Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
16200 75TH PL W.PDF
111111111111 6099 16200 75TH PL. W PLANNING DATA 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 11 STREET FILE Name: c,' Date: _ V ';te Address: I�7-OO t 'P Tax Parcel Project Description: V\zj S�ir- F Plan Check #: l�V� avi 0033� Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES /l Zoning: Map Page: Corner Lot: (YES / Flag Lot: (YES / pe Critical Areas Determination #: CMS -01 0 oe>3 [a Study Required - S} 40 of s ❑ Waiver SEPA Determination: ❑ Exempt ❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) @--Fe'e 9--Checklist 93,'APO List with notarized form Required Setbacks Street: Sid: t 6 � � �. Side: Q 3 Actual Setbacks Street: f Side: ��r ,are Side: �� Rear: 4' El Detached Structures: �1 U R9CI42F125:Q.� �P V"�V "� � Oh 2f3i� �' � dtQ.S✓��R. ❑ Fences/Trellises: ❑ Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: �tairs Deck: v 9 Buildin Height Datum Point: 5 Srv%, t� Datum Elevation: Maximum Height Allowed: ?$, Actual Height: •? 6' �3 Other Parking Required: Parking Provided: 3'� Lot Area: -� wtQ Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: Lot Coverage Calculations: ADU Created: (YES / (9 Subdivision: aoco 6 p 3 Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES /(NO Comments Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 07-1409.doc • • Nsl Main Office 17311 — 135`h Ave NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County May 4, 2010 Mr. Mike and Ms. Nancy Gold 15225 14th Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Literature and Plan Review Letter 16200-751h Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 819609 Dear Mr. and Ms. Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 E. Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509)665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for the residential project located at 16200-75`h Place West in Edmonds, Washington. INTRODUCTION We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the project site dated February 12, 2010. For use in preparing this review, we have been provided with geotechnical engineering evaluations for properties near your projects, which are on file with the City of Edmonds. These include a report by GeoEngineers, Inc. for the property at 16310 — 75`h Place West, dated September 20, 1988, and reports and letters by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. for the property at 160XX — 75`h Place West, dated May 26, 1998, June 14, 1998, June 8, 2000, and October 30, 2000. Donna L. Breske, PE, has provided us with three civil engineering plan sheets for the project. Sheet 1 of 3, titled "Grading, TESC & Profiles for Mike and Nancy Gold," is undated. Sheet 2 of 3 is titled "Road, Drainage & TESC Details for Mike and Nancy Gold SFR" and is dated April 6, 2010, and sheet 3 of 3 is titled "Clearing and Tree Removal Plan for Mike Gold South House" dated March 31, 2010. We have been provided with plan sheets A-1 through A-8, titled "Gold Residence — South," by Randall J. Munson, dated March 31, 2010. We have been provided with plan sheets S-1 through S-5, titled "The Gold Residence — South," dated March 31, 2010, and structural calculations titled "Mike and Nancy Gold Residence (South) — CST H Literature and Plan Review Lett 16200-75'' Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 Site Address: 16200-75`h Place West, Edmonds, WA," dated March 31, 2010, by Reed & Associates, PS. We have been requested to review geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report. LITERATURE REVIEW The report titled "Geotechnical Consultation — Residential Site — 16300 Block, 75`h Place West — Meadowdale — Edmonds, Washington," by GeoEngineers (File No. 1403-01-2), dated September 20, 1988, provides an evaluation of the property south of your planned two -lot development. The surface conditions are described as moderate to steep west -northwest -facing slopes between 75t' Place West and the railroad right-of-way, which are similar to the surface conditions on your properties. Four test pits exposed a surficial layer of loose/soft silty sand/sandy silt extending to depths of three to five feet. Underlying the loose/soft soils, the test pits exposed stiff gray silt that increased in hardness with depth. No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits. The subsurface conditions described by GeoEngineers are similar to the conditions encountered