. Ws rs :03 log tno G vim, o ff'. c Kayo %A Er m � � �•..o ^ pub w A 04 04 1 a�g1�M. + "6rsf� CA Cb 0 lea ° H o� v`q �°°°ain� °ram H Cl)cr �% RX r.- V. a o, 0- 01 Ja' ;L I. a CA (AN ►� 2 F op Q��• pcbe~ F+"°m$ EO°aaR.,, c °, C� w p� °�80• BE oo�'w.cc,Qgq n°po OQ rr a p toA� C^ �d$'po ��,�•�o �g°0 off a, p`��co 8 a n rr upi� �n'^•t7'U "'r.ly Cb ov,Ooy��nO�ORON,!co to Cl cu A n p W O .'7 GP N _ r.Ot C�. O co co Qa .-.. RESIDUAL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, S, (psf) C T z o� A 0 0 0 O O r z _n9 4O� W"it �' ocr MGM ao� Cypp ��,►OO �'y LA 13 n N kb A' poaw ����00 t7.� �� y� P•�CQG � �MO S, � C p A.Tw y FnOnw•„°f O fy9fO VVlpt '1! Ows c �� �9�apc�p�p '•1 ,� � wpm ff-0 apr 00 ° o Ot Ra r2 8 9 Itp�, a te< cr .. w w ... , ; y. ' 0 w..... t� a z N � boo F'W (�: a CK � d .� FROi,�' p � o gst o 8° '6 w w 00 •b o u ap U a k+ �jA a� FA UO Oj Gn F1.NNO Fi � ppr•1 �••�+ O (�,. Q7 �' •0t8 ��'�Oa •c�'" 3uo ��V^.�o � >��.° 'a���•'wo d6a'c . 5 a �i w G • o •9 $ no•O40.0 '°� -`�.5 4) �� �p N 00 u o q c �� 8•p •� .o xM.• o� r� 5 ��PO u O�°•ti �• .�. •C,i° oe .ra`� �a 1•� 83y. � 000 ��g a,�-'•� w pi�'v� �Odugao°�p`'�'� •d'O�� �k,r+ • $'y e w c�a d a •a '.'' �; � y "'' o y a wwo C •O a � d ai c 8 � •y ° -� 'ca, WUO o0 �0'S .; CQ ° p*'� a� °0 0 0 � o,1•op .d o+. O' '� o 8 '� 3`n � � � w 3 •d'�ed 'j7.rwpy~ wouC �'DO d > aS � �'t7 N a� ►. '� w bb*o u c� � N g, 0oi� Ate. .d 0 e� Wp CAOWt/�WVatov�v:t/� wz C7r7SWv� oUc�WA3. d — E E !7 R R T F R R - RC �• C 1 R� 4 m a g a n a a A R ti �� `� '° 7 C e ; • a w a s � a p•« u v u '.J' O NO �pj •o P. O V E40� N jr N N •� N y .�4 ra. C •.� no- tj MCI Qj 00 GO 248,01 . .02•b ii .�� aa� N D O pr � ° .O d•ti��ao� �oy�a'� p'El'" 'aa 2�a) .1OsCV • �S �oa� o� + etl eko ul .mod h entj 8.09 o� o .. .. r-. , �-a2f: '••�•j1o•t.c;n. 's..n-•.cq•; .•1'+•. � - ... ..� ,. .. _.�.... .•5:::`^h,:i,..a rrrat�vta'sa•asx•...Xi .?..dY��t:awa WF_uykW. si- - . _ .... _ _ . ^.- . • , �. .,:r EPRI Electric Power Research Institute Topics: Soils Testing Foundations Transmission towers Transmission lines Design ., 6� EPRI EL-6800 Project 1493-6 Final Report August. 1990 Manual on Estimating soil Properties for Foundation Design Prepared by Cornell University Ithaca, New York Table 4-5 RELATIVE VALUES OF EFFECTIVE STRESS FRICTION ANGLE FOR NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED COHESIVE SOILS Test Type Triaxial compression) (TC) Triaxial extension (TE) Plane strain compression (PSG) Plane strain extension (PSE) Direct shear2 (DS) Friction Angle (degrees) 1.0 etc 1.22 it, 1.10 ¢tc 1.10 (for PSC/TC) x 1.22 (for TE/TC) 1.34 ;tc tan-1 (tan 0psc cos ;cv) or tan-1 ftan(1.10 etc) cos �rvl 1 - CIUC, CK UC, or CAUC 2 - Speculative, based on results from sand it is understood that the strains necessary to accomplish this remolding may exceed 100 percent. Earlier studies of this subject may not have subjected the soil to the necessary strains, and therefore residual angles quoted in earlier sources may be somewhat on the high side. Extensive research,(e.g., 27, 28) has shown that the clay fraction (percent finer than two microns) and mineralogy perhaps are most important in evaluating ¢r. If the soil clay fraction is less than about 15 percent', the soil behaves much like cohesionless soil, with �r typically greater than 25' and not much different from j_cv.; If the clay fraction is greater than 50 percent, Or is appreciably lower than Ocv and is'governed entirely by sliding of the clay minerals. For the most common clay minerals, Or ranges approximately from 15' for kaolinite, to 10' for illits, and then to 5' for montmorillonite. Soils with clay fractions between 15 and 50 percent exhibit transitional behavior, as shown 'in Figure 4-24. The value of �r also is stress -dependent because of curvature of the failure enve- lope (22, 27, 29). Values given in Figure 4-24 are appropriate for an effective normal stress equal to about one atmosphere. Figure 4-25a illustrates the typical changes in ;r which occur with changes in effective normal stress and plasticity 4-25 400 o, 30 ° c Q 0 206 1i v 100 Vl d Range for 8 field sites with. PI/CF =0.5 to 0.9 Sands \ O\ \ O0 8- ,� .___ 0— 0 �-Kaolin O 000 —0-- Values of. Or at (TV /P°=I 8entonite—"11111 nn nn Gr1 RA IC Clay Fraction, CF (%) Figure 4.24. �r.from Ring Shear Tests and Field Studies Source: Skempton (28), p. 14. O 10 20 30 40 50 Plasticity Index, PI M) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Effective Normal Stress, v/pa Figure 4-25. ;r for Amuay Soils Source: Based on Lambe (29), p. 144. 4-26 0 R, index for the soils at the Amuay landslide sites. These curves essentially are parallel, indicating that the change in Or as a function of stress change is inde- pendent of the plasticity index. Re-pl6tting these changes in friction angle (ear) results Figure 4-25b. Other data (e.g., 27) are consistent with these Air values. The final values of �r therefore should be evaluated from Figure 4-24, modified for effective normal stress level as given in Figure 4-25b. UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS - GENERAL EVALUATION BASIS The undrained shear strength (su) may very well be the most widely used parameter for describing the consistency of cohesive soils. However, au is not a fundamental material property. Instead, it is a measured response of soil during undrained loading which assumes zero volume change. As such, su is affected by the mode of testing, boundary conditions, rate of loading, confining stress level, initial stress state, and other variables. Consequently, although not fully appreciated by many users, su is and should be different for different test types (See Figure 1-1 for test types.). As described earlier in this section, it is appropriate to use a standard "test of reference", which is the isotropically consolidated, triaxial compression test for undrained loading (CIUC), With the CIUC test as a standard reference, the results of all other tests can be compared simply and conveniently. It should be noted that simpler forms of:.triaxial test are available, such as the unconsolidated, undrained (UU) triaxie-1 and unconfined (U) compression tests. With the UU test, a total confining stress is applied, but no soil consolidation is allowed under this confining stress. With the U test,. the soil is unconfined with a zero confining stress. Many detailed studies (e.g., 11, 23) have shown that the UU and U tests often are in gross error because of sampling disturbance effects and omission of a reconsoli- dation phase. Based on studies such as thAnA the rTnrr _,__ , .. _ be the minimum quality laboratory test for evaluating the undrained shear strength upof cohesive soils. Other simple tests such as the torvane and pocket penetrometer have an error potential that is comparable to that of the UU and U tests. There- fore, these tests should only be considered general indicators of relative beha- vior. They should never be used directly for design. a Since su is stress -dependent, its value commonly is normalized by the vertical effective overburden. stress (ovo)'at the depth where au is measured. This 4-27 For: Theresa Company: City of Edmonds Fax No.: 425-771-0221 Phone No.: From: Kristopher T. Hauck, P.E. Date: 5/15/06 Subject: Bui Residence Response Email Theresa, FAX TRANSMITTAL No. of pages including cover: 12 Job. No.: J-2322 This is the email sent to us for clarification. If you have any questions, please give us a call. ❑ 811 First Ave., #404 Seattle, WA 98104 T: 206-264-8295 F: 206-264-4818 P .Ai 15 2006 DEVELCiP7MY ENTOF EDMONDS C7R. Zinser Zeman Associates. Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting A lrertaron Company 0 18905 33" Ave. W. #1 17 Lynnwood, WA 98036 T: 425-771-3304 F: 425-771-3549 ❑ 2501 East "D" St. #200 Tacoma WA 98421 T: A3-573-9939 F: 253-573-9959 Hiuck, Kristopher T From: Rolf Hyllseth [RolfBH@adaptengr.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:20 PM To: Hauck, Kristopher T Cc: Tung Bui (E-mail); Nega Weyesa (E-mail); Khew Lew Subject: RE: Bui Residence Review Attachments: Seed - Residual strength of liquefied soils.pdf; EPRI - Residual strength of fine-grained soils.pdf MT, Seed - Residual EPRI - Residual strength of li... strength of fi... Kristopher, We did use residual soil strength values for the lower soils within the estimated shear zone directly above the base clays, as stated in our report pg. 10 & 11; "...The cohesive soils within the landslide shear zone were modeled in the static case using fully deformed and remolded soil strength values, based on correlations between residual friction angles and the clay fraction/plasticity index. The soils within the potentially liquefiable soil layers were modeled in the seismic case as a liquefied mass with a residual shear strength estimated based on correlations between mobilized critical strength (liquefied) and equivalent SPT blowcounts (pre -liquefaction) reported by Seed et al. (1990) and updated in the 2003 Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC) publication Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework (EERC 2003-06)..." Please see attached pdf scan files of the referenced literature used to obtain the residual soil strength values used in our analysis. If any other questions, please call. Thanks, Rolf Hyllseth, P.E., L.G. LSI Adapt, Inc. 615 Eighth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 ph# (206) 654-7045 mob# (206) 786-1619 fax# (206) 654-7048 -----Original Message ----- From: Hauck, Kristopher T(mailto:kris.hauck@zipperzeman.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:49 PM To: Rolf Hyllseth Subject: Bui Residence Review Rolf, John Zipper and I spoke with K.V. yesterday on the phone regarding the slope stability analyses. For the most part, our question was what soil strength parameters were used for the stability analyses? If residual strengths were used, could you provide summary of conclusions/analysis for the values?. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to call. We feel this is the quickest way to complete this process; as opposed to going through an entire round again. This way, with the additional information, we should be able to move ahead. Thanks. Kristopher T. Hauck, P.E. Project Engineer Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc - A Terracon Company 18905 33 Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 P 425.771.3304 / F 425.771.3549 Terracon is a dynamic and growing consulting firm of engineers and scientists providing multiple related service lines to local, regional, and national clients. This electronic communication and its attachments are forwarded to you for convenience. If this electronic transmittal contains Design Information or Recommendations and not just general correspondence, Terracon Consultants, Inc., and/or its affiliates ("Terracon") will submit a follow-up hard copy via mail or delivery for your records, and,this hard copy will serve as a final record. In the event of conflict between electronic and hard copy documents, the hard copy will govern. This e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it are the property of Terracon and may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The information it contains is intended solely for the use of the one to whom it is addressed, and any other recipient should destroy all copies. i 2 I i Adapt" LSI Adapt, Inc. 615 — 8`" Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel (206) 654-7045 Fax (206) 654-7048 www.isiadapt.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED BUI RESIDENCE 16105 — 75t Place West Edmonds, Washington Submitted To: Tung Bui 18811-1" Place West Bothell, Washington 98012 WA05-12239-GEO May 2005 RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2005 T R"EET FILE PERMIT COUNTER i ' Adapt" May 23, 2005 WA05-12239-GEO Tung Bui 18811 — Is'Place West Bothell, Washington 98012 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report ' Proposed Residence 16105 — 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Bui: LSI Adapt, Inc. 615 — e Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel (206) 654-7045 Fax (206) 654-7048 www.isiadapt.com ' LSI Adapt, Inc. (Adapt) is pleased to submit this report summarizing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above -referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive design conclusions and recommendations concerning site stability, site preparation, excavations, foundations, floors, drainage, and ' structural fill. As outlined in our proposal letter dated December 22, 2004, and subsequent discussions, our scope of work ' comprised field exploration, geotechnical research, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. We received your written authorization for our evaluation on January 6, 2005. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Tung Bui, 4D Architects, and their agents, in accordance with generally accepted ' geotechnical engineering practice and for the specific application to this project. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. Adapt does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by 1 such other parties for any purpose, whether known or unknown to Adapt. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this report or need further assistance, please contact us at (206) 654-7045. ' Respectfully Submitted, LSI Adapt, Inc. &,4�17 Rolf B. H llseth, P. . tSenior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Tung Bui (1) ' 4D Architects (3) Attn: Ms. Barbara Pickens, AIA ' LSI Adapt, Inc. ' TABLE OF CONTENTS WA05-12239-GEO ' 1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... REVIEW OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS......................................................................................3 '3.0 4 4.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS........................................................................................................ 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS....................................................................:...................................................5 ....................5 ' 5.1 Surface Conditions......................................................: 5.2 Soil Conditions....................................................................................................................5 6 5.3 Groundwater Conditions..................................................................................................... 5.4 Seismic Conditions.............................................................................................................7 7 5.5 Environmentally Critical Area Conditions.......................................................................... I' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................:..........8 6.1 Site Liquefaction Risk Evaluation......................................................................................9 6.2 Slope Stability Considerations and Landslide Risk..........................................................10 6.3 Site Preparation.................................................................................................................12 6.4 Spread Footings.................................................................................................................14 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors........................................................................................................15 ' 6.6 Backfilled Walls................................................................................................................16 6.7 Drainage Systems...... .................... ............ ........18 ' 6.8 Structural Fill ..............................................................................................................20 7.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES...........................................................................22 8.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................................ .............................24 Figure 1 ' Figure 2 Figure 3 I Figure 4 Figure 5 Location/Topographic Map Site & Exploration Plan Geological Cross Section A -A' Geological Profile B-B' Drainage Plan ' Appendix A Field Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results Appendix C Slope Stability Analyses and Results � I ' Bui May 23, 2005 Tung Table of Contents Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. 1.0 SUMMARY Based on our field explorations, research and analyses, the proposed construction appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, contingent on the implementation of the recommendations presented in this report. The following summary of project geotechnical considerations is presented for introductory purposes and, as such, should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. • Project Description: Development plans call for construction of a private residence with basement and associated driveways within the central portion of the site. • Environmentally Critical Area: Because of the site -specific geologic (landslide area) and topographic (steep slopes) conditions, the site is classified as a Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area based on the Edmonds City Critical Area Regulations. Provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented, the project is considered feasible and is not anticipated to adversely affect the stability of the subject site or adjacent properties. • Exploratory Methods: We explored subsurface conditions by means of three borings and four CPT probings, advanced at strategic locations across the house footprint area and the site slopes, to depths ranging from about 17 feet to 47 feet below ground surface (bgs). • Soil Conditions: Soil conditions within the central portion of the subject site consist of varying thickness of landslide debris (interlayered clay, clayey silt, and silty sand/sandy silt), underlain by a 5 to 8-feet thick layer of intermixed, loose to medium dense, clayey silt and silty sand, with inclusions of hard clayey silt fragments, roots, and peat lenses (landslide shear zone). Our explorations disclosed this landslide shear zone to be very thin or non-existent within the western margins of the site (lower portion of site slopes along 75"' Place W). The underlying, native soils below the slide shear zone consist of stiff to very stiff, interlayered clay and silty clay. • Groundwater Conditions: At the time of exploration (January through April, 2005), groundwater seepage was encountered below a depth of about 13.0-feet bgs in our explorations within the central portion of the site. These observed zones of seepage are interpreted to be perched atop underlying layers of relatively impermeable, native, stiff to very stiff clays and silty clay below the slide shear zone. • Foundations: In our opinion, the house may be supported by conventional spread footings that bear on the medium stiff clay/clayey silt or medium dense sandy silt/silty sand, provided that the slight risk of potential post -liquefaction settlement is acceptable and the structural design incorporates provisions to minimize the adverse effects of such potential settlement. For properly prepared footing subgrades, these spread footings may be designed for an allowable, static bearing pressure of 2,500 psf and a seismic bearing pressure of 3,300 psf. May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 1 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. • Floors: Typical soil -supported, slab -on -grade floors are feasible at this site, contingent on proper subgrade preparation and provided that the slight risk of potential post - liquefaction settlement is acceptable and the structural design incorporates provisions to minimize the adverse effects of such potential settlement. • Subsurface Walls: In our opinion, conventional backfilled, cast -in -place concrete walls will adequately support the proposed basement and site perimeter retaining wall system, provided that the slight risk of potential post -liquefaction settlement is acceptable and the structural design incorporates provisions to minimize the adverse effects of such potential settlement. These walls should be designed to withstand appropriate lateral pressures, as discussed in this report. • Seismic Considerations: Based on our literature review and subsurface interpretations, we recommend that the project structural engineer use the following seismic parameters for design of buildings, retaining walls, and other site structures, as appropriate. Design Parameter Acceleration Coefficient (10 % probability) Acceleration Coefficient (2 % probability) Site Class (2003 IBC) Value 0.30 0.55 D. • Temporary Excavation Considerations: All temporary soil cuts associated with site regrading or excavations should be adequately sloped back to prevent sloughing and collapse. For the soft to medium stiff clay/clayey silt and loose to medium dense sandy silt/silty sand (landslide debris), we tentatively recommend a maximum temporary cut slope inclination of 1.5H:1 V. • Trench Drain Dewatering System: In order to mitigate the potential adverse affect of the proposed house basement cuts on site stability and to improve the overall stability of the subject site, we recommend that a permanent, subsurface, trench drain dewatering system be installed to a depth of about 5.0-feet below the finished floor elevation of the basement portion of the proposed house. This dewatering will also aid in limiting the extent of potential liquefaction and minimize the potential for liquefaction -induced settlements below the house. ' May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 2 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed building site is located at 16105 — 75d' Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the enclosed LocationlTopographic Map (Figure 1). The subject site comprises three previous residential building parcels, located along the east side of 75d' Place West and approximately 200 feet north of 162nd Street SW. The property is shaped as a parallelogram and is bounded by 751h Place West on the west side, and adjacent residential house lots on the north, east, and south sides. Development plans indicate that the new residence will be situated within the central portion of the site. The house will comprise three floor levels stair -stepping up the slope, with the lowest floor level consisting of a daylight basement with a planned finished floor level at about 66.8-feet elevation. Conventional, shallow spread foundation support, combined with subsurface, cantilever concrete walls, are proposed to provide support for the house. It is anticipated that temporary, open -cut excavations will be feasible during construction, within the given site constraints. The areas to the west and the east of the house will be regraded to accommodate driveways, car parking, and patio areas. Limited site grading will also take place within yard areas north and east of the proposed house. The enclosed Site & Exploration Plan (Figure 2) illustrates the site boundaries, the existing and proposed topographic contours, the locations of the proposed house and other planned structures, as well as adjacent existing features. The subject site is located within a documented, recent landslide area designated as the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area by the City of Edmonds. This current geotechnical report by Adapt provides a comprehensive evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the subject site and makes specific recommendations concerning site development, in accordance with the City of Edmonds Development Services Department (DSD) guidelines for geotechnical reports. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from layout drawings, written information, and verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed . project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those a changes. 3.