by our geotechnical borings on your properties. The GeoEngineers report indicates that a landslide encompassing these properties occurred during the winter of 1946-47, and notes that the installation of sanitary sewers and storm drains in the Meadowdale slide area have lowered groundwater levels and reduced the landslide hazard. However, some risk of landsliding still exists. They concluded in 1985 that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. They noted that observations of groundwater levels in nearby monitoring wells during the course of their consultation for this project confirmed that the water table in the vicinity of the site had declined to levels commensurate with this lower risk. We concur with the GeoEngineers assessment of an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. The GeoEngineers report provided recommendations directed toward avoiding localized slope stability problems and minimizing damage to the residence in the event that significant movements occur. They recommended that site grading take place during periods of dry weather to minimize disturbance of the moisture sensitive soils on the site and prompt revegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the time the soils were exposed. They recommended that the residence be set back at least 25 feet from the top of the steep slope along the west property boundary and that no fill be placed within 10 feet of the top of that slope. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Literature and Plan Review Letto 9 16200-75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 3 They recommended that surface water runoff from the roof and other impervious surfaces be collected and conducted via tightline off site to a culvert beneath the railroad tracks. Since groundwater was not encountered in the test pits, a system of subsurface cut-off drains was not considered necessary. Footing drains were recommended around the residence, which would also drain to the tightline and under the tracks west of the site. Foundations were to bear on the stiff native silt or on structural fill extending to the competent native soil, with a recommended design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). To accommodate possible ground movement, they recommended that continuous spread footings be designed with sufficient stiffness to allow loss of support over a horizontal distance of 20 feet with minimal deflection, and that the design allow for loss of support at any one isolated spread footing. Alternatively, GeoEngineers recommended designing the foundation system as a "rigid box" that could sustain rotation or displacement without sustaining structural damage. The recommendations for soil parameters for the design of basement retaining walls were similar to the values presented in our report. The reports and letters by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. for the property at 160XX — 75"' Place West, dated May 26 and June 14, 1998, and June 8 and October 30, 2000 provide an evaluation for a site approximately 200 to 300 feet north of your planned two -lot development. The surface conditions are described as a slope down from 75`h Place West covered with blackberry brush and small shrubs, to the proposed building site, which is described as gently sloping down to the west and covered with long grass and small shrubs. These conditions are similar to the surface conditions on your properties. Three geotechnical borings are described in the documents from Dodds Geosciences ranging in depth from approximately 24 to 34 feet in depth. The borings indicated that the site is underlain by 14 to 18 feet of soft to firm silts that are interlayered with sand lenses. The soft silt is compressible. Underlying the soft surficial soils, the Dodds report described stiff to very hard silty clay. The subsurface conditions described by Dodds Geosciences are similar to the conditions encountered by our geotechnical borings on your properties, except their borings found that the soft surficial soils were deeper, and it seems that significantly more groundwater was encountered. Dodds Geosciences recommended drilled auger cast piles for a deep foundation system with a soldier pile wall to support the slope along the east side of the site. Their recommendations for soil parameters for basement retaining wall design were similar to the values presented in our report. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Literature and Plan Review Lett* 16200-75'b Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 Generally these two reports for residential projects near your properties encountered similar surface and subsurface conditions, with generally deeper soft soils and more groundwater described north of your properties. We did not encounter significant groundwater within the planned building area or in the slope above. Our foundation recommendations included improving the subgrade with a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls. We recommended that isolated pad footings not be used and that all the foundation elements be structurally tied together as a unit. We recommended the residence be set back at least 20 feet from the top of the lower slope and that the downhill (west) footing lines be embedded at least four feet below grade. A design bearing pressure of 1,000 psf was recommended for the foundations. PLAN REVIEW We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and found the plans to be in general accordance with our geotechnical report. The planned project will improve the control of stormwater runoff on the site, reduce slope inclinations at the toe of the upper slope, and employ retaining walls to support portions of the slope, all of which will improve stability of the site as long as the engineered systems are maintained. In our opinion the plans and specifications prepared by the structural engineer conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In our opinion the erosion and sediment control plan is adequate with respect to site conditions and the findings of our report. The foundations are shown with a setback of at least 20 feet from the top of the steep slope in the western portion of the property as recommended in our report. The foundations were designed using a soil bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and are shown to bear on a two foot thick layer of rock spall structural fill as recommended in our report. The footings are shown to be embedded at least 18 inches below the surrounding grade, with 48-inch embedment on the west side of the structure as we recommended. The structural calculations indicate that footings and retaining walls were designed using a passive pressure of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), an unrestrained active pressure of 45 pcf, and a restrained active pressure of 65 pcf as recommended in our report. The coefficient of friction used in the calculations was 0.30 and is more conservative than our recommendation of 0.35. The reinforced concrete retaining walls are shown to extend three feet above the ground surface on the upslope (east) side of the residence to provide a catchment area in case shallow sloughing failures occur on the slopes above the residence. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Literature and Plan Review Lett • 16200-75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 The plans indicate footing drains, consisting of a four -inch minimum diameter perforated pipe surrounded with washed rock and wrapped in filter fabric, are to be placed around the perimeter footings in accordance with our recommendations. The plans also include a capillary break and vapor barrier to be installed under slabs -on -grade where moisture control is important, as recommended in our geotechnical report. Grading plans indicate cuts and fills east and west of the residence to establish 3H:1 V slopes between small block walls. The reduced inclination of the lower section of the slope and removal of loose surficial soils should improve the stability of the slope. Keystone block walls less than four feet in height are indicated east and west of the planned residence. The plans note that Compac Keystone Block is to be used for these walls. However, we recommend that the walls be constructed with the larger Standard 21.5-inch Keystone Block and we understand that the civil engineer has amended the wall sections on the plans to indicate use of the larger block. We have included design calculations for walls less than four feet tall with this letter. Drains are indicated behind the walls, which connect to the storm drain system. It may be necessary to install jute netting or other erosion control systems on the slopes depending on the conditions encountered during construction. Structural fill placement is planned for a driveway on the slope east of