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS As a part of our study, we reviewed the following previous documents pertaining to the subject property and vicinity (on file with the City of Edmonds DSD): • Terra Associates, Inc.; Geotechnical Report — Derry Residence; January 1992. • Terra Associates, Inc.; Geotechnical Report — Meadowdale Beach / Anderson Subdivision (Lorian Estates); June 6, 1989. • GeoEngineers; Geotechnical Consultation Report — Proposed Short Plat, Block 59 of Meadowdale Beach; November 22, 1989. • DODDS Geosciences Inc.; Geotechnical Engineering Report — Proposed Residence, 75`h Place ' West (75`h Place W & Meadowdale Road); November 12, 1996. ' Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Page 3 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. ' Neil H. Twelker and AsAssociates, Inc.;Inc.• Proposed Construction at 16008 — 75'h Place W,• October • 7, 1996. • GeoEngineers; Geotechnical Consultation — Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area (Lot 2of Short Plat No. S-23-90) ; March 29, 1994. If any of these documents were not available for review through public record, we obtained permission to use the document from its rightful owner, as indicated above. Our conclusions and recommendations are based in part or wholly on the information contained in these documents. Our geotechnical recommendations are only as good as the accuracy of these previous documents; Adapt assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions resulting from possible inaccuracies on documents prepared by others. We recommend that Adapt be retained to perform supplementary engineering evaluations and field observations during construction, in order to address any deviations that may become evident during the construction phase of this project. 4.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project .site during a series of site visits during January through April, 2005. Our exploration and testing program included the following elements: • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; • Three borings (designated B-1 through B-3) with Standard Penetration Tests, advanced at strategic locations across the proposed residence footprint and slope areas; • Four Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) probings (designated CPT-1 through CPT-4), advanced at strategic locations across the proposed residence footprint and slope areas; • Two Monitoring Wells (designated MW-1 through MW-2), installed at two of the boring locations and monitored for three consecutive months during the wet season (January through April). • Seven No. 200 wash tests (materials finer than U.S. No. 200 Sieve), performed on representative soil samples obtained from the site soils; • Seven Atterberg limits tests, performed on representative soil samples obtained from the site soils; • Nineteen moisture content determinations, performed on representative soil samples obtained from the site soils; • A review of published geologic and seismologic maps and literature. The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget considerations. The elevation and relative location of the borings were surveyed and plotted on the site survey plan by others. The locations of the CPT probes were obtained by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us. We then estimated their elevations by referencing the surveyed boring locations and by interpolating between contour lines shown on this same plan. Figure 2 depicts the elevations and relative locations of the field explorations. Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Page 4 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. 1 11 1 1 1 u The exploration locations depicted on Figure 2 should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources, the surveying methods by others, and implied by our measuring methods. Appendix A of this report describe our, field exploration procedures and Appendix B describes our laboratory testing procedures. It should be realized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have commenced. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 5.0 SffE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding surface, soil, groundwater, seismic conditions, and environmentally critical area conditions at the project site. 5_1 Surface Conditions According to the site survey and our reconnaissance field observations, the site slopes in an undulating fashion downward towards the west at an overall inclination ranging from roughly 3HAV (Horizontal:Vertical, 33 percent) within the east -central portion to about 2H:1V (50 percent) within the western portion of the site, with an overall topographical relief of about 35 feet from the northeast to the southwest property corner. The site is vegetated with grass, brush, and scattered trees. Hydrophilic vegetation was observed at various locations along the site slope areas, indicating wet to saturated near - surface soil conditions, although we did not observe any surface seepage conditions or standing surface water across the site at the time of our site work. Nor did we observe any apparent evidence of recent surficial soil movement or sloughing. The older trees observed at the site appeared to be relatively straight and ranging up to approximately 36 to 48-inches in diameter. 5_2 Soil Conditions ' The site is located within the documented Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area, which extends approximately 3,200-feet in a north -south direction along the shoreline and about 650-feet in an easterly direction from the Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way at the base of the landslide area. The ' topographical relief of the landslide mass is on the order of 150-feet, while the landslide scarp extends up to 300-feet elevation. Earlier reports describe this landslide mass to consist of blocks of sandy and silty ' material, along with more deformed material. The initial failure of the landslide complex is believed to have occurred a few thousand years ago as a result of rising sea levels due to the recession of glaciers and resulting increase in shoreline wave erosion. Recent movements of the landslide complex has been ' observed to occur at various times from the 1940's through the 1970's. A risk assessment was then performed by Roger Lowe & Associates (1979) and ' a landslide risk map was developed showing the probability of landsliding within the Meadowdale landslide area. In the early 1980's, the City of Edmonds implemented construction measures that contributed to lowering the general groundwater levels ' May 2 Tung Bui Page 5 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO n LSI Adapt, Inc. within portions of the Meadowdale landslide area, which resulted in a reduction of the probability of landsliding reported on the Meadowdale landslide risk map (GeoEngineers, 1985). Our on -site explorations generally confirmed the presence of landslide material (landslide debris) overlying a basal, stiff to very stiff clay/silty clay layer, which 'is interpreted to be undisturbed native soil below the shear zone at the base of the Meadowdale landslide. Specifically, our site explorations .within the upper and middle portions of the site slopes (central and eastern portions of property) generally revealed the near -surface portion of the landslide material to consist of loose, silty sand overlying up to 15-feet of soft to medium stiff, interlayered clay and clayey silt. These surficial soils are underlain by a roughly 5-feet thick layer of medium dense silty sand/sandy silt, which in turn is underlain by a roughly 5 to 8-feet thick layer of intermixed, loose to medium dense, clayey silt and silty sand, with inclusions of hard clayey silt fragments, roots, and peat lenses (landslide shear zone). Our explorations disclosed this landslide shear zone to be very thin or non-existent within the western margins of the site (lower portion of site slopes along 75m Place W). The underlying, native soils below the slide shear zone consist of stiff to very stiff, interlayered clay and silty clay, which was found in our explorations to be undulating and ranging from about 56 to 60-feet elevation within the southern portion to roughly 52.0-feet elevation (deeper) within the northern portion of the site. The enclosed Geologic Cross Section (Figure 3) and Geologic Profile (Figure 4) depicts the general site soil conditions described. ' S_3 Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (January and March, 2005), static groundwater levels were observed at a depth of about 13.0-feet bgs (below ground surface) in borings B-1 and B-2 within the central and upper portions of the site, while groundwater seepage was indicated at a depth of about 8.0-feet in boring B-3 at the base of the site slopes (lower portion of site along 75t' Place V1). The groundwater is interpreted to be perched atop the underlying, native, stiff to very stiff clays. These water levels were monitored in the ' installed monitoring wells over the next 4 months (see Table 1 below); the groundwater level was found to be relatively stable, with recorded fluctuations on the order of 1.0-foot, or less. Because our explorations and groundwater well readings were performed during an extended period of wet weather, these observed groundwater conditions may represent the yearly high levels; somewhat lower levels may occur during the drier summer and early fall months. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would ' likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization. I Tung Bui May 2Page06 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. �1 L� L� TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER WELL READINGS Boring No. Top of Casing Elevation (ft) Date of Reading Groundwater Depth (ft) Groundwater Elevation (ft) Well No. B-1 83.5 14-Jan-05 24-Jan-05 13.2 13.2 70.3 70.3 M W-1 15-Feb-05 13.4 70A 11-Mar-05 13.8 69.7 13-Apr-05 13.2 70.3 06-May-05 13.8 69.7 B-2 84.0 14-Jan-05 24-Jan-05 13.6 13.5 70.4 70.5 MW-2 15-Feb-05 13.8 70.2 11-Mar-05 14.2 69.8 13-Apr-05 13.5 70.5 06-May-05 14.1 69.9 5.4 Seismic Conditions Based on our analysis of subsurface exploration logs and a review of published geologic maps, we interpret the on -site soil conditions to correspond to Site Class D, as defined by Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code. The soil profile type for this site classification is characterized by stiff soils with an average blowcount ranging from 15 to 50 within the upper 100 feet bgs. Current (2003) National Seismic Hazard Maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that peak bedrock site acceleration coefficients of about 0.30 and 0.55 are appropriate for earthquakes having a 10-percent and 2-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to return intervals of 475 and 2,475 years), respectively. For purposes of seismic site characterization, the observed soil conditions were extrapolated below the exploration termination depth, based on a review of geologic maps and our knowledge of regional geology. SS Environmentally Critical Area Conditions The subject site is located within a documented, recent landslide area designated as the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area by the City of Edmonds. The extent and nature of this landslide area is described in the Landslide Hazards Investigation — Meadowdale Area by Roger Lowe & Associates (1979, amended by GeoEngineers in 1985). This investigation report included a risk assessment which identified zones with different risk factors (percent risk of landsliding) within the entire landslide complex area. Based on this landslide risk map, the northern two-thirds of the subject site is situated within a 10- percent risk zone, while the southwest corner of the site is located within a 30-percent risk zone. ' May 2 0 Tung Bui Page Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. Because of the site location (within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area), along with the site -specific geologic and topographic conditions, the subject site is classified as an Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area based on the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This designation generally applies when a site is located within mapped areas of historic landslides or areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent, in combination with certain adverse geologic and groundwater seepage conditions. For sites with this designation, the City of Edmonds DSD requires a site -specific geotechnical evaluation addressing the risk associated with the landslide hazard area and providing specific recommendations concerning development of the site, in accordance with the specific City of Edmonds geotechnical report guidelines. The recommendations and conclusions of this geotechnical engineering report address the concerns related to the landslide hazard designation, in general accordance with City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2661 (Title 23 — Critical Areas Regulations). iProvided that the recommendations of this report are implemented, the proposed development is considered feasible and is not anticipated to adversely affect the stability of the site, the adjacent properties, or the surrounding areas. It is our opinion that the subject site will remain stable following development, as defined in Ordinance No. 2661, which defines stable to mean "...that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability shall be minimal ... and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement." 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development plans call for the construction of a private residence and associated access driveways within the central portion of the site. Shallow spread foundations, along with concrete cantilever basement walls are proposed to support the house. Some excavation along the lower portion of the existing site slopes is planned for the construction of the lower (daylight basement) and middle floor levels of the proposed residence. In order to assess the potential effect of these proposed, permanent cuts, we performed a site - specific slope stability evaluation, along with a liquefaction risk evaluation (limited to isolated, saturated layers of loose to medium dense sandy and silty soils at depth. Based on the results .of our analyses, we recommend that a permanent, subsurface, trench drain dewatering system be installed to a depth of about 5.0-feet below the finished floor elevation of the basement portion of the proposed house, to mitigate the potential adverse affect of the proposed cuts on site stability and to improve the overall stability of the subject site. This dewatering will also aid in limiting the extent of potential liquefaction and minimize the potential for liquefaction -induced settlements below the house. Based on our conversations with representatives of the City of Edmonds, dewatering undertaken as part of site development within the Meadowdale landslide area is encouraged. Our initial review of site topography and elevations of nearby City storm drainage systems indicate that our proposed dewatering system is feasible. Based on our findings and the results of our analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site liquefaction risk evaluation, slope stability considerations, site preparation, slope regrading and erosion control considerations, spread footings, slab -on grade floors, backfilled walls, drainage systems, trench drain dewatering system, and structural fill. WSDOT Standard Specifications May 23,2005 Tung Bui Page 8 Adapt Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. and Standard Plans cited herein refer to WSDOT publications M41-10, 2004 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and M21-01, 2004 Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and ' Municipal Construction, respectively. ' 6_1 Site Liquefaction Risk Evaluation Given the presence of potentially liquefiable site soils at depth, we performed an engineering evaluation to assess the site -specific liquefaction risk. The following sections describe the procedures and the results ' of this engineering evaluation: Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength and sudden increase in pore water pressure caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake of sufficient magnitude and duration to induce cyclic mobility. Research has shown that saturated, loose to medium -dense sands with a silt content less than about 35 percent are most susceptible to liquefaction. In certain cases, non -plastic silts and low -plasticity, fine-grained soils are also susceptible to liquefaction. Our explorations at this site encountered layers of loose to medium dense sands, silts, and silty sands below the groundwater table. Some of these site soils are generally considered potentially susceptible to soil liquefaction. Given the observed soil conditions and the results of our laboratory testing on the site soils, we have performed a site -specific liquefaction risk evaluation using the empirical SPT and CPT analysis procedures established by Seed et al. (1983) and updated by the 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop (published March 2001 — ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering). Based on the results of this engineering evaluation, we conclude that there is a relatively high risk that soil liquefaction will occur within the lower portion of the medium dense silty sand/sandy silt layer and the underlying, intermixed, loose to medium dense, clayey silt and silty sand, with inclusions of hard clayey silt fragments, roots, and peat lenses (landslide shear zone). These potentially liquefiable soils were encountered within our explorations directly above the native base clay layer, which appears to be undulating between elevations ranging from about 52.0 to 60.0-feet, as described in the soil conditions section of this report. The potentially liquefiable landslide shear zone was observed in our explorations to be very thin or non-existent within the western margins of the site (lower portion of site slopes along 75`h Place W). Based on the varying depth of these potentially liquefiable layers within our site explorations, even within short distances, we conclude that the potential liquefaction is likely to occur within somewhat discontinuous pockets and lenses of these soil layers at depth. The remaining soil layers within the landslide mass above the shear zone are either deemed to exhibit a low risk of soil liquefaction due to relatively high soil density (granular soils) or to be non -liquefiable due to their high clay content (fine- grained soils). For purposes of evaluating liquefaction potential, we selected a design earthquake with a Magnitude of 7.5 and a peak bedrock acceleration of 0.30g, which corresponds to a large earthquake event in the Puget Sound region with a return period of about 500 years (as promulgated by the 2003 UBC, see Seismic Conditions section above). Sites where soil liquefaction occurs may experience liquefaction -induced ground damage, such as sand boils or surface fissures, and/or general total and differential surface settlement. The magnitude of such disturbance or settlement depends on the thickness of the liquefiable layer and the thickness of the non- May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 9 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc, liquefiable surface soils overlying the liquefiable soil layers. Given the presence of potentially liquefiable site soils, we have performed a site -specific, surface damage risk evaluation using the empirical analysis ' procedure established by Ishihara et al. (1985). Based on this analysis, we conclude that liquefaction - induced ground damage is not likely to result from the potential liquefaction of isolated soil layers at ' depth, due to the relative thickness of the non -liquefiable surface layers (below the planned basement floor footprint area). However, because post -liquefaction soils tend to consolidate after the seismic event, the site will likely experience some general, liquefaction -induced, surface settlements on the order of 1 to 3 inches over extended areas of the subject site and surrounding areas, even if the liquefiable soil layers are relatively deep below the ground surface. We anticipate that such settlement will be greatly reduced ' due to the lowering of the groundwater level (6 to 8-feet below existing static water levels) resulting from the proposed dewatering system below the planned house basement footprint area. If the slight risk of potential liquefaction -induced settlement is acceptable to the owner, we recommend that the structural engineer make provisions in the foundation design to minimize the adverse effects of a potential differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2 inches. If the risk of settlement is found to be unacceptable, we recommend that the house be supported on piles; Adapt could provide further design recommendations should this alternative be required. ' L22 Slope Stability Considerations and Landslide Risk Given the location of the subject site within the documented Meadowdale landslide area, we performed an engineering evaluation to assess the site -specific landslide risk. The following sections describe the procedures and the results of this engineering evaluation: ' In order to evaluate the stability of the project site, we developed two representative Geologic Cross Sections A -A' and C-C' (Figure 3 and Slope/W computer printouts) based on available topographic information and the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations. We then used a computer program (Slope/W) to perform slope stability analyses of the existing (native) slope conditions and the proposed regraded site configuration, including the proposed permanent cuts for the planned daylight basement. We evaluated the daylight basement configuration (excavated) for various groundwater drawdown depths (following dewatering) in order to estimate the minimum drawdown requirement to obtain an acceptable seismic safety factor (most critical, including potential liquefaction parameters within susceptible soil layers); printouts are provided only for the final groundwater drawdown configuration used in design. Appendix C of this report describe our slope stability analysis procedures ' and presents the results of the stability analyses performed for this project. The soil strength parameters used in our slope stability analyses were based on the results of laboratory testing performed on representative samples of the site soils from our borings, on the direct measurement of in -situ soil properties from our CPT probings, and on generally accepted correlations reported in the geotechnical literature. The cohesive soils within the landslide shear zone were modeled in the static case using fully deformed and remolded soil strength values, based on correlations between residual friction angles and the clay fraction/plasticity index. The soils within the potentially liquefiable soil layers were imodeled in the seismic case as a liquefied mass with a residual shear strength estimated based on correlations between mobilized critical strength (liquefied) and equivalent SPT blowcounts (pre - May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 10 Adant Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO 1 LSI Adapt, Inc. liquefaction) reported by Seed et al. (1990) and updated in the 2003 Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC) publication Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework (EERC 2003-06). The overlying medium dense to dense silty/sandy soils were modeled with an appropriate friction angle without any apparent cohesion, while the stiff to very stiff clay/silty clay/clayey silt was modeled using lower -bound undrained shear strength. The groundwater level was modeled based on the observed groundwater levels within our borings, measurements of static groundwater levels within the monitoring wells, and on pore pressure measurements within the CPT probings. Based on our slope stability analyses the most critical slope configuration (see Geologic Cross Section A A - Native Slope Configuration printouts in Appendix C), we estimate a minimum, global, static safety factor on