the planned residence. The plans indicate that the subgrade for the driveway fill will be benched into competent native soil on the slope, and imported granular material will be used for the structural fill. Cuts of up to nine feet are indicated for the eastern portion of the garage retaining walls. The garage walls have been designed to support the slope in this area. We should monitor the excavation to evaluate slope stability and make recommendations for shoring if needed. MINIMUM RISK STATEMENT Provided that the recommendations in this letter and the geotechnical report dated February 12, 2010 are followed during construction, the areas disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties from soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading and development should not increase the potential for soil movement. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Literature and Plan Review Lett • 16200-750' Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 CLOSURE We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael D. Rundquist, PE Project Manager MDR:lam One Copy Submitted cc: Robert Hughs — Reed and Associates, PS (Three Copies) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. if TONE 0 9 INING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3.5.1 Build 124 Project: Mike Gold Project No: 819609 Case: Case 1 Design Method: Rankine-w/Batter (modified soil interface) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: A c Retained Zone 26 0 Foundation Soil 26 0 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 pullout: 1.50 overturning: 1.50 shear: 1.50 bearing: 2.00 bending: 1.50 AnalysisNew Case Unit Type: Leveling Pad: Wall Ht: BackSlope: Surcharge: Standard 21.5" / 120.00 pcf Crushed Stone 3.66 ft 20.00 deg. slope, LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Date: 412012010 Designer: MDR 7 PC 115 o x n• 5 115 LI uncertainties: 1.50 connection: 1.50 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 0.00 ft 10.00 ft long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.77 1.55 3.20 N/A N/A Calculated Bearing Pressure: 5661566 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.36 ft NOTE: THESE CALCULATIONSARE FOR PRELIMINARYDESIGN ONLYAND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTR UCTION WITHO UT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 5/4/2010 Page 1 - .. - ynr ..` . 1•- 0 1 egen � -:- i ,v • t dzs tZ� �- 2 �Y � •Baer•. -'—� North -Edmonds Earth*,Subsidence:and :ram. Landslide Hazaird-Area 80 �-- See ECDC 23:020 B 1 `a'nd'EQDQ-.19.1.0) I { � �'• � ! (Note-Baundariesare'iheapproximate.extent. of previous laridsl�dirig haar+ds are present- ad'acerrtto:the landslide boundaries) '�f.;` Steep Slope #areas - _ ! ' s> r l —' - _- ; - T `S1ope.ofi40°lo:oc steeper:and { {�r {'� with '.Vertical relief of ten'(10) ft ormore: See ECDC 23:80-020.-B2) y r equal to the he 'ht Minimum buffer eq g of the steep slope or 50 feet, whichever - ttjj ' / ;/. /y/� _: ' ' is greater (see ECDC 23-80.070 AA)- '� (The buffer shown -is the minimum buffer u adjacent to. the. North Edmonds Subsidence` f Landslide Hazard Area; a similar and � �. `} buffer would apply to steep slope areas, )) -= kk `^ - but is not shown on this map for clarity)J, 2 ft Topographic Contour -u - Vertical datum: NAV088 ® Parcel ^ :may _ _:Y:. �' '..♦.:�%� ;-'.': =� :C. _xy_ j �2oQ- 7 5 B . - - - - _— •sir. - 200 00 ; 0 1.r :•r. }� _>�__ y �::M3 ' ,C ^'tit �' Pj �. 1.y ,3 r• I Scale in Feet. ' ;•-s 1 N A i C14 TES AD_NA6AE7MT 1 - C .'s.. ..r - - s•.� lz d-- •�• F'•(,(k'� %� G�t'�'' � t �' wr-�3 �.s;-.s '"� j 'w.` _ ..�-i .E: - Dm:.'ar,.i•-�: - MAY 6 DEVELONAENT SEMCES CTR. �w E' CITY OF EDMONDS SYR E El-_-`� � Lc- • VVM177 PAAP Not to Scale /(, 2- CC) -- 751-l`1 PC. vice W • i:,�th s: sr: . _ •�_ =.c tRuth PF S.. Project Site a r 1!:-4111 t — - t65ith s: c.•_ • ta�a� =t c �� •- Ve .a= 7= P=d.%t%!; y 0=9 HAViEn Edmonds A A STREET FLE Grading Quantity Calculations For Michael and Nancy Gold South House Date Prepared: April 20, 2010 Prepared for: Michael & Nancy Gold Site Address: 16200 75rh PL. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 GISTER ��/i✓ AL Prepared Prepared by. - Donna L. Breske, P. E. 6621 Foster Slough Road, Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone: (425) 334-9980, Fax: (425) 334-7380 Email: donnabreske@comcast.net �C�1�WEP MAY e 6 2010 DEVELCK4 0'7 ":ERV'CES CTR. CITY OF ED?J'CKCS CUT ON S1 TE.