the order of 2.75 against failure, with the potential failure plane extending through the lower portion of the site slopes (western portion of site). For the seismic case, our analyses indicate an existing safety factor on the order of 1.28, with the potential failure plane extending through the potentially liquefiable soils within the landslide shear zone at depth. To assess the effect on the site slope stability of the proposed, permanent cuts for the planned daylight ' basement near the base of the site slopes, we evaluated both the static and seismic global, slope stability of the regraded (excavated) slope configuration (see Geologic Cross Section A A - Basement Cut Configuration printouts in Appendix C). In the static case, we estimate a minimum, global, static safety t factor on the order of 2.53 against failure, with the potential failure plane extending through the base of the cut (central portion of site). In the seismic case, we evaluated two potential failure plane locations. ' Initially, the minimum, global, static safety factor for the regraded site condition was estimated by the computer program to be on the order of 1.05, with the potential failure plane being about 140-feet long and extending through the base of the cut and 40-feet past the property line on the uphill side of the site. Based on typical landslide mass dimensions for deep-seated landslides and the nature of the observed slide configurations within the Meadowdale landslide area, we estimate that this potential failure plane ' would require a north -south extension on the order of about 100 to 140-feet in order to fail. Since the horizontal extent of the proposed basement cut in the north -south direction is only about 70-feet, we analyzed a more representative potential failure plane extending through the base of the cut and about 70- feet on the uphill side of the cut; the global, seismic safety factor for this potential failure plane was estimated by the computer program to be on the order of 1.26, which is comparable to the pre -excavation t safety factors computed for the native slope conditions. Both the computed static and seismic safety factors for this cross section exceed the generally accepted, minimum static and seismic safety factors of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. t In reviewing the results of these slope stability analyses, it is important to realize that the computer program analysis method is two-dimensional, and does not consider changed soil strength or surface ' configuration conditions along the entire horizontal extent of the slide mass (parallel to the slope contour lines), nor does it consider the resisting frictional forces acting to restrain the outer limits of the slide ' mass, as would be the case for the above -referenced, most critical potential failure plane analyzed by the computer. Given the observed, varying subsurface and surface topographic conditions at the south and ' May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 11 n,la.,t Pmiwrt No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. the north ends of the planned house footprint, we also evaluated the seismic global, slope stability of the regraded (excavated) slope configuration (see Geologic Cross Section C-C - Basement Cut Configuration printouts in Appendix Q. For the same reasons discussed above, we evaluated two potential failure plane locations for this cross section, as well. The minimum, global, static safety factor for the regraded site condition was computed by the computer program to be on the order of 1.16, with the potential failure plane being about 110-feet long and extending through the base of the cut and up to the property line on the uphill side of the site. However, the global, seismic safety factor for a more representative potential failure plane extending through the base of the cut and about 70-feet on the uphill side of the cut was estimated by the computer program to be on the order of 1.63. ' We attribute the higher safety factor computed for Section C-C to the increased depth of the liquefiable soils below the planned basement cut elevation, as compared with cross section A -A. The average, seismic, global, slope stability safety factor for representative potential slide plane configurations through cross sections A -A and C-C is therefore estimated to be on the order of 1.4 for the entire basement cut proposed. Both the computed static and seismic safety factors for this cross section exceed the generally accepted, minimum static and seismic safety factors of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. Based on our site explorations and site -specific slope stability evaluation, we concur with the statistical probability (risk) of earth movement indicated on the landslide hazard map for the Meadowdale landslide area (Roger Lowe & Ass/GeoEngineers, 1985), which maps the northern two-thirds of the subject site within a 10-percent or less risk zone, while the southwest corner of the site is located within a 30-percent or less risk zone. ' 6_3 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should involve temporary drainage, demolition, clearing, stripping, cutting, filling, excavations, dewatering, and subgrade compaction. The paragraphs below discuss our ' geotechnical comments and recommendations concerning site preparation. Temporary Drainage: We recommend intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or near -surface water within the construction zones before stripping begins. Because the selection of an appropriate drainage system will depend on the water quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding drainage systems are best made in the field at the time of construction. Nonetheless, we anticipate that curbs, berms, or ditches placed along the uphill side of the work areas will adequately intercept surface water runoff. Demolition: As a part of the initial site preparation, any existing structures present within the ' construction areas should be demolished. Any associated underground structural elements or utilities, such as old footings, stemwalls, and drainpipes, should be exhumed as part of this demolition operation. Clearing and Stripping: After surface and near -surface water sources have been controlled, the construction areas should be cleared and stripped of all trees, bushes, sod, topsoil, debris, asphalt, and ' concrete. Our explorations indicate that an average thickness of about 6 to 12 inches of sod and topsoil will be encountered across the proposed development areas. The native soils underlying the surficial ' Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Page 12 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc, organics consist of clays and clayey silts, which are considered highly moisture sensitive. Therefore, it should be realized that if the stripping operation proceeds during wet weather, a generally greater stripping depth might be necessary to remove disturbed, surficial, moisture -sensitive soils; therefore, stripping is best performed during a period of dry weather. Excavations: Site excavations ranging up to about 10-feet deep will be required to accommodate basement floor of the proposed house. Based on our explorations, we anticipate that these excavations ' will encounter soft to medium stiff clay/clayey silt and loose to medium dense sandy silt/silty sand. These soils can likely be cut with conventional earth working equipment such as small dozers and ' trackhoes. TemRorary Cut Slopes: All temporary soil cuts associated with site regrading or excavations should be adequately sloped back to prevent sloughing and collapse. For the soft to medium stiff clay/clayey silt and loose to medium dense sandy silt/silty sand (landslide debris) that will likely be encountered within the excavation, we tentatively recommend a maximum cut slope inclinations of 1.5H:IV. If groundwater seepage is encountered within the excavation slopes, the cut slope inclination may have to be flatter than 1.5H:1 V. However, appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater tseepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection, in accordance with OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and ravelling Dewatering: Our explorations revealed the groundwater table near the base of the planned excavation cuts at the time of exploration. As a part of the recommended measures to mitigate the potentially adverse effect of the proposed site regrading, we are recommending that a permanent, subsurface ' dewatering trench drain system be installed below the planned daylight basement (as discussed in the Drainage Systems section of this report). A temporary dewatering system may be required to lower the groundwater levels prior to permit the installation of such a permanent system. Depending upon the actual groundwater conditions encountered during construction, such a temporary system may consist of well points, sump pumps, etc. Adapt should be allowed to evaluate the temporary dewatering system proposed by the contractor prior to construction. Subgrade Preparation: Exposed subgrades for footings, floors, pavements, and other structures should be compacted to a firm, unyielding state, if required to achieve adequate density and warranted by soil moisture conditions. Any localized zones of loose granular soils observed within a subgrade should be ' compacted to a density commensurate with the surrounding soils. In contrast, any uncontrolled fill material or organic, soft, or pumping soils observed within a subgrade should be overexcavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. It should be noted that some of the bearing soils at this ' site are anticipated to consist of soft to medium stiff, clay/clayey silt and loose to medium dense, silty sand/sandy silt, which are generally considered to be highly moisture sensitive. To minimize disturbance and subsequent need for recompaction, we recommend that all bearing subgrade areas be excavated with a smooth -edged bucket. May Tung Bui Page 113 Adaot Proiect No. WA05_ 12239- GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. r- Permanent Slopes: All permanent cut and fill slopes should be adequately inclined and revegetated to minimize long-term ravelling, sloughing, and erosion. A hardy vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as possible following grading, to further protect the slope from runoff water erosion. We generally recommend that permanent slopes not be steeper than 2H:1V, to minimize long-term erosion and to facilitate revegetation. Slope Protection: We recommend that a permanent berm, swale, or curb be constructed along the top edge of all permanent slopes to intercept surface flow. Also, a hardy vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as feasible, to further protect the slopes from runoff water erosion. Alternatively, permanent slopes could be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat. 6_4 Spread Footings In our opinion, conventional spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed house, provided the subgrades are properly prepared and the slight risk of potential post -liquefaction settlement is acceptable. We offer the following comments and recommendations for purposes of footing design and construction. Footing Depths and Widths: For frost and erosion protection, the bottoms of all exterior footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below adjacent outside grades, whereas the bottoms of interior footings need penetrate only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. All footings should bear within the native, medium stiff clay/clayey silt or medium dense sandy silt/silty sand. Continuous (wall) and isolated (column) footings should be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively, to act as a true footing element providing the specified bearing capacity. Bearing Subgrades: The underlying the proposed house footprint appear well -suited for supporting the proposed shallow spread footing system. Before concrete is placed, any localized zones of loose soils encountered in the footing subgrades should be compacted to a firm, unyielding condition. Subgrade Verification: All footing subgrades should consist of firm, unyielding, dense, undisturbed, native soils. Footings should never be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by an Adapt representative before any concrete is placed. Bearings Capacities: Based on the bearing subgrade conditions described above, we recommend that all footings be designed for the following allowable bearing capacities for static and seismic loadings: Design Parameter Static Bearing Capacity Seismic Bearing Capacity Allowable Value 2,500 psf 3,300 psf May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 14 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. Footing Settlements: We estimate that total post -construction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on properly prepared subgrades will not exceed 1-inch. Differential settlements between isolated footings and/or adjacent pile caps/groups could approach one-half of the actual total settlement. As previously discussed in the Site Liquefaction Risk Evaluation section of this report, shallow footings may be subjected to general, liquefaction -induced, surface settlements on the order of 1 to 3 inches over extended areas of the subject site. We therefore recommend that the structural engineer make provisions in the foundation design to minimize the adverse effects of a potential differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2 inches. Footing and Stemwall Backfill: To provide erosion protection and lateral load resistance, we recommend that all footing excavations be backfilled on both sides of the footings and stemwalls after the concrete has cured. Either imported structural fill or non -organic on -site soils can be used for this purpose, contingent on a suitable moisture content at the time of placement. Regardless of soil type, all footing backfi11 soil should be compacted to a density of at least 90 percent (based on ASTM: D- 15 5 7). Lateral Resistance: Footings and stemwalls that have been properly backfilled as described above will resist lateral movements by means of passive earth pressure and base friction. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the footing (neglecting the upper, 1 foot for soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope inclination. For site -specific design purposes, we are providing recommended allowable passive pressure values for level foreslopes. The level foreslope condition may be assumed if the ground surface is level within a horizontal distance equal to two times the footing depth. We recommend using the following design values, which incorporate a static safety factor of at least 1.5: Design Parameter Allowable Design Values Static Passive Pressure 300 pcf Seismic Passive Pressure 400 pcf Base Friction Coefficient (native soil subgrade) 0.35 Base Friction Coefficient (crushed rock subgrade) 0.45 It should be noted that the higher base friction coefficient value may be assumed for design purposes if a minimum 6-inch thick layer of compacted crushed rock is placed below the poured footing. 6_5 Slab -on -Grade Floors In our opinion, soil -supported slab -on -grade floors can be used for the proposed house, provided the subgrades are properly prepared and the slight risk of potential post -liquefaction settlement is acceptable. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning slab -on -grade floors. As previously discussed in the Site Liquefaction Risk Evaluation section of this report, slab -on -grade floors may be subjected to general, liquefaction -induced, surface settlements on the order of I to 3 inches over extended i May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 15 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. areas of the subject site. We therefore recommend that the structural engineer make provisions in the floor design to minimize the adverse effects of a potential differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2 1 inches. ' Capillary Break: To retard the upward wicking of groundwater beneath the floor slab, we recommend that a capillary break be placed over the subgrade. Ideally, this capillary break would consist of a 4-inch- thick layer of pea gravel or other clean, uniform, well-rounded gravel, such as "Gravel Backfill for ' Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4), but clean angular gravel can be used if it adequately prevents capillary wicking. ' Vapor Barrier. We recommend that a layer of plastic sheeting (such as Crosstuff, Visqueen or Moistop) be placed directly between the capillary break and the floor slab to prevent ground moisture vapors from migrating upward through the slab. During subsequent casting of the concrete slab, the contractor should exercise care to avoid puncturing this vapor barrier. IVertical Deflections: Soil -supported slab -on -grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads are applied, due to elastic compression of the subgrade. In our opinion, a subgrade reaction modulus of. 200 ' pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used to estimate such deflections within the site soils. Subg_rade Verification: All slab -on -grade floors should bear on firm, unyielding native soils or on suitable structural fill soils. We recommend that the conditions of all subgrades and overlying layers be verified by an Adapt representative before any concrete is placed. 6.6 Backfilled Walls In our opinion, backfilled concrete retaining walls can be used around the below -grade portions and to ' support interior shear walls of the house, provided the subgrades are properly prepared and the slight risk of potential post -liquefaction settlement is acceptable. Our wall design recommendations and comments 1 are presented below. Footing,, Depths: For frost and erosion protection, all perimeter and basement retaining wall footings ' should penetrate at least 18 inches below the adjacent ground surface, whereas the bottoms of interior wall footings need only penetrate 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. All footings should ' bear within the medium stiff clay/clayey silt or medium dense sandy silt/silty sand. Curtain Drains: To preclude hydrostatic pressure development behind the perimeter retaining walls, we recommend that a curtain drain be placed behind the entire wall along the perimeter of the house. Ideally, this curtain drain should consist of pea gravel, washed rock, or some other clean, uniform, well-rounded gravel, extending outward a minimum of 2 feet from the wall and extending from the footing drain ' upward to within about 12 inches of the ground surface. We also recommend that a 4-inch-diameter perforated drain pipe be installed behind the heel of the wall, as described for Perimeter Drains in the ' Drainage Systems section of this report. ' Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Page 16 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. Backfill Soil: The on -site granular soils could be used as backfill placed behind the curtain drain, if they are near the optimum moisture content. Alternatively, the wall backfill would consist of clean, free - draining, granular material, such as "Gravel Backfill for Walls" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2). Backfill Compaction: Because soil compactors may induce significant lateral pressures on retaining walls, we recommend that only small, hand -operated compaction equipment be used within 3 feet of a completed wall. Also, all backfill should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM:D-1557); a greater degree of compaction closely behind the wall would increase the lateral earth pressure, whereas a lesser degree of compaction might lead to excessive post -construction settlements. Grading and Capping: To retard the infiltration of surface water into the backfill soils, the backfill surface of exterior walls should be adequately sloped to drain away from the wall. We also recommend that the backfill surface directly behind the wall be capped with asphalt, concrete, or 12 inches of low - permeability (silty) soils. Applied Loads: Overturning and sliding loads applied to retaining walls can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. We offer the following specific values for design purposes. • Static Pressures: Yielding (cantilever) retaining walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate active lateral earth pressure, whereas non -yielding (restrained) walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate at -rest lateral earth pressure. The criteria for yielding walls may be applied where the top of the wall is allowed to translate or rotate a distance equal to 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination. For various backslope angles, we recommend using the following active and at -rest pressures (given as equivalent fluid unit weights): Backslope Active At -Rest Angle Pressure Pressure Level 35 pcf 55 pcf 3H:1V 44 pcf 62 pcf • Surcharge Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures. For simplicity, traffic loads can be modeled as a uniform horizontal pressure of 70 psf over the upper 6 feet of the wall. Tung Bui O May Pa007 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GE 1 LSI Adapt, Inc. • Seismic Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for seismic loadings. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. Based on a design acceleration coefficient of 0.25 to 0.30 and a wall height of "H" feet, we recommend that these seismic loadings be modeled as the following uniform horizontal pressures for various backslope angles: Backslope Active At -Rest Angle Pressure Pressure Level 4H psf 12H psf 3H:1 V 6H psf 18H psf • Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the back soils, hydrostatic pressures will act against a retaining wall. If an adequate drainage and discharge system is installed behind the retaining wall, we do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. Resisting Forces: Static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures are ' resisted by a combination of passive lateral earth pressure, base friction, and subgrade bearing capacity. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the footing (neglecting the upper 1 foot for soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope inclination, whereas the base friction and bearing capacity act 1 along the bottom of the footings. For site -specific design purposes, we are providing recommended allowable passive pressure values for level foreslopes. The level foreslope condition may be assumed if the ground surface is level within a horizontal distance equal to two times the footing depth. We recommend using the following design values, which incorporate a static safety factor of at least 1.5: Allowable Design ' Design Parameter Values Static Passive Pressure 300 pcf Seismic Passive Pressure 400 pcf Base Friction Coefficient (native soil subgrade) 0.35 Base Friction Coefficient (crushed rock subgrade) 0.45 Static Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf Seismic Bearing Capacity 3,300 psf May Tung Bui Page 18 AAanr Pmiar! No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. It should be noted that the higher base friction coefficient value may be assumed for design purposes if a minimum 6-inch thick layer of compacted crushed rock is placed below the poured footing. 6_7 Drainage Systems ' In our opinion, the proposed residence and the perimeter retaining walls should be provided with permanent drainage systems to minimize the risk of future moisture problems. In addition, we recommend that a permanent, subsurface, trench drain dewatering system be installed to a depth of about 5.0-feet below the finished floor elevation of the basement portion of the proposed house, to mitigate the potential adverse affect of the proposed cuts on site stability and to improve the overall stability of the ' subject site. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and construction purposes. ' Perimeter Drains: We recommend that the house be encircled with a perimeter drain system to collect seepage water. This drain should consist of a 4-inch, perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe, and the gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. The drain invert should be installed no more than 8 inches above the base of the perimeter footings. All perimeter drains ' should discharge to a municipal storm drain, sewer system, or other suitable location by gravity flow. Over bank discharge of storm water. should be prohibited. Runoff Water: Roof -runoff and surface -runoff water should not discharge into the perimeter drain system. Instead, these sources should discharge into separate tight line pipes and be routed away from the building to a storm drain or other appropriate location. Grading and Canning: Final site grades should slope downward away from the building so that runoff water will flow by gravity to suitable collection points, rather than ponding near the building. Ideally, the area surrounding the building would be capped with concrete, asphalt, or low -permeability (silty) soils to reduce surface -water infiltration. We further recommend that the general surface grades across the upper plateau be sloped away (eastward) from the top -of -slope along the west edge of the plateau. The lower yard area should be sloped to drain into the yard collector drains. Dewatering_System Design: As discussed above, we recommend that a permanent, subsurface, trench drain dewatering system be installed to a depth of about 5.0-feet below the finished floor elevation of the basement portion of the proposed house. This will draw down the groundwater level within the house footprint area to approximately elevation 62.0-feet, resulting in a drawdown of the groundwater levels on the order of 6 to 9 feet along the east perimeter of the house. Our proposed trench drain system is illustrated on the enclosed Drainage Plan (Figure 5). The proposed spacing of the trench drains is based on the seepage flow analysis method established by Hutchinson (1977), and modified to reflect the site specific, slope and groundwater conditions. For the silty fine sand and sandy silt revealed within the groundwater seepage zone, we estimate a coefficient of permeability ranging from about 1.0 (10-0) to 1.0 (10-3) cm/sec, based on site -specific measurements of seepage rates into our groundwater monitoring wells (Bouwer & Rice Slug Test method, 1989) and generally accepted correlations between grain size 1 May 23, 0 Tung Bui Page 19 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. distribution and permeability rate reported in the geotechnical literature. Based on this estimated range.of permeability rates, and using the analysis method for seepage flow and drawdown to drainage slots provided in the NAVFAC Dewatering Manual (1983), we anticipate steady state, seepage rates into the trench drain system on the order of 0.05 to 0.15 gallons per minute (gpm) per linear foot of trench line. The proposed trench drain pipe has been conservatively sized to take more than 2 or 3 times this expected groundwater seepage volume. To better assess the most appropriate temporary dewatering system, we recommend that this seepage rate be verified during the initial phase of construction, following excavation to slab subgrade level when the actual soil conditions within the slab subgrade area can be more accurately assessed (prior to excavation to install the permanent trench drain system). We furthermore recommend that the two monitoring wells installed as a part of this study be retained and used during construction to monitor the actual drawdown levels and verify that adequate drawdown levels have been achieved within the installed permanent trench drain system; additional monitoring well points may be required. Trench Drain System Installation: In general, the trench drains should consist of a 6-inch diameter, perforated PVC pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe and upwards to the slab -on -grade subgrade elevation or to connect with the basement retaining walls, as illustrated on Figure 5. The gravel drain rock should be wrapped with filter fabric (same as footing drains) to reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. Clean -outs should be provided for the drain pipe at convenient locations at the ends of all straight trench line sections. It should be noted that the installation of the trench drains parallel to the topographic contour lines should be installed in maximum 20-feet long sections, to limit the risk of causing slippage within the landslide mass on the uphill side of the excavated trench line. 6.8 Structural Fill The term "structural fill' refers to any placed under foundations, retaining walls, slab -on -grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other such features. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs. Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, granulithic gravel, pea gravel, washed rock, crushed rock, quarry spalls, controlled -density fill (CDF), lean -mix concrete, well -graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit -run"), and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent imaterials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter. Fill Placement: Generally, pea gravel, washed rock, quarry spalls, CDF, and lean -mix concrete do not ' require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, clean sand, granulithic gravel, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. 1 Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO Page 20 LSI Adapt, Inc. On -Site Soils: Because relatively large cuts are planned for the project, we expect that large quantities of on -site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. We anticipate that fill will be needed to backfill footings and retaining walls at the site. As such, we offer the following evaluation of these on - site soils in relation to potential use as structural fill. • Surficial Organic Soils: The topsoil or organic -rich silts mantling the site, or organic soils disclosed elsewhere during construction, are not suitable for use as structural fill due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non- structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. • Clays and Clayey Silts (Landslide Debris): The near -surface clays and clayey silt do not appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill at their present moisture contents. However, these soils may become suitable for reuse during a period of dry weather if they can be aerated to reduce their moisture content, and provided that they are free of wood chips and other organic/deleterious material. It should be noted that these fine- grained soils are extremely moisture -sensitive and are not likely to be suitable for use as structural fill during wet site conditions. • Silty Sand and Sandy Silts Landslide Debris): The underlying silty sand/sandy silts appear to contain a significant amount of fines and are significantly above their optimum moisture condition. We anticipate that these silty sandy soils may be reworked and recompacted, given favorable weather conditions when they can be aerated to reduce their moisture content, and provided that they are free of wood chips and other organic/deleterious material. However, these soils would be difficult or impossible to reuse during wet weather, due to their relatively high silt content and in -place moisture condition. Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D-1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on -site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: Fill Application Footing subgrade or bearing pad Footing and retaining wall backfill Slab -on -grade floor subgrade and subbase Roadway embankment (upper 2 feet) Roadway embankment (below 2 feet) Concrete sidewalk subgrade Minimum Compaction 95, percent 90 percent 90 percent 95 percent 90 percent 90 percent It should be noted that the municipal compaction standard for construction work within right-of-way areas may require 95 percent density, based on the Standard Proctor test (ASTM:D-698). This requirement is 1�' Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Page 21 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. generally equivalent to about 90 percent compaction using the more stringent Modified Proctor criteria (ASTM:D-1557). Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all subgrades should be verified by an Adapt representative before filling or construction begins. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in -place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain -size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. The majority of the near -surface site soils contain a significant amount of fines and should be considered moisture sensitive. For fill placement during wet -weather site work, we recommend using "clean" fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. CDF Strength Considerations: CDF is normally specified in terms of its compressive strength, which typically ranges from 50 to 200 psi. CDF having a strength of 50 psi (7200 psf) provides adequate support for most structural applications and can be readily excavated with hand shovels. A strength of 100 psi (14,400 psf) provides additional' support for special applications but greatly increases the difficulty of hand -excavation. In general, CDF having a strength greater than about 100 psi requires power equipment to excavate and, as such, should not be used where future hand -excavation might be needed. 7.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site preparation, drainage, fill placement, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequently, we recommend that Adapt be retained to provide the following post -report services: • Review all construction plans and specifications to verify that our design criteria presented in this report have been properly integrated into the design; • Prepare a letter summarizing all review comments (if required by City of Edmonds); • Attend a pre -construction conference with the design team and contractor to discuss important geotechnically related construction issues; May Tung Bui Page 22 Adaot Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. • Observe all exposed subgrades after completion of stripping and overexcavation to confirm that suitable soil conditions have been reached and to determine appropriate subgrade compaction methods; • Monitor the placement of all structural fill and test the compaction of structural fill soils to verify confirm conformance with the construction specifications; • Check all completed subgrades for footings and slab -on -grade floors before concrete is poured, in order to confirm their bearing capacity; • Observe the installation of shoring walls (or open cut excavation slope) within the lower yard area to confirm their conformance with the geotechnical design criteria and the construction plans; • Observe the installation of all yard and house perimeter drains, wall drains, and capillary break layers to confirm their conformance with the construction plans; • Prepare a post -construction letter summarizing all field observations, inspections, and test results (as required by City of Edmonds). Upon request, we could submit a proposal for providing some or all of these construction monitoring, inspection, and testing services. Such a proposal is best prepared after the project plans and specifications have been approved for construction. Tung Bui May 23, 2005 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO Page 23 LSI Adapt, Inc. 8.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, LSI Adapt, Inc. Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Reviewer rbh/kvl ' May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Page 24 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO IL SI ADAPT, INC. FIGURE I - Location/Topographic Map 615 8th Avenue South Project : Bui Residence Washington 98104 Location :16105 75th Place West Seattle, 9 Edmonds, Washington 98026 Client : Tung Bui ' Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 Data : 05/15/05 Job 0 : S—WA-05-12239—GEO J `�� I r AWd i t N 8g 218" E 127.8i i -i1 r M56' . ..._. ... ;il 1 ( [ � BC ! T8.5II' fir. t 7.;�' . It 15. [ 1- — — �� ` — VACATM 7:JH `tfC?JJ ' CPT-0h I /' / 'j B-2, ' CPT-02 71�33 / OP PP P SEI ,E�. 84-ar 8.3 11 l ni /. 1Oq :1 / 1 0 11 I J j B-3 / .41 l / LEGEND: BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION a f (MW-1)- (MONITORING WELL NUMBER INDICATED) W-1 f f. CPT-04 . CP. -04 / ', CONE PENETROMETER PROBE NUMBER AND APPROX. LOCATION t —y—--1----"_ _ __ A A ti. ` `� 4; y� 1_A - GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B B' I —/s ! .\z KA - GEOLOGIC.PROF,ILE AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION t N 8 CHA1N- c %i3" B; 12G7T 1 LiNK !o tJ I Q NOTE: Vw i SITE DRAWING BASED ON "SITE PLAN" BY 4D ARCHITECTS, DATED 05/17/2005. 0 20 40 \ I / !pAI APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET � t LSI ADAPT FIGURE 2 - Site & Exploration Plan Project :IBui Residence 615 8th Avenue South location :,16105 75th Place West Seattle, Washington 98104 Edmonds, Washington 98026 r.nnr nr A -rn AC r-.. — nnt- t^c A -r%A0 Mont .Tuna Bui 100 80 M 40 20 NOTES: 1) THE STRATA ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATION BETWEEN EXPLORATIONS AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. 2) SIMPLIFIED NAMES ARE SHOWN FOR SOIL DEPOSITS. BASED ON GENERALIZATIONS OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. SEE EXPLORATION LOGS AND REPORT TEXT FOR COMPLETE SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. 100 80 m 40 20 LEGEND: B-5 - BORING NUMBER (25' N) - OFFSET FROM ACTUAL EXPLORATION LOCATION TO SECTION LINE s:L- STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT - GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING CPT-04 - CONE PENETROMETER TEST NUMBER - CONE TIP RESISTANCE (TSF) VS. DEPTH (FT) - GROUND WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF PROBING ,s 40.5' - TOTAL DEPTH OF DRILLING/PROBING 0 20 40 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET LSI ADAPT FIGURE 3 - Geologic Cross Section A- A' Project' : Bui Residence 615 8th Avenue South Location : 16105 75th Place West Seattle, Washington 98104 Edmonds, Washington 98026 n� 'Inc c c e -7n A c c_.. . ')nc c c A -7n A 0 Client Tuna Bui ' PROPOSED HOUSE CROSS R SECTION 100 ' C-C 100 B-2 CPT-02 ' (-6' W) (�14'W) Lense of medium dense, CROSS CPT-04 -N silty SAND/ SECTION sandy SILT A -A (-12' W) N8 0 ' 80 80 Medium stiff to stiff s Z��'� 10%_ CLAY, clayey SILT _----------� ' Medium stiff to stiff CLAY, clayey SILT o 18 is _ _- - SILT - - - - - - - - - ? ?` Loose SAND/ v 5 -' _ �5 ? Medium `o mea�u ILT 2a 60 60 SILT : - - 18 25 _ - tnferm�Xe S°� i1 SANDI ' �- _��� in 15 erase c1a Stiff to very stiff 25' - _ CLAY/silty CLAY 317 13 30.5' Stiff to very stiff ' CLAY/silty CLAY 2338.2' 39.0 40 40 1 �- 20 20 LEGEND: ' B-5 - BORING NUMBER (25' N) - OFFSET FROM ACTUAL EXPLORATION LOCATION TO SECTION LINE 5 - STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT - GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING CPT-04 - CONE PENETROMETER TEST NUMBER ' s - CONE TIP RESISTANCE (TSF) VS. DEPTH (FT) ,Q - GROUND WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF PROBING ,s ' 40.5' - TOTAL DEPTH OF DRILLING/PROBING ' NOTES: 1) THE STRATA ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATION BETWEEN EXPLORATIONS AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. ' 2) SIMPLIFIED NAMES ARE SHOWN FOR SOIL DEPOSITS. BASED ON GENERALIZATIONS OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. SEE EXPLORATION LOGS AND REPORT TEXT FOR COMPLETE SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. 0 20 40 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET LSI ADAPT FIGURE 4 - Geologic Profile B-B' 615 8th Avenue South Project :Bui Residence Location :16105 75th Place West Seattle, Washington 98104 Edmonds, Washington 98026 ' Client : Tung Bui Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 Date : 05/15/05 Job # : S-WA-05-12239-GEO I -- FREE -DRAINING , BACKFILL t k k ? X k X k k k k L k k t� /P-- 25.. L:J'... {i k X k k k X k X k f 1 � I x k k X ��\ L. 72.0(MIN) k kk k 'Ilk Xk Xk k k k X X k X k STRUCTURAL X k X k k BACK ILL k I I I A- k ; X X — ' rl r�k �k X X X — {X X 1.5 ``li, I nTu I i I k X k P P' P k k k k MAIN FL EEELLLb,,. k k "W X TEMPORARY EXCAVATION ri r :�1:;^ � i ;i �© << CUT SLOPE I l :•f %' ' 'r I 1 to 2-INCH DIA. WASHED ROCK MIRAFI 180N FILTER } i f FABRIC OR EQUAL 6-INCH DIA. PERFORATED A`\\ PVC PIPE (MIN. SCH. 20) L. 62.0' MAX ' R TRENCH DRAIN SECTION CONCRETE r SLAB -ON -GRADE CHAJ r-UNK FENCE I . 4-INCH (MIN.) CAPILLARY BREAK L— LEGEND: 1 to 2-INCH DIA. WASHED ROCK - TRENCH DRAIN 6-INCH DIA. MINI (min 2% SLOPE TO DRAIN) MIRAFI 180N FILTER - SOLID PVC PIPE (6-INCH DIA.) FABRIC (OR EQUAL) NOTE: 6-INCH DIA. PERFORATED SITE DRAWING BASED ON "SITE PLAN" k PVC PIPE (MIN. SCH. 40) DATED 05/17/2005. EL. 62.0' (MAX) i ;TRENCH DRAIN SECTION URE 5 - Drainage Plan 1Ject : Bui Residence Wlan : 16105 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 int : Tung Bui LSI Adapt, Inc. APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Appendix A — Page 1 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. The following paragraphs describe our procedures associated with the field explorations and field tests that we conducted for this project. Descriptive logs of our borings (13-1 through B-3), monitoring wells (MW-1 and MW-2), and CPT probings (CPT-01 through CPT-04) are enclosed in this appendix. Auger Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger, using a track -mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Adapt. A geotechnical engineer or specialist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings, and the surface was patched with asphalt or concrete (where appropriate). Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2'/z- or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTM:D-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch-diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where soft soils were encountered, these split -spoon samples may have been supplemented with Shelby tube samples. A Shelby tube consists of a 3-inch- diameter thin -wall steel tube that is pushed into the soil by means of hydraulic rams. Where gravelly soils were encountered, a larger -diameter split -spoon sampler may have been utilized to improve the sample recovery, and the resulting blow counts would subsequently be converted to SPT blow counts by means of energy correlations. The enclosed Boring Logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. ' May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO Appendix A —Page 2 1� LSI Adapt, Inc. Monitoring Well Procedures The groundwater monitoring wells were installed by the independent drilling firm working under ' subcontract to Adapt. A geotechnical engineer or specialist from our firm continuously observed the installation of the monitoring wells. The wells were installed in general accordance with Washington ' State Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements. Typically, a 2-inch diameter PVC pipe is used when groundwater sampling is required for environmental ' site characterization is required, while a 1-inch diameter PVC pipe may be used when only the groundwater levels are required to be monitored. Generally, the screened (slotted PVC) portion of the ' well is carefully placed within the depth interval where groundwater seepage is observed during drilling or anticipated based on soil stratification or groundwater fluctuations. The screened section of the well is backfilled with select # 10-#20 sand backfill. The remainder of the well pipe (solid PVC) is backfilled ' with bentonite to seal off the screened zone of the well from underlying and overlying groundwater infiltration. A minimum 5-feet of solid PVC with bentonite backfill is always maintained at the surface above any screened well section. At the ground surface, a cast iron well monument with a bolted lid is ' then installed with a concrete seal to protect the monitoring well from tampering. 1 Cone Penetrometer Procedures The exploratory cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings consisted of advancing an electric penetrometer piezocone, using a truck -mounted probe rig operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to Adapt. The electronic monitoring equipment in the probe rig automatically logged the subsurface conditions. After each sounding was completed, the probehole was backfilled with a mixture of sand and ' bentonite chips. During probing, the piezocone tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-3441 standards ' using a 5-ton electric piezocone with a porous element located at the shoulder behind the cone tip. The cone consisted of a standard tip design having a 60' apex, 10 cm projected area at the tip, 150 cm2 sleeve, and was advanced at a rate of approximately 2.0 cm/sec. The cone tip resistance (q,), sleeve friction (Q, ' and penetration pore water pressure (112) were recorded continuously during the tests. The enclosed Cone Penetrometer Test Logs (CPTu graphs) depict vertical plots of the cone tip resistance (qt), sleeve friction ratio (f�qt), and penetration pore water pressure (112) which was recorded during the ' CPT sounding. The logs also include a general soil profile depicting the vertical sequence of soil types based on the recorded data, along with estimated Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT-N60) values corresponding to each test interval based on published conversion charts. May 23, 2005 Tun Bui Adapt Proiect No. WA05-12239-GEO Appendix A —Page 3 LSI ADAPT BORING/MONITORING WELL LOG Seatttle, Washngonouth 8104 4 7045 FAX' 206 654 7048 PROJECT: Bui Residence LOCATION : 16105 75th Place West Frimonds. WA 98026 I CL. 206.65 . Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Boring No.: B-1 Monitoring Well No.: MW-1 5 age : Ground Surface Elevation: 83.5 ft Casing Elevation: 83.5 ft ' o V SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 3-inches grass, sod and topsoil ---------------------------- Loose, moist to wet, rusty tannish gray, fine to medium SAND and silty fine SAND with some rootlets and wood debris (Landslide Debris) ' Soft, moist to wet, gray with rusty stains, silty CLAY, thinly laminated and microfractured (Landslide Debris) Medium stiff to stiff, moist to wet, gray with 10 blue -gray inclusions and trace rusty stains, clayey SILT with thin lenses of fine sandy SILT (Landslide Debris) Medium dense, wet to saturated, gray with rusty banding, silty fine to medium SAND interlayered with lenses of blue -gray, fine sandy SILT 15 (Landslide Debris) Loose to medium dense, wet to saturated, bluish gray, intermixed clayey SILT and silty fine to medium SAND with inclusions of hard, dark gray, fragments of clayey SILT and root fragments (Landslide Debris) Loose, wet to saturated, greenish to bluish gray, SILT, non -plastic (Landslide Debris) Medium stiff to stiff, moist, blue -gray, silty CLAY (Massive) Elevation Reference : "Site Plan" by 4D Architects dated 03/21/0 01 o o a a Q WELL LABORATORY TESTING 2 2 2 2 2 Sd 13 5 11 5 5 8 S-1 13 4 5 2 3 5 03111 2005 LEGEND PVC f 2-ineh O. 0. Split -Spoon Sample AM Static Water Level at Time of Drilling ® Grab Sample (Soil cuttings) D(tLXI 2-I.D. Schedule 40 with Bemanite 8aekfi0 °s c 3 1/4 - inch O.D. Dames & Moore Sample (Equivalent SPT elowcount Shown) �7 Static Water Level Reading ho Type of Analytical Testing Performed w �} 2' Schedule d0 PVC with 0.20dnch slots and Select 10.20 Sand eack in ' m �7' o 1T E Shelby Tube Sample DATE Perched Groundwater D.O.T. Approved Flush -Mounted Well eentonita BaII i o Sample not Recovered — Monument w(N Concrete Seal --- ----i--.- --- -�- I--:--- --- -r_r� _--I- - ---T- _I -li---I---�I- -1--- --- --I--!----.