• 1,095 CY FILL• 855 CY FILL IN RIGHT-OF-WAY 172 CY CUT IN ROW 2 CY CUT & FILL EXHIBI T-A VERAGE END METHOD MIKE GOLD SOWN LOT 16200 757H PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 20, 2010 Grading Quantiti Mike Gold House, South mouse 3:1, Grading 16200 75th PL. W. Date: 20-Apr-10 ;ut cy on site(excludes ftgs) 1,095 Cut in ROW 1 Fill (CY) on site 841 Fill (CY) in row 172 (excluds ftgs) Section Cut (sfl Ave End(sfl Distance(ft) Volume(cy) Fill(sfl Ave End(sfl Distance(ft) Volume(cy) 2.00 1.00 38.00 43.0 2.00 713 2.00 53 40.00 1382.0 2.00 1,284 2.00 95 42.00 1185.0 1,598 1.00 59 1,413 1.00 52 44.00 3195.0 1640.0 2,352 2.00 174 905 2.00 67 46.00 1509.0 170.0 1,134 2.00 84 427 0.30 5 48.00 758.0 683.0 397 2.00 29 840 2.00 62 50.00 35.0 996.0 18 2.00 1 1,234 2.00 91 52.00 1,471.0 922 2.00 68 1,168 2.00 86 54.00 1843.0 864.0 1,710 2.00 127 820 2.00 61 56.00 1577.0 775.0 1,649 2.00 122 740 2.00 55 58.00 1721.0 704.0 1,736 2.00 129 675 2.00 50 60.00 1751.0 646.0 1,609 1.00 60 635 1.00 24 62.00 1467.0 623.0 1,471 2.00 109 660 2.00 49 64.00 1475.0 697.0 1,264 2.00 94 703 2.00 52 66.00 1052.0 709.0 526 2.00 39 530 2.00 39 68.00 351.0 2.00 2.00 Cut & Fill in Right -of -Way, 75th PL. W. 66.00 179.0 1.00 520 2.00 38 68.00 860.0 2.00 958 2.00 71 70.00 1,056.0 2.00 660 2.00 49 72.00 264.0 8 2.00 1 159 2.00 12 74.00 15.0 53.0 8 2.00 1 27 2.00 2 76.00 2.00 1.00 Page 1 CUT 401 CY FILL: 398 CY CUT & FILL EXHIBI T A VERAGE END METHOD FOR AREA WITHIN 200' OF PUGET SOUND MIKE GOLD SOUTH LOT 16200 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 20, 2010 Grading Quantities Mike Gold House, South House 3:1, Grading within 200 ft of Shoreline Date: 20-Apr-10 16200 75th PL. W. By. DLI3 277 LF of Foundation within 200' setback Cut (CY) within 200 ft boundary, (exclds foundations) 401 Fill (CY) within 200 ft bndry, (exclds Ends) 398 Cut Under House within 200' bndry, (excludes fnds.) 394 Fill under garage, (excludes foundations) 2 Over -ex ftg rock spalls: 62 cy Cut for Footings; 185 cy Fill Above and around footings: 144 cy Section Cut Ave End Distance Volume Fill Ave End Distance Volume (sf) (sf) (ft) (cy) (sf) (sf) (ft) (cy) 32.00 2.00 1.00 34.00 2.00 1.00 36.00 2.00 22 1.00 1 38.00 43.0 2.00 713 2.00 53 40.00 1382.0 2.00 1,284 2.00 95 42.00 1185.0 1,573 2.00 116 1,413 2.00 105 44.00 3145.0 1640.0 2,327 2.00 172 905 2.00 67 46.00 1509.0 170.0 1,134 2.00 84 328 0.30 4 48.00 758.0 486.0 379 2.00 28 453 2.00 34 50.00 419.0 2.00 339 2.00 25 52.00 259.0 2.00 172 2.00 13 54.00 85.0 2.00 43 2.00 3 56.00 2.00 2.00 58.00 2.00 2.00 60.00 1.00 1.00 62.00 2.00 2.00 64.00 2.00 2.00 66.00 2.00 2.00 68.00 Page 1 CUT.• 592 CY FILL: 8 CY EXHIBI T CUT & FILL UNDER HOUSE -AVERAGE END METHOD MIKE GOLD SOUTH LOT 16200 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 20, 2010 Grading Quantiti Mike Gold House, South House 3:1, Grading 16200 75th PL. W. Date: 20-Apr-10 439 LF of foundation Cut under house & garage (exclds ftgs) 592 Fill under house & garage: 8 Over -ex ftg rock spalls:98 cy Cut for Footings; 293 cy Fill Above and around footings: 228 cy Section 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 62.00 64.00 66.00 68.00 Cut (so Ave End(sf) Distance(ft) Volume(cy) 2.00 2.00 2.00 1,598 1.00 59 3195.0 2,305 2.00 171 1415.0 1,049 2.00 78 683.0 359 2.00 27 35.0 18 2.00 1 470 2.00 35 939.0 871 2.00 64 802.0 734 2.00 54 665.0 600 2.00 44 534.0 469 1.00 17 404.0 333 2.00 25 262.0 179 2.00 13 95.0 48 2.00 4 2.00 Fill(sf) Ave End(sf) Distance(ft) Volume(cy) 1.00 2.00 12 2.00 1 24.0 24 2.00 2 24.0 24 2.00 2 24.0 12 2.00 1 16 2.00 1 31.0 16 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Page 1 InC. 1S90 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division October 22, 2010 Donna Breske 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 RE: Driveway Slope Waiver Requests for 16200 75tt' PL W (BLD20100339) Dear Ms. Breske, MIKE COOPER MAYOR This letter is in response to your request dated April 5, 2010 to exceed the maximum allowable driveway slope of 14% up to 18% on a portion of the driveway serving 16200- 76"' P1 W. After review of the submitted letter and civil plans for the development it is understood that the request to exceed the 14% driveway slope is for a limited portion of the driveway, as shown in the attached document, and that this area will not exceed 18%. The remaining portions of the driveway, at the approach to the street and the garage, will be constructed at slopes less than 8%. The proposal is found to be in compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.060 and is therefore approved with slopes shown in the attached document. Sincerely, iv ". fX ROBERT S. ENGLISH, P.E. City Engineer c: Street file bld20100339 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • • DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. April 5, 2010 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Ph: 425-334-9980 Snohomish, WA 98290 Fax: 425-334-7380 e-mail: donnabreske@,comcast.net City of Edmonds, Attn: Public Works Director 121 5`n Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Driveway Slope Deviation Request Reference: Michael & Nancy Gold -South House, SFR, New Construction 16200 75`n PL W., Edmonds, WA 98020 A deviation is requested in order to allow an 18% driveway slope for the referenced single family house. Per ECDE 18.80.060.D.1, Driveway slopes shall not exceed 14 percent unless authorized by the public works director in accordance with ECDC 18.80.060.D.2. In accordance with ECDC 18.80.060.D.2, the Public Works Director may authorize driveway slopes to exceed 14 percent, up to a maximum of 20 percent if it is determined that: a. The driveway is the only economically and environmentally reasonable alternative; b. The driveway will not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard; c. The police and fire chief concur in allowing the increase driveway slope; d. The public health, safety and general welfare will not be adversely affected. Reason supporting approval of the deviation are: 1. Access to the site is from 751h PL W. The house and driveway have been oriented so the driveway meets 75`n at the lowest elevation, 72, along the 751n PL. W. frontage. 2. A pedestrian walkway exists on the opposite side of 75`h PL. W., the east side. The west side of 751n, where the new driveway will intersect the street has no pedestrian facilities. Furthermore, due to grading.west of the 751n PL. pavement, the slope is not conducive to pedestrians. 3. The landing area at the base of the driveway, (the garage apron area), is large enough to maneuver EMT vehicles and turn around so that they can re-enter 75`n PL. W. nose first. 4. The design of the driveway shallows from 18% to 7.5% at the intersection with 75`n PL. W. The driver therefore will site at a relatively mild slope when scanning oncoming traffic on 751n before entering. Sincerely, Donna L. Breske, P.E. 2- 1 K- MAY v 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR CITY OF EDi! ONDS 8 D -09EF-1 RE •OR 3Nn AiOdOdd a O qOq O� Q) y � . �Z) o� I � Z� J O O O � Y (N C) J W J Q V j c O RE 88E IN ti 0f 0 J v � W ~U00 W Um tn2� Q�u 200 U � U W Wg 41 co00� Zp m�Z 4Jjz �EV:� a�� a II �1 30VNVO 30 3OV3 I 30VNV0 30 )Ova I r� 3NI7 IlI3d0?!d C0 0 0 I r1 of N 00 0 0 —0 0 N Donna L. Breske, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Road, Snohomish, Wa. 98290 Phone: (425) 334-9980, Fax: (425) 334-7380 ' donnabreske@comcast.net April 28, 2010 City of Edmonds 121 5`h Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Traffic Analysis is not required for referenced single family home. Reference: Michael & Nancy Gold -South House, Single Family Home, New Construction 16200 75`h PL W., Edmonds, WA 98020 Per city of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements Handout #E82, neither a Traffic Impact Analysis Report nor a Traffic Impact Fee is required for the proposed single family home to be constructed at 16220 75`h PL. W. Specifically, Handout #E82 states a project that involves the demolition of one single family residential unit and replacing it with on new single family unit on the same lot is exempt from both a Traffic Impact Fee and a Traffic Impact Analysis Report. A single family home currently exists on the site of the proposed new house. The existing house will be demolished and replaced with a new house. Sincerely, Donna L. Breske, P.E STREET FLE HAy 0 6 2010 i>;dT'bPliVlCES C Clay OF ECti40RJCS Tip. thC.1gc�0 April 2, 2010 r� 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mike & Nancy Gold 15225 —14`h Ct SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Subject: Determination regarding Critical Areas Checklist: CRA20100032 Dear Applicant: Enclosed please find a copy of the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted. GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The 'DETERMINATION" reached by the City is located on the