-y�4- -=-I----j--;-_j; J--- '--' -- ---I-- -j- - --- —r,—, _ J j---'----—J— --- -L--------i �1- i ! ---;--i-------�--;- -L-I----I--,-- -�- - i -4-4— i _L _il _— __ _ _ _ _ __ 1_ J _ MOISTURE CONTENT Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Lin ®Grain Size Analysis 200 Wash (%fines shown) 0 (%fines shown) XX PP Packet Pentmrometer TV Torvane Reading list) Reading list) La L LSI ADAPT Avenue BORING/MONITORING WELL LOG Se ttle,Bth Washngtonouth 98104 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT: Bui Residence Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Boring No.: B-1 LOCATION : 16105 75 Place West Monitoring Well No.: MW-1 Edmonds, Washington 98026 age: Ground Surface Elevation: 83.5 ft Casing Elevation: 83.5 it Elevation Reference: "Site Plan" by 4D Architects dated 03/21/05 02 of 0 71 om SOIL DESCRIPTION W 11. z mj a1 03 WELL LABORATORY TESTING Stiff, damp to moist, blue -gray, CLAY (Massive) 11 15 Becomes very stiff S-9 1 3 8 10 Hard, damp, blue -gray, CLAY with fine silt laminations S-10 I e . 1,,7 29r,, Very stiff, moist, blue -gray, CLAY (Massive) S-11 I 7 10 15 Boring terminated at 46.5 feet bgs. Groundwater encountered at -13.0 feet bgs. LEGEND ' c � =2-inch O. 0. Split -Spoon Sample � Static Water Level at Time AM of Drilling Grab Sample (Shc Cuttings) W1A wi I.D. Schedule c PVC DQ with Bemonite Baekfill 3 114 . inch O.D. Dames 3 Moore Sample (Equivalent SPT Blowcotud Shown) 6, a Type of Arelyli®I Tasting Performed w 2- Schedule 40 PVC with *� slots and Select c Stack Water. Level Reading 10_20nch t1F20 Send eaclfill to E m Shelby Tube Sample DATE —M- Parched Groundwater D.O.T. Approved Flush -Mourned Well Monument with ® gentonite Bacldill z • Sample not Recovered Concrete Seal MOISTURE CONTENT Plastic Limit Natural Liquid ®Grain Size Analysis 200 Wash (%fines shown) (%fines shown) Pocket Pentewmeter TV Torvane Reading (tsf) PP Ring (m) LSI ADAPT Avenue BORING/MONITORING WELL LOG Settle, w shingtono 8104 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT: Bui Residence Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Boring No.: B-2 LOCATION : 16105 75th Place West Monitoring Well No.: MW-2 Edmonds, WA 98026 age Ground Surface Elevation: 84.0 ft Casing Elevation : 84.0 ft Elevation Reference : "Site Plan" by 4D Architects dated 03/21/05 01 of 2 _ a. m a- SOIL DESCRIPTION a w x a m Z 3= m Z s a 0 o ld a 3 WELL LABORATORY TESTING 0 3-inches, grass sod and topsoil S 1 2 —J 2 L------------------------------ 3 Medium stiff, moist to wet, gray with some rusty —-------- -- _ ! mottling, clayey SILT with some medium rootlets 1Larg s11c ems_ bjr L---------------- Stiff, moist to wet, tan -gray with rusty mottling - = - - - - - - - - - - - - clayey SILT interlayered with silty fine sand 5 lenses and trace rootlets (Landslide Debris) s 2 4 5 7 !" _ _ _ _ _ _�_ �- � _ _ i _ — — — • — —i— —!�- i I —r——.---------�—�— TV=0.6 I _ L ----------------- Becomes medium stiff, thinly laminated 10 (at 300 inclination to horizontal) s-3 2 5 _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _r =0.4 77 (2/1N2005 15-------:-----�- __ JA S-4 4-- 7 Stiff, moist to wet, gray, silty CLAY interlayered 1t —�— ----- — —�— - - - - TV=0.6 PP=3.0 with gray to rusty tan -gray, fine sandy SILT with thin lenses of brown -black, organic -rich inclusions (Landslide Debris) r L-------------------------------J Loose, wet to saturated, gray, fine to medium - - - - -!- - - -- - - - - - SAND (Landslide Debris) _ _i_ _i__ _ _ _ 1 _ 20 S-5 2 I 4 ---- Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to sandy SILT with trace brown -black, peat inclusions, 8 --- — — —.--- --4--- non -plastic (Landslide Debris) .L 10 - - - -i- -i- - = - - - 25 s7 3 ---1 -; -; - • �5 5 —I---------1- 10 -------------- LLoose, gray, saturated, silty fine SAND �_•_ intermixed with soft, wet, gray and tannish gray _ r _ _ _ _ _ _;_ y _ ; _J --- with rusty mottling, SILT with some fine sand and trace clay and trace peat inclusions (Landslide Debris) 3 3 LEGEND 2" I.D. o. Schedule 24nch O. D. spot -spoon Sample Vstatic Water Level at Time Grab Sample (Soil Cuttings) DQpa with Bemonite ATD of Drilling c 3 1/4 - inch O.D. Dames & Moore Sample 2' Schedule Type of Analyfipl Testing �, (Equivalent SPT Blowcount Shown) 7 Performed 1G�r * 0.20-inch a V Static Water Level Reading `IVI 10-20 Sand m Shelby Tube Sample DATE D.O.T. Approved E 7 V Perched Groundwater Flush -Mounted Well Benronite dim i X Sample not Recovered = Monument with ® Concrete Seal .. t .; nit. • nim sm6 Bard 40 slots and Bacldll Baddill ao PVC ill PVC With Select i i 0 o MOISTURE CONTENT ; Lsfic LIrn t Natural Liquid Limi so sh.) Perdeaometer g : R.B.H. Grain Size Analysis 200 Wash y ® (%fines shown) 0 (%fines XX Pocket PP N Torvane Reading (tat) Reading Loaned By atanuata.-- LSI ADAPT Avenue BORING/MONITORING WELL LOG Seattle, shingtono 8104 206 654 7048 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX. PROJECT: Bui Residence Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Boring No.: B-2 LOCATION : 16105 75 Place West Monitoring Well No.: MW-2 Edmonds, Washington 98026 Page Ground Surface Elevation: 84.0 ft Casing Elevation: 84.0 ft Elevation Reference : "Site Plan" by 40 Architects dated 03/21/05 02 of 02 SOIL DESCRIPTION Z m a o; WELL LABORATORY TESTING w m o_ Loose, gray, saturated, silty fine SAND 3 intermixed with soft, wet, gray and tannish gray a with rusty mottling, SILT with some fine sand and trace clay and trace peat inclusions (Landslide S-9 3 Debris) a I-------------------------------� 9 Stiff, moist, blue -gray, CLAY ("varved") Becomes very stiff Boring terminated at 39.0 feet bgs. Groundwater encountered at -13.5 feet bgs. LEGEND 24nch O. 0. SPlit-Spoon Sample 3 1r4 - inch O.D. Dames a Moore Sample (Equivalent SPT Blowcoum Shown) Shelby Tube Sample XSample not Recovered S-10 15 11 12 r _ at Time Grab Sample CuNngs) W� 2' I.D. Schedule 40 PVC M Static Water Level LL (Sail with Bemonhe Backfill ATO of Drilling Static Water Level Reading o� Type of Ana cal Testingr Performed �� 2' Schedule 40 PVC with Eill 10-2 Inch d Ba and Select 10-20 Sand Baddill DATE D.O.T. Approved Perched Groundwater Flush -Mounted Well Monument with Backfill go Concrete Seal MOISTURE CONTENT Plastic Limit Natural Liquid ® Grain Size Analysis 200 Wash (% lines shown) (% lines shown) XX Pocut Pemetrometer TV Torvane Reading (tst) PP Reading (tsf) LSI ADAPT 8th Avenue South BORING LOG Seattle, Washington 98104 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT: Bui Residence Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Boring No.: B-3 LOCATION : 16105 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 age Ground Surface Elevation: 70.0 ft Elevation Reference : "Site Plan" by 4� Architects dated 03/21/05 01 of 01 w m SOIL DESCRIPTION f a n o Z o Q Q LABORATORY TESTING 0 6-inches, grass sod and topsoil L-------------------------- -----JJ Medium stiff, moist, gray to tan -gray with some rusty mottling, SILT with trace fine sand Soft, moist to wet, tannish gray with some rusty to blue -gray stains, clayey SILT with some fine rootlets and trace brown -black topsoil/peat inclusions (Landslide Debris) Interlayered with loose, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - Medium stiff, moist to wet, blue -gray, silty CLAY (Massive) --------------------------------- Stiff, moist, blue -gray, CLAY ("varved°) ------ Becoming damp s 1 S-2 S9 SA S-5 S6 S-7 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 6 3 5 7 3 4 6 ----=----- ------ -_ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ---=----------------- - - ---- ---------.---- - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - ----T-------------------- (64) ----------- --'-------_---- ------ - - ^• ---------=----------=---- -.-------------------- - --------------------- -------- ,(82i - ---=-------------- - - - - -- ------------- - -- -' ----------------- ----=----�--=--------_---- ---------------------- TV=0.6 5 PP=0.7 TV=0.3 L TV=0.5 10- TV=0.5 7P=1.5 TV=1.3 15 L PP=3.5 N=1.4 PP=3.0 20 PP=3.5 25 Boring terminated at -24.0 feet bgs. Perched groundwater encountered at -8.0 feet bgs. 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 LEGEND MOISTURE CONTENT 2-inch O. 0. SPT Split -Spoon Sample ® Grab Sample (Soil Cuttings) PP Pocket Penetrometer Rearing (tsl) (Blows per 6-inch increment shown) Plastic Urnit Natura) Liquid Limit TV Torvane Reading (tell 3 1/4 • inch O.D. Dames & Moore Sample -� Static Water Level at Time (Equivalent SPT Blowcoum Shown) ATD of Drilling nob" Type of Analytical Testing Performed m Shelby Tube Sample V° Static Water Level Reading ® Grain Size Analysis Wash E DATE (%. fines shown) (% (%floes shown)) z Sample not Recovered Perched Groundwater XX - 1,.1,.,., n�to • ni77/ris Loaned By : R.B.H. 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 � I Depth I (ft) � I � I 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 LSI Adapt Engineering Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 4/13/2005 2:55:23 PM Sounding: CPT-01 Location: Bui Residence West Side Cone Used: DSG0708 Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' SPT N` Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 200 0 8 -10 10 0 12 0 40 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I T �--1--r-r-r--r-�--I- I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I_ _I_ _ L _ 1 _ 1 _ J _ _I_ I I I I I I I i I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 _I__r_ r_T_ �__I_ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I 1 I I 1 1 I I i t 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I r l l I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I 11 1 1 1 I I i I I I I I I I " T " 7 T -I l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Maximum Depth = 17.22 feet ■ 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ■ 2 organic material ■ 5 clayey silt to silty clay ■ 3 clay ■ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 'Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 �I� 111 J J_I _I_I_L I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --11-1-I-rr I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 11�1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11JJJ_I _I_I_L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -r T I 'I 1 -1 -I -1- r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 t 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L I_I_I _IJ J 1 1 L L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i l l l l l l l l l Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 8 sand to silty sand ■ 9 sand Northwest Cone Exploration I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l t l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I-I- -I-F 1 _I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■ 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (') ■ 12 sand to clayey sand (•) 1 � I Depth I (ft) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 LSI Adapt Engineering Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 4/13/2005 3:31:50 PM Sounding: CPT-02 Location: Bui Residence North Side Cone Used: DSG0708 Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type` SPT N` Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 200 0 8 -10 10 0 12 0 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 -1 L 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I t I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I _ I__I_ _I_ _I_ _L _ I __I_ 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 1- 1 IT, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Y 1 1 1 -I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 T r I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I I I I I t I 1 1 _1 II X, I 1 t l 1 1 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t l l l l l I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I i l l t l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I _I I i l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I T I F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T, 7 7 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 11 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 11 1 I 11 1 1 I I I 11 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l i I l l t l l l l 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I i l l l l i I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I l t l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l t l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I_I_I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' Maximum Depth = 38.39 feet ■ 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ■ 2 organic material ■ 5 clayey silt to silty clay ■ 3 clay ■ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ('''Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 8 sand to silty sand ■ 9 sand Northwest Cone Exploration ■ 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (`) ■ 12 sand to clayey sand (`) LSI Adapt Engineering 0 5 10 15 Depth 20 ' 25 ' 30 tj 35 40 Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 4/13/2005 4:59:07 PM Sounding: CPT-03 Location: Bui Residence Northwest Side Cone Used: DSG0708 Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type* SPT N* Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 0 200 0 8 -10 10 0 12 0 40 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 i 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I 1 1 I I I I 1 i I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 11 1 I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 11 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I i l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 11 1 I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I t l l l I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I t l l l l l l l l I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I i 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 i l l l l l l l I I I I 1 I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I.I I I I I I I I I _ I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 l l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 11 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I t 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I t I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 I I I 1 7 1 -I-I 1 -I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I l 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 11 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I ' Maximum Depth = 30.35 feet ■ 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ■ 2 organic material ■ 5 clayey silt to silty clay ■ 3 clay ■ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ,'Soil behavior type and SPIT based on data from UBC-1983 Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 8 sand to silty sand ■ 9 sand Northwest Cone Exploration ■ 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (') ■ 12 sand to clayey sand (") 0 0 ' 5 10 ' 15 Depth 20 25 35 40 LSI Adapt Engineering Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 4/13/2005 6:03:58 PM Sounding: CPT-04 Location: Bui Residence South Side Cone Used: DSG0708 Job Number: WA05-12239-GEO Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' SPIT N' Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 200 0 8 -10 10 0 12 0 40 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 --------- I I---------- I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 (1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I t I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T- -I--I--r-r-T-,_-I- ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I i I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I -1- 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 11 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 I' I I I 11 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 -I-T T-I I I I--1-I_I -I-I-1 I1 T I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i I 1 I I I I I I t I i i l l l l i l I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I i t I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I -!T I- I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 11 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I -1 11 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I T -I T , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l I I I I i l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 j -I- T -I-I T -I I I I I -I -I -I -I -I I I I_I-I _I -I T I I -I 7 -I T -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 ' Maximum Depth = 30.51 feet 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ■ 2 organic material ■ 5 clayey silt to silty clay 3 clay 0 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ''Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 Depth Increment = 0.164 feet 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 8 sand to silty sand ■ 9 sand Northwest Cone Exploration 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (') 12 sand to clayey sand (') LSI Adapt, Inc. 11 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Appendix B — Page 1 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO LSI Adapt, Inc. The following paragraphs describe our procedures associated with the laboratory tests that we conducted for this project. Graphical results of certain laboratory tests are enclosed in this appendix. Visual Classification Procedures ' Visual soil classifications were conducted on all samples in the field and on selected samples in our laboratory. All soils were classified in general accordance with the United Soil Classification System, which includes color, relative moisture content, primary soil type (based on grain size), and any accessory soil types. The resulting soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs contained in Appendix A. 1 1 11' Moisture Content Determination Procedures Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. All determinations were made in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these tests are shown on the exploration logs contained in Appendix A. Atterbere Limit Determination Procedures Atterberg limits are used primarily for classifying and indexing cohesive soils. The liquid and plastic limits, which are defined as the moisture contents of a cohesive soil at arbitrarily established limits for liquid and plastic behavior, were determined for selected samples in general accordance with ASTM:D- 4318. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed Atterberg Limits Test Reports (2 pages) and on the exploration logs contained in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis Procedures A grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample, while a 200 wash (Materials finer than U.S. No. 200 Sieve test) indicates how much fines (silt and clay) is contained in a sample. Grain size analyses were performed .on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM:D-422. 200 Wash tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-422 and ASTM:C-117. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed Grain Size Analysis Reports (2 pages) and on the exploration logs contained in Appendix A. ' May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Appendix B — Page 2 Adaot Project No. WA05-12239-GEO Grain Size Analysis Report 3 in. 1-112 in. 314 318 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 9200 100 90 80 a, 70 60 i�-2 c f 3 50 N U) a 40 c .-►«-5 m 2- 30 d a 20 10 p 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size (mm)--d Project Name: Bui Residence NOTES: 'Material Project No: WA05-12239-GEO 1) Singie marker (no grain size curve) indicates Finer than No. 200 Sieve' test Client Name: Tung Bui Test Standard: ASTM:D-422 / C-117 Date: 2111 /2005 I I I II , :III I „ i I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I' I I I I I I I �� I t Ilii � I , hill 1 I 'III1 1 ;�I I itII;I 1 I II�� iIIiIIt I 1 t ;'I�i�I; � �1I�iI! I I I I I I III I I I III I t I I• , II ! I I' � I I I I III I I i I I 11 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine or � Boring/ Sample Moisture Gravel Sand Clay Test Test Pit Sample Depth Content Content Content Content No. No. No. ft Soil Description 1 B-1 S-4 15.0 Silty F. SAND 27.0 0 64 36 2 B-1 S-5 20.0 Silty F. SAND 41.2 0 55 45 3 B-1 S-6 25.0 SILT 32.4 0 0 100 4 B-2 S-5 20.0 F. - M. SAND 24.4 1 97 2.5 5 B-2 S-6 22.5 F. Sandy SILT 30.7 0 17 83 12239 -Bui Residence -Grain Size.xis Rev. 3 LS I ADAPT, Inc. Grain Size - Rpt MarJ02 Grain Size Analysis Report 3 in. 1-1/2 in. 314 318 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 III II II II . I I I I) ! 11 1 90 80 o' 70 • 60 yy T 2 50 l :III 'I I III l I l ' --0-3.y N l I : ' ; I I I II, I I : I I I I I III I I � I 11 � I �4 I I I I III a- 40 I I l i I I y/ I I I I I I III I I V ` 30 I ! l l I 1 20 !li' 10 C I ,I 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size (mm) No. No. No. ft Soil Description Project Name: Bui Residence NOTES: Project No: WA05-12239-GEO 1) Single marker (no grain size curve) indicates 'Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve' test Client Name: Tung Bui Test Standard: ASTM:D-422 / C-117 Date: 2/11 /2005 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse medium Fine 1 B-2 S-7 25.0 F. Sandy SILT 30.0 0 25 75 2 B-2 S-8 30.0 Silty F. SAND 33.1 0 52 48 3 4 5 LS I ADAPT Inc. 12239 -Bui Residence -Grain Size 2.x1s 02 , Grain Size - Rpt N (7 T Li O 0 rn , �I CL Rli W I O O I � O I o l I � L r o E ■� i I I C •� I dl i J Im Lm L I o 1 I C O I I l i i O CIDLO O O � cn O O N O xapUl AMORSeld J J U U .3' z x y o M N Lo O O N ME a. p 7 I� r-- c) Lo J J co N f- CV N cM Co N Lo N CL a3+ l�E C e � � (O (D 00 m O v CO cn cn cn c.i C J J C NU U d w O O . O O d �o m m (M y � m E z u) cn u) ch cp a ° `00zaomaomm O m � N Z d N c7 st N O W U co N M LO W (I)L6 OfQ m C ~ O CV)m�HQci EZE�v O+' Z ca�0 Z C •O N 0 d oav a � 0 o 0 l rn l j l Q 4) /� wO o co ,A vdil O � � I I p a+ co i i I d �i ' A M I Q I o —L_ CD co o A LO IT cM CD N xapul kPilseld N woo y z K d o co -gr cc FL p a ._ o Ir 0 N ao J J H •£ o N M aJ d d co rn _ M Z O cLo V w 22. owg� Coo N d Q..L.. S o to d 0 N N m E cn Z to N Im c a o0toZcoco d Z F 6 � 1H N H w U � � U) N 6 CO U) o p m N m Q O f- Q (M cM d O d d Z v ZAa C d '0 N oav a CD � LSI Adapt, Inc. APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES AND RESULTS May 23, 2005 Tung Bui Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO Appendix C —Page 1 LSI Adapt, Inc, In order to evaluate the global stability of the existing native slope and the proposed daylight basement excavation configuration, we used Slope/W to perform slope stability analyses along Geologic Cross Sections A -A' and C-C'. Graphical printouts of representative slope stability sections (10 pages) are enclosed in this appendix, as follows: • Geologic Cross Section A -A (Native Slope Configuration): Definition w/assumed soil parameters, Most Critical Potential Failure Locations for both Static and Seismic Case; Geologic Cross Section A A (Basement Cut Configuration): Definition w/assumed soil parameters, Most Critical Potential Failure Locations for Static Case, 2 Potential Failure Locations for Seismic Case; • Geologic Cross Section C-C (Basement Cut Configuration): Definition w/assumed soil parameters, 2 Potential Failure Locations for Seismic Case; Slope Stability Analysis Procedures Slope/W analyzes a series of pre -selected failure circles with varying inclination and radius within certain zones of the cross section. The resulting range of radius centers and associated factors of safety are then shown with a set of safety factor contour lines indicating the most critical portions of the slope configuration. The results of the stability analyses are expressed as a factor of safety, which is computed as the ratio of the forces resisting slope failure to the gravitational forces tending to cause a slope failure. The most critical failure circle (minimum safety factor) for each slope condition is shown. Additional failure circles and associated factors of safety are also shown when specific site construction or developmental conditions require additional review. If the computed factor of safety against slope failure is 1.5 or greater in the static case and I. i or greater in the seismic case, the safety margin against slope instability is generally considered to be adequate by the geotechnical engineering community. Geotechnical strength parameters for the site soils were assigned based on the results of the field and laboratory test results. For the purpose of slope stability analyses, non -plastic soils are generally modeled using effective stress analysis (combination of friction angle and intercept cohesion), while cohesive soils are normally modeled using undrained shear strength (cohesion). Soils that have been previously subjected to significant strain or displacement, such as along pre-existing slide surfaces; are typically modeled with residual effective stress parameters (residual friction angle and residual cohesion). Groundwater conditions are usually applied as one or more piezometric lines. Each piezometric line apply saturated, buoyant soil density conditions to selected soil layers below the line, to model either static groundwater level or perched groundwater conditions: Each analysis section, is typically analyzed for both static and seismic conditions. A pseudo -static analysis is performed to evaluate a potential seismic loading case, assuming an average horizontal ground acceleration of about half of the anticipated peak horizontal ground acceleration for the site, in accordance with generally accepted local practice. May 23, 2005 Tun Bui 9 Appendix C — Page 2 Adapt Project No. WA05-12239-GEO May 10, 2006 Mr. Tung Bui 16105 75" PI W Edmonds, WA STREET FILE KDC Re: Record of Survey Completed at 16105 75t" PI W, Edmonds Architects.Engineers, P.C. Dear Mr. Bui, Denver Corporate/Main Office 7442 S. Tucson Way Suite 180 Centennial, Colorado 80112 303-750-6999 Fax 303-750-0236 Seattle KDC Architects. Engineers, P.C. is writing this letter in reference to the survey completed on your property. I have reviewed the documentation that has been provided to us and re -reviewed the control used to produce you survey and believe all the information utilized to be verified and correct. The referenced recorded surveys we utilized are as follows: 1) SURVEY VOLUME 22, PAGE 23, AFN 8512135005 2) SURVEY VOLUME 31, PAGE 94, AFN 9002275001 3) PLAT VOLUME 61, PAGES 145-146, AFN 9010165006 4) SURVEY VOLUME 34, PAGES 43-46, AFN 9101285001 - 5) SURVEY VOLUME 35, PAGE 168, AFN 9107125003 6) SURVEY (NO VOLUME OR PAGE), AFN 200103095003 The monuments that were recovered to gain accurate control are as follows: 4630 200P St. SW A) FD NAIL & SHINER SET FOR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 57, PER REF Suite K SURVEY 1 & HELD BY PLAT OF LORIAN WOODS (REF SURVEY 3). Lynnwood, WA 98036 B) FD'/z" REBAR/TACK IN CAP (9435) FIRMLY PLACED 2" BELOW GROUND HELD BY 25-6 425-670-86513 REF SURVEYS 2 & 3 FOR NORTHWEST CORNER ORIGINAL TRACT 54. Fax 425-712-0846 C) FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT INSIDE STEEL CASE AS DESCRIBED IN REF SURVEY 2 N01016'52"E 0.63' FROM CENTERLINE NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD. Phoenix D) FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED IN REF SURVEY 4. 