reverse side of the form (bottom of page). IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO RETAIN A COPY OF THIS CRITICAL AREAS "DETERMINATION" FOR YOUR RECORDS. Please examine this Determination for additional requirements. You may need to submit additional information such as an Environmental Checklist or Critical Areas Study. The Determination for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted is a site -specific determination, not a project -specific determination. YOU MUST SUBMIT A COPY OF THE CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST and DETERMINATION WITH ALL PERMIT APPLICATIONS OR YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Permit applications include the following: Building Permits Conditional Use Permits Subdivisions Variances Applications to the ADB* Land Use Applications Any other development permit applications. Thank you, Planning Secretary C: Robert Hughes *Architectural Design Board Enclosure RED 6 2010 DEVELCPNIEV\1 i cZRVlCES Ci; i. oily OF EDMONDS C:\My Documents\LINDA\Critical Areas Checklist.doc • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sictor rite - Hekinan. Janan Mr 14v `17C. 1 aye City adEdmonds Development Services Department Planning Division . Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas -inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date Rec City Receip #: Critical Areas File #: /'i/1i4o'14/ dD�2 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $155.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include . other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete 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 onAhe b ]f of the owner as listed .belo--}}w. SIGNATURE OF APMCANT/AGeff DATE 4 V U Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject, land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and postin tendant to this licati SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE �� U MII:Z + NNXCy (_O Owner/Mnt: Name Street,A-ddres fYl �t C City State I Zip Telephone: Email address (optional): Applicant Representative: Name Street Address EDMAI AS t,� - `;� SC)Z $ City State Zip Telephone: 3 CPO 96E- L S) G Email Address (optional): • #P20 • C,IiCI Critical Areas Checklist CAFile No: Site Information soils/ tM hy/ hydrology/ vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: 2. Property Tax Account Number: od 513106600zdd a�5t31e6i�d0 o0. 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): • `f" 9 �� .S 4. Is this site currently developed? . yes; no. If yes; how is site developedT \I kCA—Nr ajo 9 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 306/o (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water:_; Approx. Depth:_ 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: N Q ; Approx. Depth: :NIA What season(s) of the year? u/A 8. Site is in the floodway _ NO floodplain M O . of a watercourse. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? V (What time of year? 'M/Ac ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed 1/ ; urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: N For City Staff Use Only 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? N I A 2. Site is Zoned? F"5 — v 0 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? AA d eAeWOod —•� A_4TCA1 Ara VWAA A S 4n d U 11540851 y5--�u ►• aid 15�25 •i• �oo�cs 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? YC6 e-yoc7 o ! Gl/V\ GI a n ktvLZ cLLV� G vim. 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? C 5 SITE DETERMINATION X STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed by: ail U1;if L/O Lot Al _ Date: b �•• • %D 1 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist.doc/4.15.2009 • 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location ` 7510 462d Street SW & -Tax Acct Number!, 00513106000109, �a a f f j 16200 t Piace West , $' 7, y t 005b106000200, and 00513106000400. , { Determination STUDY REQUIRED~* s'f,;File Numbers CRA20100031 antl CRA20100032 r Owner Mike; Gold t Applicant R h y obert Hug es, ('lf8clf�gl'bU11d..• e ,�� ��ii"rs�s � � .'