3224 S. Fair Lane E) FD'/z" REBAR/CAP (9435) SET FOR REF SURVEY 5 N57°42' E 01' FROM Tempe, AZ CALCULATED POSITION. 85282 F) FD UNCAPPED'/2" REBAR 0.2' NORTH OF 4 FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE & N83-56W 2-438-7429 438-7 0.2' FROM A CALCULATED POSITION. Fax 8-7403 G) FD 5/8" REBAR/CAP (18737) SET FOR REF SURVEY 3 0.15' SOUTHERLY FROM KDC Asia Ltd. MONUMNENT F. 202 Le Concorde Once H) FD MAG NAIL/FLASHER SET FOR REF SURVEY 6 S25o 45 W 0.1 FROM CALCULATED Tower Suite 1303 POSITION AT PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY LINE. Rajchadapisek Road J) FD %" REBAR/CAP (35975) SET FOR REF SURVEY 6 +/- 0.8' NORTH OF TEMPORARY Huaykwang, LANDSCAPE FENCING AND S24003'W 1.5' FROM CALCUALTED POSITION AT WEST Bangkok 10320 MARGIN VACATED 74TH PLACE WEST. +66 (0) 26941599 Office I have attached the most utilized record of surveyd the survey completed for any we +66 (0) 2694 1399 Fax you for your convenience. I hope this documentation meets your needs and if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to call. Sinc rely, Eric J Cam Principal, Director of Operations KDC Architects. Engineers, PC Gene McMahon Professional Land Surveyor McMahon Land Surveying Property Survey for Mary Janeway by Care Planning Assoc. Guardian SW 114, SW 114, S 5, T 27 A R 4 E i NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD, "\•.Njk _.�. ®:ESL• ,`_ , I: / ?o--4 ?s n. I / io6.13'0? PROPER DESCRPTIOR / / • I, �. •�\/ • •\ j'• LOTS 6 7 AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 6 BLOC( 56 PUT of MEADOW" BEACH. ACCO NIO TO ll THE PLAT I EIECE RECORDED N VOLUME S OF PLATS, PACE 31L N SNOIDLLSI CONEY, rA51N1CTOR / I .''. / / '• /, , EXCEPT THAT PON TOGETHER COITEYID TO THE CITY 0010D9 UNDER e1ER 1EODRDONO NAOIO21. /TOGETHER aTN THAT P0Rig1 Q MUTED 7M RACE EST CHAT WO ATTACH BY OPERATION OF / •I Ur ISCORCfD UDER RECOMM NAM 0=10177. SLR1Era NOTES / �+/ / •', •'• /' !\'• 1) SURVEY a aUSED ON PACIFIC NgIt111EST 1171E am ISS77H4 GATED MAIM 100L / !�; � '\ S / � •, 7 YNY EMCG 75 CHMENSHOW S S"DN eDE EGAD O SET N TUMMY R MIDI ANY OC LOCAY II r SIOM ON MEA MAY CR 5 MDT IdUIF REA VAL PROPERTYqAS NOIR f( 7I/AA� �' \ '•, •'� SUe00W IOSSUME O BASED CH IUSIA10 MARCH flO 9 OAMY SO EKCEM M IDTEA t/ Yj� N& ': f ,.`'• USAGE OR DI M C NO RE THAT A m FCTTIRE CEPT ANY OM HERE D101MNRAIaL MAID A, ; w 7 i • k. $ / UURVE OA ODER C NO RESP MAT YAT OBESE RBF. EIICIYT AS Y UNDERLYING IO[M ff LL-- e) sn\E1DR ASSN6 xo RESPO19Bl1IY ro aESIB1OI CH slOr ANY ABIRRLrNo Lots CR PARmS � / AT/ / �i� 5 \ 8tl % a hK���''', % •,.' / �l FIIBTIEIMIOE tlei 51MIVEY ICES NOT OO68TUM A BASS FNL AID WY Nor E UYD AS AN 6 1 NSINAEMT N RFApOECA710N 6 AMT S101 UDFRL1710 MOTS CR PAAFIIS '•SjQ 6• 7) THIS SURVEY IS FOR TIE EXCLU EVE USE OF IRE CUENT NAMED IOEOL IR USE CANNOT EXTEND 10 / ANY 1RNAIm P06R7E3 elnlaur •OTTER aRTEr.ATOI By SURVEYOR. 3gg , � � �• /., , / , �' lenrxl Ricer; '. j'' '• ,I ` ' yy _ , _ • _ _ 'MR 10 KIT a Vol MPMI IDm ' ACT N ee)Y]E' 11 ILO.IC 1= r 0 MIT "nN PA.REYANS �C I IE NI/ZBN BN \, •' U N1/713Y 50.N I iDU1DA7UW.f Y 9OIBC" / � // S u _ AM /1 O IT 11 41 '� \ J••i 1.' : gy ''\...rPT�i `R jB • ❑ NI s1 au 7333,1O FT kt7AOPEjI •, k MIEWSI PA/w. I ,,, y • b y A I LI :• N •70'r UIIs' • 551 .' R I Jl ro • Rt1ENrOaE BURVBVB ^/ ]Ifj 5O A. (CIS ALWES;1,' : '� ° .la! 1 SRIE \01uNE 72 PACE 2% AFR 111213M b ^ 2 SURVEY VOLMEE S, PACE N. AN 00=75001 /$Q 3 PUi WUNE D, PACES 113-M MI NIIO61W8 { SURVEY VOLUME 34. PAM 43-K AFN B101iESW1 / a 1 7 \ ' •' ,\• t 11T n .,, E SURVEY VOLUME 'a, AGE 184 AFN 01071250DJ S/ b •• .,.,,,•' Fi N B SURVEY (IW 14U[ OR PAOQ, NN E000308'AOT / y '•1 ;°a •. Nm�7 No. /ROB g ,; r„ No7n11mRf R=VER® A) N NAL M SINNER SET FOR souNEST 0=0 OF M eeU070• e' 172E N V' TRACT 57. PER (RR7 SURVEY I & KID BY MT Or OW N,BEDO70• a 1-,- I el N� EREEBAR/TACKNZCa (N35) FIRMLY / 41 PLACID r No Ol01ID HI BY RE7 SURVEYS V 1 SV9 SO. h MOB ACRES) '•NSE CC Fa I.1' V `u I M 7 fOR NORTHWEST CORNER BY ACT TRACT SI AT _ iAX aas11)rOSB008p7 4DYTM / / � C) FOUND CONCREW IWNMIENT NSOE SiEL USE As x I )o/ ! " I DESCRIBED N REF SURVEY 7 NO16'5YE 0.53' iy �I ! 1, FROM CENTI PE NORTH IEADOIDNE ROAD. 4 N d71t7'fe- a 170.73' • (' CUF C^ D) FORD CONCRETE YO AMENT AS DESCRIBED N 120.31' _ ; w REF SURVEY 1. 1553 C' / � C. E) FR 1/r RFDAR/GP (N7}) YT FOR ROF SURVEY 5 y; ,L Z. C IN7/YE o.l' FROM WARA7ID POSITION. �'•, S.1/7 to/'0 / O F) TD UNCAPPCD 1/r REBAR 6Y NORTH OF 1 FOOT ^• ••. / •y',• A ; / / ��/ a� C OWN LON FENCE a M"w Ol FROM A „ /, �,- ''./ ,,•: ''''•,, y , _ 4 �/ � O C) CALCULATED POSIM E0 RFBAR/CA► (10737) SET FOR REF SURVEY 3 O.IS' SOU11O6Y FROY I/OIIME71r • SET 5/C NRrR/PUISUIC W (R:II/7� ,'...... / •' •'• ' , ! Y! + , /7 LQ. $ C F.ASHEN ROF _ N) 57S'ISr'NLL FROM ULOMWC PoSDON Al E CIRRI REFRIY IlE •' r /'' /'•�' •'• y p l' �` l Y b' a /� RATTED Rg1T O WAY ENE A N it 1%1AR/W (31975 SET FOR RE7 SAYET B -•-•- R•R 6INT UE / • / T / '•:/ '`„ (V \ ' 9 /y //1' ;I. CC ! Qe' N`O O' tE 1AIDSCAK FENCING AND 571Q1Y 1S FROM CALCULATED POSITION AT CUT CYN UCH IDICE ' i, ' ` /� / • ��/6 .{. eEn MARON VACATED 7M PLACE EST. I'. u r 1EDCD� 7a • •, •,1 PACE 7A AFN a51713S06S, USED CH FEUD ORT OF R eettml RICHT a aLr YOR.Ip11S FOIAD uoxc 75N a ' 3 aqE .Bp,ec l //jam ; + `7• .. ,. J 20'� (j / / y, IIOr35'IJt �53C 10 To. 5/C RERAR/AASM CAP (1e737) 5 WWII 61'FROM CALL POSITION.CD / CD ' N erffar r 170.07 \ I � 162n0 STREET SW / , N / \ DETAIL 1 155po2 / I-1Y— �sEE OEGEy � .,I'1 0 GRAPHIC SCALE tarmr) L moe - ao R LEGAL VASC UMON PER CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO. ORDER M . 5216WZ LOTS S. 7 AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT B, BLOOD 5% MEADOWDALE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PACE JB, RECORDS DF SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT POR71ON CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS UNDER AUDITORS FllE NUMBER 9010110121: TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 74TH PLACE WEST, WOW WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION CF LAW. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. oi'u om �mr wao McMARON LAND SURVEYING BUT P.O. BOX 313 KfNF. WA. BBOJs-051itit (2m., 850-9077 RESIDENCE O BOUNDARY SURVEYING TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRUCTION STAKING SURVEY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING �.. _ _ _ e . — _. — _. _.._ _ FND CASED 4'X4' CONIC _ - HON. WITH 1-5/B' BRA55 --- - ti_--_ DISK WITH PUNCH i �• �� HON. NOT FIND. - -- - N 507*35.43.1 r - • k• _ N. MEADOIUDALE ROAD _ r . •tit ..� •R/w Mr DOWDALEF BEACH VOL PG. 38 / o pp ��•• //58 / -• M' EAST E ]2=Y- OF PROP:,UNt r / k SET MAG NAIL d TAG / - 4 HARKED '35975. 11033. 32432' -7 j5'43'(lbO —FENCE 1.3' NORTH / CHAIN & FtNCt OE PROP. COR. I CAR. ~' F1°NC62.5 I:•LINt H OF 1.1' WORTH OF - E PROP- LINE • /5. 20 10 0 20 SCALE: 1'=20' BASIS OF BEARING RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNNOEQ AFC 9101205001 (AS SHOWN) PARCEL A: LOT 5 IN BLOCK 50 OF HtADOWDALt BEACH, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THE PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF VACATED 74TH PLACE WEST WHICH ATTACHED BY OPERATION OF LAW; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 5. CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9010110124. . PARCEL B: A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS CREATED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9010120366. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON. SURVEY REFERENCES ti C O - o P - PLAT OF MEADOWDALe BEACH VOL 5. PG. 30 E05 - RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AF.9101205001 vi-w� SURVEY NOTES EAST OF PROP. LINE - n - / - - - •- - EQUIPMENT: LIETZ-50KKI5HA TOTAL STATION 1' THEODOUTE WITH INTERNAL E.O.M. SET HAG NAIL 6 TAG 507'JS'43'E i20.00'-P MARKED-35975. 11033, 32432- J /m 120.00'-p 162ND ST S.W. 587.35'43'E FND CASED 4'X4' CONC MON. WITH 1-5/0' BRA55 015K WITH PUNCH - 2c*iO 4 S, RECORDING CERTIFICATE F�IL}ED FOR RECORD BY DrAVID T. GARDNER THIS -1 DAY OF MyGL7 2001 A.D.. AT MINUTES PAST I O'CLOCK M. AND RECORDED IN VOLUME OF SURVEYS ON PAGE RECORDS OF (� 5NONOM15H COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pb � w1`l COUNTY AUDITOR PUTY AUDITZ5R SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE REQUEST OF MELVIN AND MARGARET EBERT THIS 2 vD DAY OF 2001. 1107 i `IREWSTERED LAND 5UR tYOR L5. NO. - ------ METHOD: FIELD TRAVERSE • = THE CLOSURES OF THIS FIELD TRAVERSE CONDUCTED DURING TH15 SURVEY MEET / = - �• OR EXCLM THE MINIMUM CL05M STANDARDS STATED IN WAC 332430-090. ANINO . e INDICATES 24' X 1/2' IRON BAR WITH CAP MARKED 'L.S. 35975' eXCEPT AS NOTED 0- IN0NAMS FOUND MON. IN CASE AS NOTED (LAST VISITED 12-14-00) S.w 114,-$".wl-v ; sE r y. s r, a: a�., U.M. DATE: '3�oZ1pI NO. I REVISION - 2/26/01 _ BY: _ CHecKED I DATE A,S.P.I, (ALPHA SUBDIVISION PRO'S, INC.) Land Surveyors AND LAND USE FACILITATORS Tele:(425) 252-1WA 3301 RUCKER AVG. Everett, WA W201 ti RERCORD.OF SCALE:1-=20' - ---^•'�Y -- 01-19-01 .;JJR MELvIt>t'a MA#^�CsARET �BERT _ •iGT''S -BLOcr w MEADOW L- BEACH F I E�o BEMG A PORTIOW OF GOV. 1.0T'4 IN THE S.W. 1/4_*.W: 1/4 SEC5, T27 N.. Q. 4 It- Wlt--_SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHIDIGTON 01'L7 SITE B.M.=74.65 MERIDIAN PER SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING No. 200404155002 CONTOUR INTERVAL 2' ELEVATION DATUM ASSUMED 72 y � / 4 k70 / W / N 3 d- c� s8 Z 0 / \66 / / 01 o ' N 00 BOARD FENCE Off WALL RET GARAGE REMAINS / 12" o ro c o I \sv CHAIN -LINK FENCE Q LEGEND 13 CATCH BASIN - w - WATER PAINT MARK ® WATER METER BOX SAINTARY PAINT MARK -G- GAS PAINT MARK BUSH " TREE W/DIAMETER 1 WATER SPIGOT ® MONITOR WELL -O- UTILITY POLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE Q FOUND REBAR W/CAP j FOUND TACK W/ WASHER o SET HUB W/TACK Housc G S 88'12'36" E _ 127.81' AINI WALL op �o a 0 11p �o �0, / 1 / 1 WEST HALF VACATED 74TH P L W. / 12"(DEAD) Q rr Qr '57'16"W 120.73' o 1 4 70, JL / 0 l 88 "Q / � / / CO / / �o / v / / U C7 / GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 Pt. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 80 PER CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO. ORDER No. 5216682: LOTS 6, 7 AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58, MEADOWDALE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 9010110121; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 74TH PLACE WEST, WHICH WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW, SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. r WRECKING CABLE MAT. CODE FOOTAGE YR. PL. AKF1-24 221280 148' 1980 POLE 113305 30' CLS5 1980 .p llzr pi h4 VERIZON TO SET 30' CLS 5 #57603 (PP) PLACE 1-4' RISER P2 SC2080 DATE 03006 \ VERIZON TO BACKHOE 148' 4 AERIAL DROPS FROM TERM 207 GO TO P3S2 THEN TO TO BSW TO 16010 4 -RIZON TO REMOVE DROPS FROM 207 \ ~ AND REROUTE THEM TO FEED FROM Sac t TERM 3053 SAME COUNT. N ®�Q P3S2 J 4 AERIAL DROPS o/ q P4S2 / 0 P4 0 06, c�,W. 06, \ I& s P21S2 P1 THIS IS A RAMS WORKORDER TO CO. `DDS PREPOSTED P24 ,� �bEPEO WORK ORDER ® 64+35 #8798 Op 722 ° N �i O N I t� I� o W Q '� P22 63+00 P20S2 0 #8797 721 MEADOWDALE RD P 21 0, x`L ti o� J C 63+30 1 #88: � 305� DBD:101-150.176-200 P20S1 1 it Z 4+84 #57643 (PP) TBD:126-1650 207 / I 25 15583 PPX) #8840 (PPX) 2 AP 207 30' CLS 5 1980 (DBD:101-150-176-200) X41110 DBD:101-200 SS1-24 ® P20 1*38685, PROERTY LINE ? 1_4 l � b� 148 (DBD:101-200) AE1-22) #57639 (PPX) � 3 #57602 (PP) P1F2 PLACE 1-4' RISER 67+92 #8841 SC2H0 0 VERIZON TO SET 30' CLS 5 3053 / DBD:101-150-176-200 P3 PkS NOTED fv`" RI I Date: zaoQ__ TO FIELD AT THE REQUEST OF THE CUSTOMER UNDERGROUNDING 148' SECTION OF AERIAL CABLE IN FRONT OF 16105 75TH PL W CUSTOMER IS GOING TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON THIS PROPERTY. CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT LARGE AND AERIAL CABLE WOULD BE IN THE WAY. IN TERMINAL 207 4 WORKERS IN DBO:126-150 REVISION 1 THE POLE LOCATION OF #1 THIS WILL MOVE THE POLE SOUTH OF PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE LOCATION IS PAINTED YELLOW ARROW FROM A SURVEY TAG IN THE ROADWAY. ANY QUESTIONS CONTACT ENGINEER. ALL OTHER WORK ON THIS PROJECT REMAINS THE SAME. -* -VbLV. -r-6 SS :V'LrAC�D SM-C4 OF NaM%+ f'F04ElPTy U N1V, of ! to WS_ I° vI �s -�D zW 6(.IZVS� Tr�� _151' 19 L W . -ISt � GT?Ac 6 -WEE, KW61 Kos WoFg- IS ttNv-, so\k-c+ O NoJZ:�+ U ivy_ • THOMAS BROS. MAP NO. 435 A-7 USE FOR HICAP WO ONLY PRIORITY 1B3 ECAS CONSTRUCTION START 0 3 / 31 / 0 6 IN SERVICE DATE 0 4 / 14 / 0 6 ALL WORK 04/21/06 COMPLETE DRIVERS FOR WORK ORDER HICAP / SPAN PERMITS CONSTRUCTION ❑ BLANKET ❑ STATE ❑ DIAL. A DIG ❑ COUNTY FLAGGING 13 CITY EDMONDS ❑ BRUSHING ❑ NONE SPECIAL CIRCUITS11 CAUTION POWER M UG MAE CUTS REQUIRED ❑YES M NO OTHER MUG MAE TELCO M UG MAE JOINT POLE ❑ PUD JOINT TRENCH ❑ PSP&L ❑ PUD O CATV ❑ PSP&L ❑ GTE ❑ CATV NONE M NONE FEES REQ'5 POINT OF CONTACT GOP ❑ LEC TUNG BUI ❑ SPEC. CONST. 425 345-8864 ❑ NONE ENGINEER JAMI DUCOTE PHONE NO.425 290-9287 FAC. TECH, STACEY BRAGER PHONE NO. 425 356-4088 FIELDED BY MATERIAL MATERIAL ENGR CONST CODE DESCRIPTION EST ACT 280480 AKF1-24 218' 118305 30' CLS 5 2 POLE BD: X-CONN 6832 168TH ST SW LYNNWOOD WA REVISION I CERTIFY THAT THE WORK I COMPLETEDr4 ON THIS WORK ORDER AND AS -BUILT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GTE QUALITY STANDARDS AS IDENTIFIED ON THE IPQIP CHECKLIST. I (SIGNATURE AND DATE) VERIZON EXCHANGE MANOR WAY COUNTY SNOHOMISH TITLE: co n to x co o tg Am UG AERIAL FACILITIES 16105 75TH PL W EDMONDS WA. APPROVED BY DATE c 75 3 X A r70n T.27N R. 4E SEC.5C NOEET 1 OF 1 CALL DIAL —A —DIG AT 1— 800— 424 — 5555 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS SCALE: 1 " = 10' i AS —BUILT LANDSCAPE NOTES.,0 THE APPROVED TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS PROVIDED TO SPECIFICALLY STABILIZE THE SITE AND ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PLANT COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. AS THE SITE. CONSTRUCTION HAS TRANSPIRED, . — 7 THE APPLICANT HAS DEVELOPED A PERMANENT LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION ,'CHAT MEETS AND EXCEEDS THE FUNCTION AND INTENT OF THE APPROVED "TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE PLAN", THEY HAVE ADDED MULTIPLE RETAINING WALLS AND HAVE LEVELED ALL OF THE AREAS OF THE SITE, THEREFORE THE EROSION RISK IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERED. THE MINIMUM PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IS PLANTING GROUNDCOVER (18" O.C.) ON ALL AREAS WHERE SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN ONE FOOT GF RISE IN 3 FEET OF RUN. WHERE SLOPES ARE SLIGHTER THAN 1 TO 3 THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IS TO MULCH (2" MIN. DEPTH) AND PREPARED FOR FUTURE PLANTING. I THIS PLAN DEMONSTRATES THE PERMANENT LANDSCAPE AND WILL CONTINUA TO PROTECT THE SITE FROM \ EROSION. t ALL AS -BUILT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, PLANT LIST: SCIENTIFIC NAME - COMMON NAM I PLANTING SIZE ULTIMATE PLANTINGS OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER WHERE GROUNDCOVER IS PLANTED 18" O.C. THESE PLANTINGS ARE TO BE DEVELOPED OVER YEAR4 AND AT THE APPLICANTS DISCRESION. IN AREAS WHERE SLOPES ARE LESS THAN THREE TO ONE, THE MINIUMUM COVED' IS A 2" DEPTH OF MULCH AND THE BEDS PREPARED FOR PLANTING. WHERE SLOPES ARE GREATER THAN 3 TO ONE, THE MINIMUM COVER IS PLANTING GROUNDCOVER PLANTS 18" ON CENTER. HYDROSEEDED TURF OR SOD, (HOMEOWNERS OPTION) EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED EXISTING DECIDUOUS - TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING LARGE SHRUB - TO REMAIN EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE - TO REMAIN LANDSCAPE NOTES: 4" POTS MINIMUM PROPOSED PLANTING AND TURF AREAS WERE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING NOTES, PAC I 18" 0. C. FOR GROUNDCOVER 1. PLANTING AND TURF AREAS TO RECEIVE 4" MIN. DEPTH OF AMENDED THREE WAY TOPSOIL. SUB -GRADES FOR ALL TURF AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE SCARIFIED, CLEARED OF ALL WEEDS, ROCKS, AND . DEBRIS, AND ROUGH GRADED. TOPSOIL SHALL BE ROTOTILLED INTO SUB -GRADE TO A MIN DEPTH OF .6". 2. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE LIGHTLY COMPACTED AND FINE GRADED PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE TOP -DRESSED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" DEPTH OF MULCH (STEERCO, FERTILE MULCH, CEDAR GROVE COMPOST OR LIKE PRODUCT). 4. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES, HEALTHY, WELL FORMED AND IN EXCELLENT CONDITION. 5. USE NO PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDES ON THIS PROJECT SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THROUGH THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS. 6. FERTILIZE ALL NEW PLANTS WITH 6-4-3 TRANSPLANT FERTILIZER PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. Z ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF SHALL BE WATERED WITH A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM. A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY BE A PORTABLE SPRINKLER ON A HONE MOVED MANUALLY AROUND THE PROPERTY. WATER APPLICATION SHALL BE EVEN AND CONSISTENT OVER ILL PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF WATER TO KEEP PLANTS AND TURF IN A HEALTHY CONDITION. EXTREME CARE SHALL BE TAKEN NOT TO OVER WATER AND C.REATE WASHOUTS OR SOIL EROSION. 8. FINISHED GRADE FOR ALL PLANTING AND TURF AREAS ADJACENT TO WALKS AND CURBS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF CURBS AND WALKS, WHILE MAINTAINING POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 9. TURF HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE DONE AFTER MARCH 15TH AND BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH. 10. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED AND FERTILIZED. SEED Wl ,`H THE BELOW SEED MIX OR APPROVED EQUAL. TURF SEED MIX. 409 PERENNIAL RYE GRASS 207. RED CREEPING FESCUE 1599 CHEWING FESCUE 15Z ANNUAL RYE GRASS 1090 TURF- TYPE TALL FESCUE APPLICATION RATE OF 4LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET 11. FERTILIZE ALL TURF AREAS WITH A 15-15-15 LAWN STARTER AT A RATE OF 6.6LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET. 12. SEEDING AND FERTILIZING SHALL BE DONE ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER WORK IS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY OWNER. 13. EXTREME ATTENTION AND CARE MUST BE GIVEN TO PREVENT EROSION DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE APPROVED T.E.S.C. PLAN MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO DURING THE LANDSCAPE PREPARATION, PRIOR TO SEEDING. CON TA C TS: OWNER/DEVELOPER: TUNG & TIFFANY BUI 18811 1ST PLACE WEST BOTHELL, WA 98012 425-345-8864 (WORK) SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR VICINITY MAP SEE CIVIL/ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CLEARING LIMITS ONSUL TING A IS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HARMSEN & ASSOCIA TF_S, !NC. KEVIN J. TEAGUE, ASLA INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE CERTIFIED ARBORIST CERTIFICATION NUMBER: PN-2766A / APIRV ED E�f PLAN ING �� rjar�a IL Date: a6du STREET FILE �3u-T ArrmI f Is110 bkl I JUN 17 2000 DUILDING DEPARTMEITF W s W co 0 1 0 i 0 REVISIONS c0 0 0 c Z3 co n 3 � d p � G Q A G4 t/2 W f- ~ = n u a n M W W cL < oao to0 to v wu.)o O 0 h X c1 r/1 z m N b �J ,( W z X W oi � 3 a.W a ct 0 F- �NI= oV m z �aX La 0; N L W � W k t� W V. is W Z Q' f- 1W- z N LLI F LLP ix z U' c S � W Y W vI V Z Lu p _, Q Q• L toLLJ a ` a C) Z N c) -..� Lo Z ca i) NORTH STRUOTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT: 5Ti>ftM -WA OT — - ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST 8flN0 FILTERED OR OTfIER x FILTER FABRIG FENGE REMOVE SEDIMENT. . GRADING TEMPOFN^RY EROSION ANDData;INTERI GB PROTEG ION6oG l4.L ESO REQUIREMENT REMOVAL OF .TEMPORARY EWft ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDiMETJT GLEARINGLIMITS OR AFTER THE WITHIN 30.OAYS AFTER FINAL SITE ZA?tON is Agi�EYED: 5EE ETAIL, THIS 5 EET Y BMPS ARE NO LONGERNEEDED.` SHALL BE. REMOVED 2006 (EXI ING GB) / OR STABILIZED ON SITL DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING FROM REMOVAL. BE PERMANENTLY C C I'l l A A C K 1T f"'r**%K ITDr11 DI A 1� I �. Tw �r�t�� nI �tiITITI>=c. sru ,me_ 11 �. .� ''. . . I � I . I I . . . I, � I .. �.. ''.. � I . I . 1. � I . � I I . ­� 1''.. .. I . I � �....­. �. �. I., � I... I �. ..� I.. � I I . . I �.. - I I � I I . I .1. I... � . I .. � � 11.1.11. ..' I I �1. 1. .. * I I I I . 11 11 . .. .. 1. � . I � .1 ­ . . .. I I . I �11 I I � . . . . . I � I � .1 . . . . . � I � . . . . I I . .. I � - ­ I . � .1 I �� I � . . I I . � . . . I I . I . . . I . 1. ­ I I I . . I I . I . . ­ � . / � . . . I I . . . . � � . I . . . I I . � I . � � . I � // / // � � I . . . . . . IVCY`4 I T ii I (.iD *rl . '. - .. v I .� .. .�.. v .. v v �- - / . I VACATED 7 TH .. I5 / $ ' . k r I1 . ' I . I. I. �. . � I � : ..I I I .. � I�I..I ��.. I . I I I. I� .. . . I� I.�II I�. .. .I I .�.... .. I. I . I�I. . �.I . . II/; . �.�.I .� .�.._1. 1 I.�II/.1..I.I.�. ../.1-.1 .I .. I._.�4��.�. . I%_II . .: 1.*­�....I . I . / 1. .. I///I . ..- . : . I I . : . ,. � .�I I . . � .. . ..I. ...I.�I -� .II. I I. . .. I-� �.-. .�I � .I 1I .1 *: I . .. ,�.: . .....III I... I .I I. I. II- / 1,-1.'-1--�-�- �I "-�'..",J'�,"�"'��,�I�.,"��.","�-'-i�:�.�;;�';;�'��"-�!�!,J. -,..�. �­i����.""'' .'"w- �'`--1',,­,.,,,L.1_-.""'.","I.._ �",""' .:--,i..��� - . ft,e.. �',-__­;�,,���I"­.�-�'�I ',.�.����� .5.1.I,' ,�., ",)"k-,�"�--. )��.�� "�... ,,. . �,""...'''',".'-.�:',... ,.,,,�I,,"..."I,,"'."-'',*," ,,. l''I"`i'I_,"",I,,""�-.',,"�1�'�5P"�,�-"�-,,',,,���"'/_A--'"".�.­' �"'�,_',-.,�"-�.. �',,".,����,,­'-,"�',',""��'i,t."-" �a�" �"\�,',`-� ",�"��,;','_-'�,��,,'�""��,,".e,,�,',, ',�'�,- -,��,,�,:,,,-�,��,�,,,,",,�.,: ,"�,� '���l��.,""A, ''.",'Ll ,,�,": , """._..",�� )_1',"..�,'_ ,"., 1., _, ",�"_'"­,�i.,_ ��_-,'-�,.'. '_­�!'_, , '�' "',' �`'­�,',1, ,�"- _,, �'-1�� �' ,._'._',_ '- "'.. ��;1, �,.1-:�,1"i-",.��,"-L',�,�,-.�,-'�-',-�'-"��,�;'4;-,-.-""i''J, "-"' , l, �"I�_ ; 6.,. I I -1.. FI-'. I _. RIM EL. ='10.0 MATCH SURFACE) . . I . . .. . L9 vO . C .. .. .� . ( / I LW ti I. INSTALL OVER EXISTING 12 T �'�, ��Y II II . cp ts I. GONG:.SD PIPE THEN OPEN N \ - .. ..�\ ��i I. - 8 X[2 GMP RISER TEE . TiII CB #3 (54 (P) 4OLF UTILITY VAULT 070 TRENCH 1 PIPE TO ALLOW SURFACE W . ,, . TRANSITION COUPLING TO RIM =66.42 WITH 60'10-T COVER ORE . 03 a G21JAL DRAINAGE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM . . ., 2 _ . CONCRETE RISER OVERFLOW -6525 EACH SECTION SEAL D TO BE . _ DO I - �I . �I I � . I� . I. � I .,,,� �. 0II . . I I I. I. � � 1I.:. . I ­ -,_ I �*.. .� . I ./ I .: .I � � I.�. . ".I . I I� � . �..�.I .. ..: ..Iip�-.� -INV. -63.0 l2 IN 12 WATER TIGHT S - a ' 72 I . I �� � � .� .. � / OUT . `� . GLlili Va ltfo . 7t� 7f CONNECT TO EXISTING WATE I I \ . � sh4�.t eti 'S :a 146 -� eft .I. /. . . / I ./. z MAIN WITH UTILITY PROVIDER . / r � C t� G 7" / DS. 4 m' S D . / I I. C Z CONNECT TO EXISTING G ;,; ,w ::. OF S1 / � O D cr „ .' :. RA/ p v, LINE BY P.S.E . N o O 5 FT. . N I 6525 . D Y . 6 5. S - _. 1 ,.,, cs I ... 1 . / _ 1 I f/) .._ ",e i. .v :� , ., t.. ,.. ..1 .. .. .. ,- .. .... -., ...t. :: .. s...:. .. .: :... .. c.... ..... : ... F :,e.. SAWGUT EXISTING PAVEMENT cn - .,, .,mot.,, <s ,: .. 5. .. !;: ,, r .-. :. .:. . , . .. , .. ,, . s 1. ,,.. 1...,, - : , , . ,, { Q% - - . ,,.,. ., .:.. . w-,.., ,.,.- .. - ITV INSTAL ATION F R UTIL L O w N .a-,. 1.Iv 4 ). 1 - .t. .... , < ,, ,,..., t ', : .. ' In '. t .,..-,':s -. ;r. .. 1. s .. ,: ... �" ... ,.. .... •' ,. !"!-"l,_ .z"10l.'"�i. i.-"­i-'��";"-r1",.'�1;� -��_I.,�, �.'� �)I I"� ', 'IOF ,, x ,,.,, I , ...,,. , .r .'. -i r. .-..'� .. tr-...,.,.,- ,. ., ...�i b ME WITH P AGE PAVE NT ,.. - t.. / . .. „., t ,...., :.-' 1., 'a, i, _ .:; - . ,: .., , , ,. 1. -:: .:.. - e - - r, - " .:-t yr .', <..- r .a.. .:t f.: w _ : .. ,. ..,.t r. .. s .. ... .. .. .. . AT HIND HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT O / ....: . !. 1. -, F .,.. r.. .;..>,. ..., .;.7.., I ...,;.;.,.. i .. :� 'II M G , ,, Y II 63 0 > . } . Q Q . . t. F . k Z 2 :) 1 /J/]I t � J- h' t D # _ ._ S H 1p 5 II GO 2 . €` . . N . ..I �I.�� . .. .�� .I I I ..� .I II I . �I II .. . I� �. .�I .I.I .I.�II1 ..I .! -1 . I .I .. . . I..I. ��I .111 . I I�I .� I . 1.I I.II..1 � I� I� � I \I. ." . I . . III �I�I. .I. � .. . . I,� � �,.I .� . I I ...I . I I . I. .I I� I -I . �I ..I. . . I ... . �I .� III �� � I .. . I I . � I.. ..I �.. 1II . . � .. I M -tom r - �,.a,. C I - - t _ .. L `` r 1 I� Y RM E 11 0 r , L .- 83 .q _� ,. l2 GONG. PIPE _ m ANITARY 1 62.0 IN 63.5 N E , CONNECT TO EXISTING 5 WAFER : ELEV r.84.00 m i INV. E - M / t L 81.0 -o 9 u - 5-O .0� c 0 a: AHIGHES P E T .T . AT H0115 4 R TALL 55G0 , SEWS .INS I J 'c _ , ti RE I DE E 4 i. t� I 1 �� Y 5'. N t Ali , a f J bl N A'( � W .0 nj� , 1"'r ,� W N � f a � ts� , I OR FIGS E LBOW Y V t, D t p a k.. II u' !..- L S WITH Lb H �v (aJ :,_ 1: AIN F OR ELE ..'i'i33 ,, r OLE IN bt (� 1��P1�4 _ f, :. f :r . ! M Imo. :. r � EV = ,. . , x or✓I N s ,. .,.,, n. �... s :. TQ 1.7 0 GAS. v . s r , :,, F 67 . 1 s UPp FLOOR V: 515 „O ORIFICE PLATE �' w a S / . Ar L i! b II O" O. o i .05 1. HOLE IN ,� RS O r M t / 5 ORIFICE PLATE - O INV. EL.-64.35 + b D" O L WA►°I'Ei SSW ER s 1 . , . { i sv 1� U I 0 i a �t'F O A cJ E .: f` INV. EL.-G3 O c� INSPEDTIONS REQ D. . NG 0 ` .2 U H 1 'D C ._ 3... .i {% 5ANlT RY >vA l O 32G I I IN - 425.77 220 EXT. 1 0 2 j / �% V N 5E ^ N • - Q �7 �r 1 w C� s - .T.S I z ERL IE -64.� LCJ'V'V O o Z 11 D O (6 IM E ) t. r: Q U h EIGB 2 D E V y 6'�7'i _ W TYP sp , / P SEC TIO N AT SO UT HE . �. N D ETE T� x N O N VAULT c RIM= 66.5 GO ht 6 5 k t / �".. , I 5% 5 i ` 1 # . _ i �o TYPE I GB 1 INV. 64.8 5 /` I:. 5t J 1 1 . - ° - .. >y I, 4 - .. 4 RIM E L. 4 " 8 .O Z - ,^ ,.� W j} -' . I._ _ INV - % EL 81.5 . 24 �: ACCESS A GH kh, I: I \' 3 n 1 1 W . W/ FRAME ANL�' O �': _ 2 3 F ... _ ., J+l .. Y- . TTED' RAfiE . 5L0 G /` `) - 1 V I i RIM-6'i.5t u, ,r . F: r \ . � :a �I tr: . - .. I TINE TYPE . II - t i \ i 4 EX 5 # z z . t., ti 5DG0 i 4 . O t I 1 Jy ..l O . .' '.' ':� '.'..'^ ::: 1 GB W/ GRATE r RIM EL.- 85.0 / r.' . o /, 4 4. -. �.� - ,- t J - i; x F INv E RIM- 6524 I \ / O L 82.5 N �!' . �p - ,: ' \;: 12 IE 62.87 (N) NOTE. --/f� i I� /;W I 1, 'Ir . Q O . I. l2 IE - 62'10 5 4 S O O D 1. SLOPE' BOTTOM O 0�,, ; r 'pi 211 IE = 62.80E NE RT C. t t ` O ( N .:: NOH DRAIN. TO .O W.O F , : ^ , ; . , - D io ` . 8 IE 63.20 W 6 I. . . . . �. . I .II .. I .�� I I .I.�.I II. I.. II. . .I � II .. . II . .I �. �. � -I .� II I I. . �.I I. , .. 11.. II �� 0 � I.. � .II I.I� , /. I . .. II �I. / I .� ./�. ., � � I I. L � . I. . . I � _1 .'. .�. .. . .tI� . . .. I./� I . /I �I I,.� . I ./�I I. .I m/. /II z....�� . I .I I./.I �I. II.I . II .�. �I I� I "II:Ik�.. /.. I- I �..�� - . � .. I.I. .. . .. �� : � .� .. I ...I...1.�' .. -.I ' I ./ .. . 'II '. . I , . : :' .../. . ...I .�.�I1. I ��./. ...'/ ..�1.-II :.�I _I�. I4 .� .. I i.­.I..p.�.6 Ii....Z I . — � .I � Ia 1:.I ?. -- "� �--/-""�-"-R � Il�l"'�,&"-f-�""'1"�"-,'_,""­ .,"��"II��_'-'. � WI_.I.- -1!��'..' /" ­1.fI ,I-._ .�`2,_.'-, �,:,0l�-i".",�__' .) . . ..I'� I '�.I � /./ \ 6 . $ / . . �.. � ....�'' ..: ..'.`. . ..:.... ... . ' .: .. .. -,.'. .. I. .-,..A. ..::-...�- ' � .... I....: ..�: * .I .. 'I.. . . � " i''...''.... ... ._.../*.....�.. . .r\. I. .. .. ...'..... .t'. � ",:.'. ..�.I. ' 7� I I "-I"I ­y ... 4-"­� I-�.. �.'. /_1.. -%.. �../ :"r',-".,��., .'­\ ,I'!.­-­��-i�,�-, .�..... :,. ..I . I'.1._%`' . .­..; ./... . . .' ../ I .. . ,'I�:. -.." ... � ..... ... - ''.*"If 1� / p .. . . . . u r . 0 ;. i .. . ,. F .. - .. - .. » /' - II^^ v/ .t - - . O t .. .. V !' PIPE ,' I / �� S Ds. TYPE I GB #(o . . 5=1,0%` I: I 6,� f RIM EL.= T12 G(R F D 1 lo IE.. 3.5' k � �� INV. EL 14.0 12 GONG. PIPE 5= 2� CD ..(611IN.E) .. �� LL . - I \ 1 it 2411d� ACCESS HA . p \ . u { . n Al F ME AND OPEN i 1 TYPE II GB #5 (54 �) / RATE FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE RI =66.5t 2 ' / RIM- 66.42 5.�/ / R15ER OVERFLOW_6525 (Wxl2". GMP TEE) - ) INV.= 63.0 (12" CONC. IN) / a �, O I Z. INV.-- 63.0 (12" GONG. OUT) 9" O ,, 6 Q - - 1 _ - . . / N 87°5716" W 120.15, -_ . � 'I . . CHAIN -LINK FENCES cp \ f // f I � �-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'_� / % � / . . I � I . � I I . \ I . � \ I \ � I � . . ir, Ili f I 1. . � . I . .. Q) 1131. . � N c . 0 �_ 0 W w . - 3 E: -' .. - . 1 J 'Lo D. 'A^ o m r . �_ S. o C . . n0- - N VI p m� . . v m E &a o . -a O Q L -0 O. . � O E v a m- 11 u,g . O ° .. D C - C .N O '^ �, '.. o=off 0 C L- 0E m . >.. O) O G N C CC '� O N 2 n. L �. Q iiiO, 5 cm,2'aO O I © L C m 0 H O 7 V Q 3 m ozz 0 K K z . 11 0 a) 1 o m 00N n ti wz qn OL wz cn QO QO tD �> ��> m V m W y -i w Q. �j t�CJ'ING GRAINS P10T / n,vu tNPEGT1Qh! REQUIRfi �.. •.Y�, d SCALE: r'=lo'-o" _ - DRAINAGE PLAN. . I . � / I . ::I �] , ::I G. TIED INTO GRAPHIC SCALE' , � r"milnNI SYSTEM NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR IN6REss r�.arr,c; ./ . ,' .. ­ . � I . .1� � I . . . / / I // . I . I � . //. I I . I � I. . I � I -I II . � I � �� �I I . . I . .I F . . � II . I I I I� I I � . . � . I I . � 8 CLaN D O D . , I .. . I I I �I . . I I . . 0. NEW TYPE 1 GB #1 RIM EL. =10.0 (MATCH SURFACE) INSTALL OVER EXISTING 12" GONG. 5D PIPE THEN OPEN PIPE TO ALLOW SURFACE DRAINAGE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER — MAIN WITH UTILITY PROVIDER CONNECT TO EXISTING GAS LINE BY P.S.E 5AOaT EXISTING PAVEMENT FOR UTILITY INSTALLATION REPLACE PAVEMENT WITH MATCHING HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER. INSTALL 5500 AT HOUSE TYPE I G3 #2 RIM= 66.5 INV.= 64.5 EX 15T I NG TYPE GB W/ GRATE RIM= 6524 12" IE = 62.87 (N) 12IE=62.10(5) 12" IE = 62.50 (E) (NEW) 8" IE = 6320 M) 12" CONC. PIPE S= 2% TYPE 11 GB #3 (5411 FLOW CONTROL 5TRUOTURE RIM= 66.42 R15ER OVERFLOW= 6525 0"x12" CMP TEE) INV.= 63D (12" CONC. IN) INV.= 65D (12" CONC. OUT) CD 5EE 50-5URFACE - DRAINAGE PLAN 5HEET 0-3 FOR GB#5 W N 88012'36" E 121.61' \� N � N v g" ff 6ff Q � QZ N 87°5?'I6" W 120.13' 0 Q AIN—LINK FENCE cP 5DG0 #6 5DG0 #� \ DGO 4 3 INV. EL= 64.0 INV. EL= '12.0 INV. EL= '73.� I : NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR IN6RE55, EGRE55 RECORDING No. a010120364 VARYING WIDTH : ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS 2. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM INVERT ELEVATIONS. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF P051TIVE DRAINAGE AND MIN. COVER CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED. 5. THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM 5HOWN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 15 PRIVATE AND WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER. 4. MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE CATCH BASINS AND DETENTION PIPE TO PREVENT CLOGGING, ESPECIALLY AT THE OUTLET CONTROL SYSTEM. CATCH BASINS SHOULD BE CLEANED AT LEAST TWICE PER YEAR. FREQUENT CATCH BA51N GLEANING WILL REDUCE THE NEED FOR MORE DIFFICULT TASK OF CLEANING THE DETENTION PIPE. THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAN DURING CONSTRUCTION. MATERIAL MUST BE PHY51CALLY REMOVED AND NOT FLUSHED DOWNSTREAM. 5. ALL ROOF TOP DOWN5POUT5 ARE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE 4" SDPVC TIGHTLINE SYSTEM AND DIRECTED TO THE DETENTION FACILITY. 6. FOOTING DRAINS AND SUB -SURFACE DEWATERING TRENCH DRAINS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THI5 PLAN. FOOTING DRAINS AND 5UB-SURFACE DEWATERING TRENCH DRAINS ARE REQUIRED. (SEE SHEET 0-3) FOOTING DRAINS AND SUB-5URFACE DEWATERING TRENCH DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE DETENTION SYSTEM, ROOF DRAINS OR TRENCH DRAINS COLLECTING SURFACE FLOW. SUB -SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM MUST CONNECT TO THE OUTFLOW SIDE OF DETENTION SYSTEM OR OTHER APPROVED SOURCE. REWIR JUN 27 c2'_,36 BL&UNG OF EDM04AZJT 0 r- _c c • c z w` LL 3 a s • f,�. Lc Lr c r r 3 ozz 0 Q < < z < z 00 0 0 0 m N 0 OLks) OL0 QoLuQo NQ> Q> A A , r , / / / / I \ l \( 1 1 i \ \. \ \V G rED 7�4TH P\ 11 m m 0 W C4 0 f 1 a Ico co ,U�� �. c: o Q� • — €€ N N E.c o z ��0 QL1U U F �— � o -a w 6 INY. CL: ".VO 6 >=00T I NG/ SINGER NOTES 3 DRAIN CONNECTION I. THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NEW TYPE 1 GB tJ '� / _ FROM CONSTRUCTION RELATED DAMAGE AND SILTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. \: INV. EL.= 62 5 PRIOR TO PROJECT APPROVAL AND 1S5UE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES, THE Lo RIM EL. =65.Oi (MATCH SURFACE) » D o INV. EL. 62.3 (NEW b PVG FINGER D IN) / �o; CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLEANING ALL ON 51TE DRAINAGE FACILITIES. \ INV. EL. =es (NEW 4 PVC FOOTING AI SEDIMENT AND MATERIALS REMOVED FROM SYSTEM SHALL NOT BE FLUSHED DOWNSTREAM M `o D � � � W INV. EL. =61.8 (EX. I2" GONG. OUT) BUT SHALL BE HAULED FROM 51TE AND LEGALLY DISPOSED OF O ►' N m INSTALL NEW TYPE I GB :. ,. N .LL SYSTEM BECOMES SILTED UP A5 A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, y a = / 2. IF DOWN STREAM APPROXIMATELY.2OFT <t THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GLEANING OF THE SYSTEM. y N o DOWNSTREAM (SOUTH) cn = t 5. THE ER051ON AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON SHEETS AREA MINIMUM y , OF EXISTING GB. \ CONSTRUCTION TIMING AND WEATHER CONDITIONS MAY DICTATE ADDITIONAL CONTROLS. m o a a 1^ CC o p B THE CITY INSPECTOR MAY ALSO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CONTROLS. THE CONTRACTOR 15 o0 o a y i Q cp RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING SEDIMENT LADEN WATER5 FROM LEAVING THE 51TE AND c� 2 �._ o A o I 9 - n ENTERING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. s o a ;• H .2 _ ► 4. PROPOSED EXGAVATIDN WILL BE BELOW.EXISTING GROUND WATER LEVEL. o a m ID d 6 A TEMPORARY DEWATERING SYSTEM E o s'o m 0 5 NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OR DURING CONSTRUCTION V � � .o o � .� N 87°51'I6" W 120.115' � � � EXCAVATION �DRAIN IN V >= o m� 3 � 3 FOR FOOTING/1'RENGH INSTALLATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE / CHAIN LINK FENCE \� EXCAVAT O NG A ION DEWATERING PLAN T GEOTECHNICAL E INEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO START L OF EXCAVATION_ ozz 0 z OO o oo� n w z QO LU QO O} O} 0 m tY in [Y a1 Nw p� — <ry N ( 1 V tit: ! Ir-v 11's I v RIM= 61.46 DETENTION SYSTEM SCALE : I -lo 0 12"IE=51.241(N) 121, IE = 57.04 (5) GRAPHIC SCALE i OING DEPARITMEM G IF3 �P'Y OP EDMON OS c 4f0{ NEW TYPE 1 CB #1 RIM EL. =70.0 (MATCH SURFACE) INSTALL OVER EXISTING 12" CONC. SD PIPE THEN OPEN PIPE TO ALLOW SURFACE DRAINAGE INTO EXISTING SYSTEM CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER - MAIN WITH UTILITY PROVIDER CONNECT TO EXISTING GAS LINE BY P.S.E SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENT FOR UTILITY INSTALLATION REPLACE PAVEMENT WITH MATCHING HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER. INSTALL SSCO AT HOUSE TYPE I CB #2 RIM= 66:5 INV.= 64.8 EXISTING TYPE 1 CB WZ GRATE RIM=65.24 12" IE = 62.87 (N) 12" IE = 62.70 (S) 8" IE = 63.20 (W) 24"0 ACCESS HATCH W/ FRAME AND OPEN SLOTTED GRATE RIM=66.5f TYPE II CB #3 (54"Oj FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE RIM= 67.00 f RISER OVERFLOW= 64.45 (8"x12" CMP TEE) INV.= 62.2 12 CONC. IN) INV.=62.20 12" CONC. OUT) 12" CONC. PIPE S= 2% C� cD 0 f / }jJFs f F S / t 1 = YE• � Acp / tttl i F j c t j - - RETAININQ WALL N 88?12'36" E 127.81' r® wCO - - -- - - - - - - \0 Gu J O N cD W 15 �►� / SDC 3 N ``� �� RIM EL. 76.2 0 . 73 EL- . INV Y / WEST HALF / r VACATED 7L4Tw 150 / / L W. 1� ! 72 ./ 25.00' / 00 o pP�C(ROOF DR l \N ON C) y�l a o � cp / 70F / N WAV I i �e `• R SI E CE 1 ps I MAIN � ELEV. 7.k t;AS UP FLOOR EL . 8375' f tF u17 .., SANIf " =64 : . LOWE F L 0 I _Z!D " IN E �' 0 ELEV.0,37' . 24"0 -• ACCESS • W/. FRAME• .AN `OPEN : SLOTTED GRA / . ; RIM=67:5t / NOTE'.. 4 cb / �... ' LOPE. -BOTTOM OF •': , o: �•`�'' ENCH:DRAIN-30' ORTH ... - "..GONG.. •PIPE / � " vc IE OS I CHAT - N LINK FENCE 4 L SDCO #6 RIM EL.= 66.4 INV. EL= 64.0 - FOOTING/FINGER DRAIN CONNECTION NEW TYPE II CB #55 RIM EL.=65.0 (MATCH SURFACE) INV. EL.=62.3 (NEW 6" PVC FINGER DRAIN) INV. EL.=63.5 (NEW 4" PVC F0011NG DRAIN) INV. EL.=62.0 (E) (12" CONC. PIPE VAULT DRAIN) INV. EL. =61.8 (EX. 12" CONC. OUT) INSTALL NEW TYPE it CB APPROXIMATELY 20FT d�-'S9WNS M jS9HTH)-•OF EXISTING CB. SHOP / s0co #2 ELEV. EL.= 83.9 HIGHESTT PPTT. V. J INV. EL= 81.0 HIGHEST J W o 8367 l AT DOp�SLAB l 25 00k l •• . . SORT DS l l � ORAI N �I • .. `� l TYPE I CB #7 co RIM EL.= 84.0 / INV. EL= 81.5 CO / ' . , �-�`• � � •��� SDI $6F may' RIM EL.= 85.0 0" INV. EL= 82.5 o 920 o rn 1 it n j 6 t, Q�Q 187?57'16" W 120.73'- Q � o 0 / o -SDCO #5 DCO #4/ I / = / RIM EL. 75.0 RIM E/ INV. EL= 72.0 INV. EL= 731\ / 1O, / 02 NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS = / RECORDING No. 9010120364 VARYING WIDTH / TYP. 1 CB / -ffJlr- _u / RIM EL.= 77.2 / INV. EL= 74.0 APPROVED AS NOTED BY,F-NG14EERING Date: 0 DRAINAGE NOTES 1. Al CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. 2. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM INVERT ELEVATIONS. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND MIN. COVER CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED. 3. THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHOWN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PRIVATE AND ';ILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER. 4. MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE CATCH BASINS AND DETENTION PIPE TO PREVENT CLOGGING, ESPECIALLY AT THE OUTLET CONTROL SYSTEM. CATCH BASINS SHOULD BE CLEANED AT LEAST TWICE PER YEAR. FREQUENT CATCH BASIN CLEANING WILL REDUCE THE NEED FOR MORE DIFFICULT TASK OF CI.,EANING THE DETENTION PIPE. THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAN DURIP'G CONSTRUCTION. MATERIAL MUST BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED AND NOT FLUSHED DOWNSTREAM. 5. ALL ROOF TOP DOWNSPOUTS ARE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE 4" SDPVC TIGHTLINE SYSTEM AND DIRECTED TO THE DETENTION FACILITY. 6. FOOTING DRAINS AND SUB -SURFACE DEWATERING TRENCH DRAINS ARE 'NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. FOOTING DRAINS AND SUB -SURFACE DEWATERING TRENCH DRAINS ARE, REQUIRED. (SEE SHEET C-3) FOOTING DRAINS AND SUB -SURFACE DEWATERING TRENCH DRAINS SHALT., NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE DETENTION SYSTEM, ROOF DRAINS OR TREW H DRAINS COLLECTING SURFACE FLOW. SUB SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM MUST CONNECT TO THE OUTFLOW SIDE OF'C- F_N'IION SYSTEM OR OTHER APPROVED SOURCE. 8"X12" CMP RISER TEE -TYP. II CB 13 (54"0) TRANSITION COUPLING TO RIM =66.5t 12" CONCRETE RISER OVERFLOW =64.45 INV =63.0 (12" IN/12" OUT) 61.2 62.2 1.05"0 HOLE IN" - ORIFICE PLATE NV. EL=62.2 0.5 FT. 12" CONC. PIPE S=0.0% J "0 ORIFICE ELBOW WITH 1.6"0 HOLE IN ORIFICE PLATE V. EL=63.55 62.2 W� 6ASKE7' 40LF UTILITY VAULT 6070 TRENCH W:iH 6070-T COVER (OR EQUAL) EACH SECTION SEALED TO BE WATER TIGHT. HS-20 LOADING REQUIRED. REF UTILITY VAULT CO. INPUT SHEET 1 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6070 TRENCH (MIDDLE OF PG) IN =62.7 "�-�-- =4-12" Bi=DOING MATERIAL; LEVEL AND GOMPAGT. A5 N xmw OACKFtLL PFk DETIvL' 2 914EE7-C-3 N.T.S DETENTION VAULT 8c CB#3 -7 L fiyYnr� l:.N. �1!ti w 4 '1 9i�rh t f.Nf k Y� 1 � (D 4 E 6�Y T7 \J 4 ei v� L J r J 41 I mc!a O K= a4. qc �o`U o "t .w ;EQao a,c ,. r m 3Qald azz a Z a. a N O • lj 0 Ca O �mmw>z :3 I T NORTH o53s STru-"I RM DRATi SCALE: 1"=10'-0" 'c r3u:LoIr�c�r E-w r�Tnn, yr CGiYC�f L-"UMORIL7c GRAPHIC SCAL!� RECEIVED 0 5 0 20 30 Evil 811 its � h\N- L AUG - 4 2006 -tl[i 04 N PERMIT COUNTER w N AiiS r EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT 4"0 PERF. PVC FOOTING DRAIN SEE STORM DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET C-2 6"0 PERFORATED PVC PIPE (e" HOLES) SLOPE = 0.5 % SEE DETAIL 1 /C-3 Ace C61 cbv j Q5 N 88?12'36" E _127.81' CONC. SLAB ON GRADE PER PLAN 4" (MIN) CAPILLARY BREAK PEA GRAVEL ��+ "•"v�r.70� �;,�ll 11 1 .. .... . �.o.1i.o fir° �s! �'�� 1, ii �:; U LLI _..... N.. _.._ _ _ _.... i 1 FINGER DRAIN DETAIL t �o VACATED 7 TH 15' t L W. d FINISH GRADE gi C.� N t BACKFlLL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION PER �72 25 t GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4" DIA. SOLID PVC STORM cp • "� •• ••' � • • . '. '':. ` . .. � 2 .. • • DRAIN. CONNECT DOWNSPOT TYP THIS SYSTEM _ co 4 DIA. PERF. PVC FOOLING l� 1 • • • • ::. ••:• • • ••:.: ,.: � � DRAIN INSTALL WITH 12 DEPTH f PEA GRAVEL ' r70F 2 FOOTING ROOF DRAIN DETAIL 70 / TOP Nil.. E — 62:8 I / // 84.00 F SLAB I/4009 I DRAINAGE NOTES NV. EL.= 62.95 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. 1' .:. ` .,. :•, '� �Iop 25 p VERIFY EXISTING STORM OF SO 0 2. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO qooR B_ � DRAINAGE SYSTEM INVERT ELEVATIONS. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF POSITIVE BE ACHIEVED. fl DRAINAGE AND MIN. COVER CAN NOT 3. THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHOWN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PRIVATE # �� :. AND WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER. �.� t Z:� 3 4. MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE CATCH BASINS AND DETENTION FOOTING G DRAIN OUTLET CONTROL SYSTEM. s T PVC FOOT ESPECIALLY AT THE F. G ESPE TOP PER T CLOGGIN , A 4 PREVENT c� TO P R E . r PIPE 0 ET S�qB CATCH BASINS SHOULD BE CLEANED AT LEAST TWICE PER YEAR. FREQUENT s• �% 1 DUCE THE NEED FOR MORE DIFFICULT TASK`S ' CATCH GASIIJ CLEANING WILL RE :. ETENTION PIPE. THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAN � � • � � "� • :•� _• OF CLEANING THE D r I DURING CONSTRUCTION. MATERIAL MUST BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED AND NOT / •:�� .;•` .'•:...:•; :::`;: ::`':`,:. ! I :. •.: FLUSHED DOWNSTREAM. " 6"0 SOLI D PVCEl 5. ALL ROOF TOP DOWNSPOUTS ARE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE 4 SDPVC E_ 0.5% TO CB _.. T1GHTUNE SYSTEM AND DIRECTED TO THE DETENTION FACILITY. SLOP / 1 r t TRENCH DRAINS 1 T1'p• 6. F001ING DRAINS AND SUB —SURFACE DEWAT ERING •../ .. y :.•:,. d :: 0�3 �0 SHALL NOT .BE CONNECTED TO THE DETENTION SYSTEM, ROOF DRAINS OR EXISTING TYPE 1 - B W GRATE • •• TRENCH DRAINS COLLECTING SURFACE FLOW. o• .. SUB SURFAC AINAGE SYSTEM MUST CONNECT TO THE NEW CATCH BASIN RIM= 65.24 PER SHEET C-3 12 IE � / " IE = 62.70 S3�- 12 � � • _ � . , J,f iul NOTES � " 8 IE 63.2 ' _ � 0 W) r � — L. �53• - 2. � ti 6' 8' 6' i FINGER DOTING/ •• • CONNECTION:.: /.:::.:.�:.;::. :;' ::: ::: °::,:,':.:::: r EL.= 62 5 DRAIN ..r .. � Nv. • °� •� NEW TYPE 11 CB J5lb RIM EL. (MATCH SURFACE) INV. EL.=62.3 (NEW 6" PVC FINGER DRA) INV. EL.=63.5 (NEW 4" PVC FOOTING D AIN) �? N E 12" CONC. PIPE VA LT AIN) o ' . �� / ^ � INV. EL.=62.0 O ( �,..: • : `" ' ::. ' ^ o INV. EL. =61.8 (EX. 12" CONC. OUT) � N 4 0 • :. ` .. • • . • INSTALL NEW TYPE II CB APPROXIMATELY OFT — DOWNSTREAM (SOUTH) OF EXISTING B. B o 00 _ J N g O t Q 6„ 2 Q `� co-0 • A � N 87?57'16" W 120.73' ycoo El s CHAIN —LINK FENCE 4"o PVC TIGHTLINE FOR FOOTING DRAINS T CB a �' r 4"0 PERFORATED FOOTING DRAINS INSTALLED AT ELEV. UQ �f 10� z " 0 1 , 63.0f WITH 12 DEPTH W/ I PEA GRAVEL W ! co t o a EXISTING TYPE 1 rR W nRATF I �� RIM= 61.46 12" IE = 57.29 N 12" IE = 57.04 �S 8" IE = 59.88 (E) ,� $ Fix is W ; N, n 1 N kk -, L_L_. x t Rq PROTECTING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES t`' � ' �{} r `I'v 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR r ,Y :} FROM CONSTRUCTION RELATED DAMAGE AND SILTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. Lo '�51 D ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES, THE F, g, 0 .F z 1 S _� x'j PRIOR TO PROJECT APPROVAL AN CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING ALL ON SITE DRAINAGE FACILITIES. c0 w AND MATERIALS REMOVED FROM SYSTEM SHALL NOT BE FLUSHED DOWN STREAM SEDIMENT BUT SHALL BE HAULED FROM SITE AND LEGALLY DISPOSED OF.t8 2. IF DOWN STREAM SYSTEM BECOMES SILTED UP. AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, OR CLEANING OF THE SYSTEM.`': ` THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE F o k , 3. THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON SHEET C-2 ARE A MINIMUM G AND WEATHER CONDITIONS MAY DICTATE ADDITIONAL CONTROLS. g ;s., CONSTRUCTION TIMING THE CITY INSPECTOR MAY ALSO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CONTROLS. THE CONTRACTOR IS *'��t c o c RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING SEDIMENT LADEN WATERS FROM LEAVING THE SITE AND n o �o F g , ENTERING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. a o s 4. PROPOSED EXCAVATION WILL BE BELOW EXISTING GROUND WATER LEVEL. 8 2 8, ,, ti t A TEMPORARY DEWATERING SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO OR DURING CONSTRUCTION V ox EXCAVATION FOR FOOTING/TRENCH DRAIN INSTALLATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE v � A A PRE EXCAVATION DEWATERING PLAN" TO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO START ,+! OF EXCAVATION. 0° 5. REFER TO "GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER REPORT" BY LSI ADAPT, DATED MAY 2005 3 ¢ ¢ FOR MORE COMPLETE SOILS INFORMATION. ALL EARTHWORK MATERIAL, BACK FILL AND COMPACTION, SUB --GRADE PREPARATION, DRAINAGE PROVISIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS o OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. o 4 MCI, z v - ,1 k 3 N ,fir �. �g rT `, r •�k"y� uj " W V,' r NORTH A i N A G E B SURFACE DR a y�. 0539 t>r Fyv , i sij +• t Y g- SCALE: GRAPHIC' SCALE si F m i a It 0 5 10 20 30 I of v or.c�N�o��c�sjc� MEN AUG - 4 2006 �+fig PERMIT COUNTER e a,. ., ea> s. �.F• �9DeLDING DEPARW FND CASED 4'X4" CONC MON. WITH 1-5/8" BRASS 172.77' - 10D . 20 10 0, 20 o� NORT.H M9ADOl, DALE ROAD SCALE: 1"=20, N� / cv. HELD REBAR LIC, # 9435. AS BLOCK CORNER / --- / EE S ROS AFN 200404155002 120.83' % 2o' / Raw iM�,��y�l���l � �� NC1-1 / N BLOCK 58 RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED. UNNDER AF# 9101285001 (AS SHOWN) / E'LY R-O-W PER DEED AFN 9010110124 v LEGA L DESCRIPTION . PARCEL A: FENCE 0.6' SOUTH. LOT 5 IN BLOCK .58 OF MEADOWDALE BEACH, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME C'P OF. PROP. COR: 5 OF PLAT5 AT PAQE(5) 38, IN SNOHOM15H COUNTY, WASHINC,TON, N05 18'55"W 130.33' . 4' CHAINLINK FENCE I TOQETHER WITH THE PORTION OF THE WE5T HALF OF VACATED 74TH PLACE WE5T WHICH ' l 0+00 x I ATTACHED BY OPERATION OF LAW; L' 15.55 J EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF 5AI0 LOT 5, CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS BY WARRANTY / DEED RECORDED , UNDER RECORDING NO. 9610110124. / 0+31.2 iv Q GARAGE COR. �ENCE LINE 1.7' SOUTH OF 03' NORTH OF 15' PARCEL B: . Iff �-2 PROP LINE. PROP LINE A NON - EXCLUSIVE EA5EMENT FOR INGRE5S AND EGRE55 CREATED BY INSTRUMENT' RECORDED. {; 2 / _ o Q!r 15� UNDER RECORDING NO. 9010120366, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON: ° �r SURE REFERENCES �" cW�: m�NZ o! 3 3 P =:PLAT OF. MEADJWDA,_E BEACFI VOL 5, PC,. R05 = RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AF#9101285001 N % r N ti ti �� RO51 RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AF#200404155002 ,� , z / / SURY�Y NOTES FOUND & ACCEPTED FOUND & ACCEPTED ~ 28.9' REBAR/CAP L5 32428 REBAR/CAP L5 32428 5EQUIPMENT: LIETZ-SOKKISHA TOTAL STATION 1" THEODOLITE WITH INTERNAL E.O.M.. / N88°12'45"W 127.80' j METHOD: FIELD TRAVERSE / 20, x THE CLOSURES OF THI5 FIELD TRAVERSE CONDUCTED DURING THIS SURVEY MEET.- Rw. a j OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM CLOSURE STANDARDS STATED IN WAC 332=130-090. o o � Ll"(3 3ND / • SET 24" X 1/2' IRON BAR WITH CAP MARKED "L.5. 35975" 120.07' I INOICATE5 FOUND MON. IN CASE AS NOTED (LAST VI51TED 06-09-06) / N� I�o2ND ST BUJSTRE t:ET FlLw` 587°35'43"E NO : TH15 SURArmmy REVISImms THAT PRIORSU R Amm Y FNO CA5E0 4`X4" CONC MON. WITH 1-5/8' BRA55 CO D O UNDER>4 N 2.00103095003 DISK WITH PUNCH RESUB CONFORMED COPY JUN.29 2006 200606285276 1 PG 06 - 28 - 2006 01 : 50pm $98.00 �u�L�NGo�AaNDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGTON crnro�eonnoNos , S.W 1/�4, S.W. 1/14, SAC. 5, T. 21N., R. �4 ., W M. --------------- E L NO. REVISION 2/28/Ol BY CHECKED. DATE RECORDING CERTIFICATE SUI�Y�YOi�S C�i�t I� IC�It� ��' og Asir AMENDED RECORD OSCALE: 1 =20 FILED FOR RECORD BY DAVID T. GARONER THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENT5 A 5URVCY MADE BY ME OR SURVEY THI5 DAY OF 2006 A.D., AT UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE p 6/28/06 o MINUTES PAST O'CLOCK M. AND RECORDED IN VOLUME REQUIREMENTS OF THE .5URVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE o iio33 Land Sur\/e(J, OI"S i 0r REQUEST OF MELVIN AND MARGARET EBERT TH15 DAY sj'�isr ° ANC)MELYIN M�RC�►4R�t BERt OF SURVEYS. ON PAGE , RECORDS OF _ l L LAIC .. LAND USE FACILITATORS SNOHOMISH COUNTY,. WA5HINGTON. vvj-� 2006.. EXPIRES 6/20/07 LOT 5 BLOCK 58 MEAOOWALE BEACH t 15TE-RE-0 LAND SURVEYOR L.5. NO. 35975 COUNTY AUDITOR DEPUTY AUDITOR DATE: Co ::Zy�UCo BEING A PORTION OF GOV. LOT 4 1 OF I t�le:1425) 252=188 IN THE S.W.-1/4. S.W. 1/4. SEC. 5, T.27 N., R. 4 E., W.M. .4"12'1-A Evergreen way Everett, U!A 98203 A5PI # 200121 5NOHOM15H COUNTY, WA5HINGTON R //e// 6— _fitPLly RESUB JUN 29 20066G ELnyDOO,OFEMN PROPERTY OWNER NAME: TUNE AND TIFFANY. BUI PROPERTY ADDRESS: 16105 15TH PL. IN. EDMON05, WA TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL # - 00515.1-055-006-00 LOT COVERAGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3,815 S.F. DRIVES AND TERRACE 3,310 5.F TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 1,205 5.F LOT AREA 18,042 5.17 PERCENTAGE BUILDING COVERAGE 21.15 MAX. PERCENTAGE ALLOWED 35 ENERGY CODE SUMMARY HEATING SYSTEM TYPE 6A5 OPTION 4 GLAZING AREA % OF FLOOR UNLIMITED . GLAZING U-FACTOR VERTICAL 0.40 OVERHEAD :. 0.56 DOOR. U-FACTOR 0.20 GEILIN .5 V`V ATTIG5 R-55 VAULTED R-30 WALL5 ABOVE GRADE R:21 BELOW GRADE INr I EXT. R-10 FLOORS R-30, SLAB ON GRADE R-10 . FROM TABLE 6-1.2003 WSEG LUMBER STRENGTHS FRAMING MEMBER TYPE Fb. Fv E x 10 .1015T5 AND RAFTERS (HEM -FIR #2) 850 .150 1.3 BEAMS 4 HEADERS (4" NOM. D.F. #2) 1100 180 1.6 ' BEAMS $ HEADERS (6" NOM. D.F. #U 1350 110 1.6 LAMINATED STRAND: LUMBER (L5L) 2600 _400 1.1 ; LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER (LVL) 2b00 255 I.q PARALLEL STRAND LUMBER (P5L) 2g00 2qO 2.0 GLU-LAMINATED TIMBERS 2400 240 1.8 = POSTS 4" NOM. D.F. 41 1000 150 1.1 6" NOM. D.F. #I 1200 110 1.6 2x 5TUD5 H.F. "STUD" 675 W . 12 APA RATED 5HEATHING EXP05URE SPAN RATING ROOF EXTERIOR 32/16 WALL EXTERIOR 24/0 FLOOR (T$ G) EXTERIOR 46/24 LOADING & DEFLECTION TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION LOADING (P5F) DEFLECTION LIVE LOAD DEAD I LOAD I TOTAL LOAD LIVE LOAD 170TAL. `LO D ROOF (5TICK GONG. 25 20 45_ La40 L/240 CEILING ATTIC ABOVE 10 5. 15 L4240 L/240 FLOG 11/2" GYPGERTE 40 23 63 L/480 L/360 DECK PA u , MUD SET 60 54 114 L/480 L/360 EXTERIOR WALL - 10 10 INTERIOR WALL - 10 10 1- FA55ENO /7 G ATGH BA51N .. _.,�. r � r So.o 524 .. . �' . . f> MARK �x 3.00 /V 10.C) u ry iry- 11 q0 m as 8b.0 1 IM t65.0 B - Col- s' 30.81 24.04' CODES THIS DESIGN IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES AS AMENDED BY THE WA5HINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE: 2003 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE 2003 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2003 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE 2003 WA5HIN6TON STATE ENERGY CODE 2003.WA5HINGTON STATE VENTILATION 4 INDOOR AIR QUALITY CODE 2001 NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION BUILDING HEIGHT CALL. CORNER MARK CORNER ELEVATIONS A '10.50, B 83.501 C 81.50' . - TOTAL = 520 / 4 = 80.00' AVE. EXI5TIN6 GRADE 80.00' +25' = 105.00' MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEV. PROP05ED RIDGE ELEVATION = 104.125' LOT SLOPE: 18% SQUARE FOOTAGES LOWER FLOOR 511 S.F. MAIN FLOOR 2,532 S.F. UPPER FLOOR I,g46 S.F. TOTAL LIVING SPACE 4,111-1 S.F. GARAGE '1q'i S.F. STORAGE AND SHOP 1,010 S.F. DECKS, PATIOS, TERRACES, PORCH 1,545 S.F. U �--- E LO "U) �? 00 u. Lu VJ vi c _c 4- m �-- . o ­o U>s�M� can1- d: LQ ar-L,@) Qco 0LoL >� o LO - d-as o M.mau_Lu a c Q QL Q c � C.0 �� y V r) u Is:; M . N < f•� 2 - a m.N C DRAWING INDEX mca SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE LI 51TE PLAN one Corner Flag_ Setbacks Req*re Actijal Front Sides Rear Other J Height Q 0 12 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 2.1 DETAILS 22 EXTERIOR ENVELOPE DETAILS 3 FOUNDATION PLAN 4, LOWER FLOOR PLAN 5 MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLAN b MAIN FLOOR PLAN i UPPER FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 8 ' UPPER FLOOR g ROOF FRAMING PLAN 10 ELEVATIONS II ELEVATIONS 12 BUILDING SECTIONS 13 BUILDING SECTIONS 51.1 STRUCTURAL DETAILS :51.2 5TRUC TURAL DETAILS G-I TPMpnR'&i?Y KQnalnm r./1uT01n1 vi A►.i CONTACT LIST RELATIONSHIP CONTACT /NAME PHONE. ADDRE55 ARCHITECT 40-ARCHITECTS, INC. 945118th AVE. SE., SUITE 120 BARBARA PICKENS (425) 451-1161 BELLEVUE, WA g8005 5TKr,TVRAL STONEY POINT EN6INEERIN(5 (425) 644 12033 SE 40th LANEBELLEA ENGINEER DWAYNE BARNES E, WA 418006 6E0 TECH. L51 ADAPT 615 8th AVE S. EN61NEER ROLF HYLLSM .. WO 654--1045 1 SEATTLE, WA 4*04 MERICAN CIVIL ENGINEER CHERYL 61RARD (425) 881-1430 4052 148th AVE NE HANS CHISTIANSEN REDMOND, WA 418052 SURVEY. MCMAHON LAND SURVEYING GENE MCMAHON (255) 850-g0'" P.OBOX5 51 TREE SURVEY HARMSEN 3 A55OCIATES INC KEVIN TEA&Z 060) ?g4-1611 11614 WEST MAIN 5T. . MpNROE, WA 418272 000 o LO . • � I 0 r- Lin O c E A rnv c � m E ° O m ° o. o m o 5 CV 2 Z,c o O n ' v d mO C N 00 1n c Q. > c ° a m c 't 0 0� = V m o U a D0 ON c E N c T tg = c N O O U I- o v < 00 n ,o 3 ozz 0 < < z Lo %Z O �00 �n O (L cif IL: 0 wzwz QOL10 lu Q�Q} °' QC w - <c� i� ICZ3 v J 1� LW LLJ LO LU, cn 2 / A AP PLAN \ % — � L NDSC E _ . CALL DIAL —A —DIG 1, SCALE: 1" = 10' AT 1— 800 — 424 — 5555 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS 102. 00 c� PLANT LIST: Rnu;1014 ICI SCIENTIFIC NAME - COMMON NAME PLANTING SI;'� ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URS1 - KINNIKINNICK 4" POTS PS ACING 18" 0. C. VINCA MINOR - PERIWINKLE 4' POTS 18" O.C. HYDROSEEDED TURF. EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED EXISTING DECIDUOUS - TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING LARGE SHRUB - TO REMAIN CON TA C TS: OWNER/DEVELOPER TUNG & TIFFANY BUI 18811 1ST PLACE WEST BOTHELL, WA 98012 425-345-8864 (WORK) SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR VICINITY MAP SEE CIVIL/ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CLEARING LIMITS CONSULTING ARBORIST AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. KEVIN J. TEAGUE, ASLA INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE - TO REMAIN OF ARBORICULTURE CERTIFIED ARBORIST CERTIFICATION NUMBER: PN-2766A GENERAL NOTES0 : THIS PROPOSED TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO SPECIFICALLY STABILIZE THE SITE AND ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PLANT COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. THE PROPOSED "FIARDY VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVER" WILL BE ESTABLISHED QUICKLY, TO FURTHER PROTECT THE SLOPES FROM RUNOFF WATER EROSION. AT A LATER TIME THE APPLICANT WILL INSTALL A MORE ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE SITE FROM EROSION AND WILL RE IMPLEMENTED IN PHASES SO THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED AT ONCE. LANDSCAPE NOTES: / 1. PLANTING AND TURF AREAS TO RECEIVE 4" MIN. DEPTH OF AMENDED THREE WAY TOPSOIL. SUB -GRADES / FOR ALL TURF AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE SCARIFIED, CLEARED OF ALL WErDS, ROCKS, AND DEBRIS, AND / ROUGH GRADED. TOPSOIL SHALL BE ROTOTILLED INTO SUB -GRADE TO A MIN i)EPTH OF 6". / 2. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE LIGHTLY COMPACTED AND FINE GRADED PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE .TOP -DRESSED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" DEPTH OF MULCH (STEERCO, FERTILE MULCH, CEDAR GROVE COMPOST OR LIKE PRODUCT). 4. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES, HEALTHY, WELL FORMED AND IN EXCI11LENT CONDITION. 5. USE NO PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDES ON THIS PROJECT SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THROUGH THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS. 6. FERTILIZE ALL NEW PLANTS WITH 6-4-3 TRANSPLANT FERTILIZER PER MAPIUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF SHALL BE WATERED WITH A TEMPORARY 11'2RIGATION SYSTEM. A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY BE A PORTABLE SPRINKLER ON A HOSE f40VED MANUALLY AROUND THE PROPERTY. WATER APPLICATION SHALL BE EVEN AND CONSISTENT OVER ALL 'PLANT MATERIAL AND TURF. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF WATER TO KEEP PLANTS AND TURF IN A HEALTHY CONDITION. EXTREME CARE SHALL BE TAKEN NOT TO OVER WATER AND CREATE WASHOUTS OR SOIL EROSION. 8. FINISHED GRADE FOR ALL PLANTING AND TURF AREAS ADJACENT TO WALK3 AND CURBS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF CURBS AND WALKS, WHILE MAINTAINING POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 9. TURF HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE DONE AFTER MARCH 15TH AND BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH. 10. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED AND FERTILIZED. SEED WITH THE BELOW SEED MIX OR APPROVED EQUAL. TURF SEED MIX: 407o PERENNIAL RYE GRASS 207o RED CREEPING FESCUE 157. CHEWING FESCUE 157o ANNUAL RYE GRASS 107o TURF -TYPE TALL FESCUE APPLICATION RATE OF 4LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET 11. FERTILIZE ALL TURF AREAS WITH A 15-15-15 LAWN STARTER AT A RATE OF 6.6LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET. 12. SEEDING AND FERTILIZING SHALL BE DONE ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER WORK IS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED it#= lotBY OWNER. 13. EXTREME ATTENTION AND CARE MUST BE GIVEN TO PREVENT EROSION DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE APPROVED T.E.S.C. PLAN MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO DURING THE LANDSCAPE PREPARATION, PRIOR TO 0 5 10 20 SEEDING. 61 TR E E T F ll't' APPROVED 6Y PLANNING .z' Fraarer.Ca k� rY ; io.,, I> [ =S" �1'1' � '`�'����� .-- .5^194 APR —'7 2006 94'l- 1'Y(4 n, .L 1-S/ � A"Ar�f BUILDING DEPARTtIgM7 REVISIONS O CQ O x � d II Ca M W = Lo r- 0) `_ wLLJ a o c o V vvv N 0 1---1 z t7i c2 co Ld Ln n O0 v� x N Zm04 W W v) J VLLI LE 9 CL 3 O LL 0 Nto z r- a 0 O �- W W W 1�1 LLJ vlxv �. ��c cal zwF z Q � W �NL LLJ vI DRAWING: Ll.1 I s KWK mmm ASSMATES I SHEET: 1 OF 1 9 - APHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 80 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 ft. SITE B.M.=74.65 I MERIDIAN PER SNOHOMISH COUNTY ry RECORDING No. 200404155002 CONTOUR INTERVAL. 2' _ BOARD FENCE ON wALL ELEVATION DATUM. ASSUMED S 88*12136" E 127.81' y _ r RETAINI GARAGE WALL REMAINS. ^ / 1 WEESTTEDL7 / / VACATED 4TH 15 N. PL`W / 72 12"(DEAD)Co / CO N / Cc To l a ^ l AQ 0- 4 CO3 / f-o/s \ Q i _ -ay. m�, rwie - DESGRlPPON - APPROVED ® MONITOR WELL L _ ._ _�-- UTILITYPOLE 0 Mt- MAmory LAND SURVEYING 6UENF SANITARY. SEWER MANHOLE 0 FOUND REBAR W/CAP FOUND TACK W/ WASHER o SET HUB W/TACK �W A s �'y9y P. O. BOX 513. KENT, WA. .9. 8035 — 0513 B UI �+ y (253) 850-901-7 EET FILE RESIDENCE ^-y �Q) ti O PRQJ£c/ o BOUNDARY SURVEYING TOPOGRAPHIC ass �F ssiss �CONSTRUCTION STAKING NOV 2 2 2005 l SL N s TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING �� BY LEKTE SURVEY PERMIT COUNTER wm EXPIRES 1-29-2007 1 /28/2005 GCM1'=20' EDMONDS SH££I _—� "° °�° GCM 1 /28/05 bsi or-------=— r WRECKING CABLE MAT. CODE FOOTAGE YR. PL. AKF1-24 221280 148'__ 1980 POLE 113305 30' CLS5 1980 _12_r4> ?;F Lza::w e > w,t&) LA41-rS of 54p-*TZ04 APPROVED AS NOTED nENEERING Dato: 71G--- O 44 d� VERIZON TO SET 30' CLS 5 #57603 (PP) PLACE 1-4' RISER P2 SC2080 PATE m7Q06 VERIZON TO BACKHOE 148' / e:Z7-�Y ( C 4 AERIAL DROPS FROM TERM 207 GO TO P3S2 a m THEN TO TO BSW TO 16010 a m :RIZON TO REMOVE DROPS FROM 207 Q co`� �^ N, AND REROUTE THEM TO FEED FROM TERM 3053 SAME COUNT. N P3S2 4 AERIAL DROPS P4S2 / ® L O P4 W. 06, \ 10 s P21S2 lzO THIS IS A RAMS WORKORDER TO CO. `DDS PREPOSTEO P24 64+35 , �NEaEO WORK ORDER ® #8798 Op 722 ° ti )_4m O N N t to LL/ Q � P22 63+00 P20S2 O #8797 721 MEADOWDALE RD P21 0, X`L �o ah 63+30 C 1#883 ( 3052 DBD:IOI-150-176-200 O P1 P20S1 o� 0O Ov O� 1 Q 16031 16105 25 64+84 *57643 (PP) BD:126-150 207 �15583 PPX5+#8840 (PPX) 2 P2 207 30' CLS 5 1980 (DBD.101-150.176-200) X41110 148' (DBD:101-200) AEI-22) #57639 (PPX) 3 v *57602 (PP) P1F2 PLACE 1-4' RISER 67+92 ) 3053 8841 / 0 8 / VERIZON TO SET 30' CLS 5 DBD:101-200 SS1-24 ® P20 #38685 DBD.101-150.176-200 P3 PROERTY LINE TO FIELD AT THE REQUEST OF THE CUSTOMER UNDERGROUNDING' 148' SECTION OF AERIAL CABLE IN FRONT OF 16105 75TH PL W CUSTOMER IS GOING TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON THIS PROPERTY. CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT LARGE AND AERIAL CABLE WOULD BE IN THE WAY. IN TERMINAL 207 4 WORKERS IN DBD:126-150 REVISION 2 THIS CHANGES ONLY THE POLE LOCATION OF #1 THIS WILL MOVE THE POLE TO THE NEW PROPERTY LINE WHICH VERIZON WILL BE CUSTOMER ON SITE TO VERIFY CORRECT PROPERTY LINE ANY QUESTIONS CONTACT ENGINEER. ALL OTHER WORK. ON THIS PROJECT REMAINS THE SAME. FOOTAGES SHOULD ONLY VERY ABOUT 2-3' THOMAS BROS. MAP NO. 435 A-7 USE FOR HICAP WO ONLY PRIORITY 1B3 ECAS CONSTRUCTION START 0 3 / 31 / 0 6 IN SERVICE DATE 0 4 / 14 / 0 6 ALL WORK 04/21/06 COMPLETE DRIVERS FOR WORK ORDER HICAP / SPAN PERMITS CONSTRUCTION ❑ BLANKET ❑ STATE ❑ DIAL. A DIG ❑ COUNTY FLAGGING CITY EDMONDS ❑ BRUSHING ❑ NONE SPECIAL CIRCUITS ElCAUTION POWER M UG MAE CUTS REQUIRED ❑ YES M NO OTHER M UG MAE TELCO M UG MAE JOINT POLE ❑ PUD JOINT TRENCH ❑ PSP&L ❑ PUD ❑ CATV ❑ PSP&L Cl GTE ❑ CATV NONE M NONE FEES, RED'S POINT OF CONTACT GOP ❑ LEC TUNG BUI ❑ SPEC. CONST. 425 345-8864 ❑ NONE , ENGINEER JAMI DUCOTE PHONE No 425 290-9287 FAC. TECH. STACEY BRAGER PHONE No. 425 356-4088 FIELDED BY MATERIAL MATERIAL ENGR CONST CODE DESCRIPTION EST ACT 280480 AKF1-24 218' 118305 30' CLS 5 2 POLE 80: X-CONN 6832 168TH ST SW LYNNWOOD WA REVISION 2 I CERTIFY THAT THE WORK I COMPLETED ON THIS WORK ORDER AND AS -BUILT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GTE DUALITY STANDARDS AS IDENTIFIED ON THE IPOIP CHECKLIST. (SIGNATURE AND DATE) . VERIZON EXCHANGE MANOR WAY COUNTY SNOHOMISH TITLE: UG AERIAL FACILITIES co °i Im A 16105 75TH PL W EDMONDS WA. OD o m mm D � D 3 X APPROVED BY DATE m �! m T.27N R. 4E SEC.5C No ET 1 OF 1 TBM NW PROP.COR EL. 34.30 M J O co R '5256.8'-- De B 26'16' L 40.18 S� CB m I M j. i 1 1 jSOMER PILE W LL TOE OF SLOPE ............./ 5.8 • I • 3I' f5.5' I 45.9 I 10�,02' SCALE: 1"= 20'H 10'v , co 511 S SETTLEMENT CRACKS IN R (SEE ACTUAL LOCATION AND EXTENT IN FIELD] KNOWN OR SUSPECTED LA' REFER TO GEOTECHNICAI AND REPORT BY DODDS i +44 Zo (43' 4)1 0 ,0 `0 ' 19 'Q —DEC -� _ ME_ LSr. MQp . 94;0" Dt�. I 1 _; p (42'9' -41 co , / Z r fl 40-{- rt4 V*a5 * 43 W ®bib m aia �b b 4z � I S -, S I (WEST) 0 0 75TH PLACE WEST (EAST) 70 w 50 z 0 40 > RAILROAD w TRACKS w 30 I i� 20- 10'- 0 LEGEND ww o D_z z �Z N Z OJ OJ M .o N I n cV I m v LN -6 2 .. PROPOSED N .Q), z m _ '` `: . _.5. RESIDENCE I 6 cv m — 2r EXISTING23 ROADWAY :` COLLUVIUM=.: BASEMENT (. ) : `'::a.;- -LOOSE TO MEDIUM •. •: ;':::• :.'' — - — — _ `-'DENSE SAND AND '_::.:: • ? -...: �4' : " .�.. . >'. _ SOFT —MEDIUM STIFF SILT':... io.: ;�— :: �.:. , ;... . —?. — —? - _ STIFF TO HARD SILT 34 goo - — _ — _(NATIVE)- 3 — .i oo- - T m TOP OF BORING 39 SPT N-VALUE (BLOWS/FOOT) INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT �,._GROUND WATER BOTTOM OF BORING O' 10' 20' 40' go, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=20' IMGMSCIENCES INC. 70 t— w 50 UJ z 40 0 a w 30 20 10 A NOTES: 1. BORINGS BY DODDS GEOSCIENCES. 2. TOPOGRAPHY BY BURTON REAMER, PLS. 3. SOIL CONTACTS VARY ACROSS ANY SITE AND VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE CONTACTS SHOWN SHOULD BE EXPECTED. NGUYEN RESIDENCE MEADOWDALE, WASHINGTON GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION S-S' DRAWN BY FlOURE ND. CHECKED BY_EOA_ DATE PROJECT NO. 07.10.02 20029921 Projects\2002-099-21 Nguyen Residence\cad\20029902.DWG Material Unit Wt C Phi Piezo Ru pcf psf deg Surf. Colluvium 120 0 19 1 0 Lawton (Infinitely Strong) F = 1.016 Hong.West & Assoc. - Lynnwood WA Nguyen Res., Meadwodale, WA July 12, 2002 NGUYEN.GSL 70 — ----- — 70 60 — — 60 50 — — 50 40 _-----------------_-------� —40 30 — — 30 20 — _ 20 50 100 150 200 250 HAl S (WEST) 80—, R, H Uj UUJ 50 Z 0 40 a w 30 10 J RAILROAD TRACKS t LEGEND OPTION #1 TIED BACK WALL ALONG PROPERTY LINE WITH INTERCEPTOR DRAIN ON 75TH PLACE WEST. �. w i�t o w u i o 75TH PLACE WEST +n Z OJ Z 2Z 0-1 Q Z NO O / cV I d N . SI (EAST) :e 1 5 70 FT 60 I I PROPOSED Cy °1 z m/ '`'`.';•':::°••;;.,. INTERCEPTOR � RESIDENCE Q I NLLJ - '� DRAIN m �- 50 EXISTING —�2T 23 - �-40FT BELOW `i ROADWAY i BASEMENT ; .: ( OLLUVI U I }� 3' - - - ROADWAY Z O 7 :LOOSE TO MEDIUM('40 ` NSE SAND AND 4 � Q :DE SO-"SOFTSTIFF SILT'-""' - w ` •.��—� -•r? - — - - — PERMANENT TIEBACKS 30 LJ �- - 81 - _ - S IFF TO HARD SILT 34 - - - (NATIVE) - _ - _ - SOLDIER PILE WALL - DRILLED AND CAST IN PLACE 20 - - - 3z - WIDE FLANGE BEAMS @ 6FT + ( /-) SPACING - - —= - - 10 AUGER -CAST — — PILES 0 T m TOP OF BORING 39 SPT N=VALUE (BLOWS/FOOT) e?,-INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT 'GROUND WATER BOTTOM OF BORING 0' 10' 20' 40' HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=20' NOTES: 1. BORINGS BY DODDS GEOSCIENCES. 2. TOPOGRAPHY BY BURTON REAMER, PLS. 3. SOIL CONTACTS VARY ACROSS ANY SITE AND VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE CONTACTS SHOWN SHOULD BE EXPECTED. " - FlOURE NO. DRAWN BY —$R_ NGUYEN RESIDENCE CONCEPTUAL CHECKED gY-EQg_ 2A MEADOWDALE, WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT DATE PROJECT NO. HMGMSC�CESS INC OPTION #1 07.10.02 20029921 Nguyen S (WEST) 80—, 70 �r F- w LLJ 50 z O 40 t= Q w w 30 RAILROAD TRACKS I OPTION #2 CANTILEVERED WALL ALONG PROPERTY LINE WITH INTERCEPTOR DRAIN ALONG 75TH PLACE WEST. L. z 75TH PLACE WEST tZ z O� _ OJ z a- 0 I n U-) n-I N I Cn ' N ► SI ( EAST) �- 80 1 5 FT (MAX) INTERCEPTOR DRAIN 20 � � — — � � — _ -- _ — � � � �_ _ — S IF F TO HARD SILT . taa� - I CANTILEVERED WALL - DRILLED AND CAST IN PLACE {NATIVE) — _ — _ - WIDE FLANGE BEAMS @ 6FT + ( /-) SPACING . .too. AUGER -CAST — — PILES 0 LEGEND T m ITOP OF BORING 39 SPT N=VALUE I (BLOWS/FOOT) e?(-- INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT L. GROUND WATER BOTTOM OF BORING 70 F— w 50 W z 40 O F- Q w 30 w 20. iN FIR NOTES: 1. BORINGS BY DODDS GEOSCIENCES. 2. TOPOGRAPHY BY BURTON REAMER, PLS. 3. SOIL CONTACTS VARY ACROSS ANY SITE AND VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE CONTACTS SHOWN SHOULD BE EXPECTED. DRAWN BY SJ1I_ nouRE NO. rl o' 10' 20' 40' NGUYEN RESIDENCE CONCEPTUAL CHECKED BY �Q_A_2D HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=20' MEADOWDALE, WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT DATE PRWEC7 NO. IMIGEOSCIENCESINC. OPTION #2 .07.10.02 20029921 Ml Projects=02 Nguyen S (WEST) 80---1 70 w � 50 Z C' 40 > RAILR0AlD 30 TRACKS r 20 0 LEGEND OPTION #3 VERTICAL AND BATTERED PILES WITH GRADE BEAMS ALIGNED PARALLEL WITH THE SLOPE, AND AN INTERCEPTOR DRAIN ALONG 75TH PLACE WEST. o E] u v o 75TH PLACE WEST 2 z EL w z orf rL I ❑-_ �`�� I d � N 1' T 2 . . y z ;•1$: :: I PROPOSED n`' j.... i _ . RESIDENCE I N ..:. s•: M :..::'.�.:':..j ..• 2 - EXISTING :... T,S . ...::.:....:.:..:. --23 ROADWAY BASEMENT -7.. ...... :•'LOO'E lOLLUVIUM TO MEDIUM•_•.::- Q.: -- DEN E SAND AND- SO T- 4EDIUM STIFF SIL�72 _ :. -• -.:. :.: : - •. ':r r•:.-.... �:. ,� : — — — — — ..:�.:-:.": — � 34 - _� STIr'F TO HARD SILT . t.0o• - - 32 (NATIVE} AUGER -CAST H-PILES PILE T m 1TOP OF BORING 39 SPT N-VALUE (BLOWS/FOOT) INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT I� �-,GROUND WATER BOTTOM OF BORING SI (EAST) r— 80 70 - 1 5 FT (MAX) 60 INTERCEPTOR .-. DRAIN 50 40 Z 0. Q w 30 w 20 10 0 NOTES: 1. BORINGS BY DODDS GEOSCIENCES. 2. TOPOGRAPHY BY BURTON REAMER, PLS. 3. SOIL CONTACTS VARY ACROSS ANY SITE AND VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE CONTACTS SHOWN SHOULD BE EXPECTED. 0' 10' 20' 40' CONCEPTUAL NGUYEN RESIDENCE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: .1"=20' MEADOWDALE, WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT fMaOSC[ENCES INC. OPTION #3 AWN BY5b1-- FIGURE R0. :CKED BY E A E PROJECT 00. 07.10.02 20029921 Projectsl2D02-099.21 Nguyen S (WEST) 80-1 7 �i� w LUJ 50 z 0 40 > RAILROAD uj w 30 TRACKS 10 0 If LEGEND OPTION # DRAINAGE ALONG 75TH PLACE WEST, VERTICAL PILES AND TIED BACK BASEMENT WALL. = u 0 0 75TH PLACE WEST �' � z % t, z c� •Q z °— m .. cv — I o� :. I PROPOSED i RESIDENCECL Im I EXISTING 5' I7, — ROADVVAY COLLUVfUM`..:.: :...:�:. — .. _ .. BASEMENT 7 ( ) -s:. OSE TO MEDIUM .':• .:"•:' DE: E SAND AND ., SOFT— MEDIUM STIFF SILT' : - . — _ 72 _— 1.:.-:..:.: STIFF TO HAR SILT- 34 _ (NATIVE) — — - - TIEBACKS AUGER —CAST — — SOLDIER PILE WALL PILES T m ITOP OF BORING 39 SPT N—VALUE (BLOWS/FOOT) ?� INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT LGROUND WATER BOTTOM OF BORING 0' 10' 20, 40' HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=20' INTERCEPTOR DRAIN S' (EAST) r-- 80 70 411 LJ.I 50 � u z 40 0 Q w 30 w 20 10 0 NOTES: 1. BORINGS BY DODDS GEOSCIENCES. 2. TOPOGRAPHY BY BURTON REAMER, PLS. 3. SOIL CONTACTS VARY ACROSS ANY SITE AND VARIATIONS. BETWEEN THE CONTACTS SHOWN SHOULD BE EXPECTED. FlOURE NO. OWN Or �M_ NGUYEN RESIDENCE CONCEPTUAL CHECKED V--M& 2 D MEADOWDALE, WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT DATE PROJECT NO. fMGE0SC El' BINC OPTION #4 07.10.02 20029921 RIl Proj ects'2002 Res idencelcad120D29902. D WG