�r }�� . � k?,i� � ' ��. l`- 1� 1 t During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain (or be adjacent to) critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas (Erosion Hazard Area and Landslide Hazard Area), pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. The LiDAR map (attached) indicates that there is a moderate to steep slope both east and west of the properties. Soils on the property are identified as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam in the 15-25% to 25-70% range, which classifies the site as a potential erosion hazard. These slopes qualify as potential "geologically hazardous areas." Also, these properties are located within the designated Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. Please contact a Permit Coordinator in the Building Division at 425.771.0220 or consult ECDC 19.10 if you have questions about developing property in this neighborhood. This review applies to both lots. Depending on the locadon and project proposed relative to the identiRed critical areas, certain studies and reports may be required. Please contact the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 ifM►hen you have a speciRc development proposal for this site to discuss the various permits that will be required. Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.220. Similarly, certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas requirements (ECDC 23.40,230). If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed or exempt activity, please contact a Planner for more information. Page 1 of 3 :; GeneralCr�fjcalAreas;Report'R . ufre►inents;a,k,; f =`zfe � ,k. ` � ` ., ` { .t i;;: 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 for Erosion;'Haiarol;Ar�eas..,' 4„ 4r t } f F It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. • Erosion Hazard areas include Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater, among others. • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the Geologically Hazardous Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. • Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the director's discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required. `,De�elopimentJ Proposals Associated with Erosion sHaard A►�eas..: Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area and must meet additional criteria. • For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance ECDC 18.30 will be considered to meet the Critical Areas "Study Required" determination. The determination of "suitable slope stability" will be made by both the Planning and Engineering divisions of the City of Edmonds. • In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. Page 2 of 3 • Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC 23.40.090.D • Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. Sfudy Reguir�ment for°Landslide Haiard It appears that this property contains or is adiacent 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.B. • 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. Development `Proposals Associated ',,: a dslide Hazard Areas:.. 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. Gina Coccia, Associate Planner March 31, 2010 Name, Title Signature Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.we.us. Page 3 of 3 a �� •Ra .....r_aaa - 1 a_ II :- 'FI �, • - . .,, _ { Y Le end. 1 �: � � :.North Edm. onds'. Earth Subsidence and:4. Landslide.; Hazard Area: =- ►►F� r ,� (See ECDC 23 80 00 B 1 and ECDC 19.1.0) ' :(Note : Boundaries are the ap- J. — ate:extent. �,; 7 go: of.previous landslidmg hazarrJs are:present t 1.: � _ —1, 1 i� a adjacent to the landslide boundanes) St - Slope Slope of 40% or -steeper and .,:..with. a venc�al relief of fen (10) ff or more , �,1 , el (See ECDC 23:80.020_Y] r. V. - to the hei 'fit Minimum buffer equal t M 4 9 of the steep slope or 50 feet, whichever r , is greater (see ECDC 23.80.070 AA) he buffer shown is the minimum buffer i L adjacent to.the North Edmonds Subsidence - <l and Landslide Hazard Area; a similar �buffer would a I to stee slope areas, l� 'i{, k} Pp y P P: Jp' ��! ' but is not shown on this map for clarity) ' �,� 1, . �� u� r � �y �'` •� �� tr • 1 - \ 2 ft Topographic Contour .Vertical datum: NAVD88 t 3 � yq '^•.'1 it NA- ® Parcel2,00 ` �; ,}, s ►-; 'uc.. 0 100 200 z•-fit •� 'AY� , • ��� K� � • } , M,!r� • , r S �"1 , »"�.r"'zi .r .+. ' , c.�. N: is w �• — .� He VA ,;' c �i�` '��' tea• �+f , 1 MR y Sl �., ..,. iN, 1 Ni.r 'F .R. tif•� ! '* � N W ._ � n N 3y»h c.� '�Tfry l \ . >..,i� t I DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E April 5, 2010 City of Edmonds 121 51h Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Ph: 425-334-9980 Snohomish, WA 98290 Fax: 425-334-7380 e-mail: donnabreske@comcast.net Subject: Direct Drainage Discharge to Puget Sound qAVED BY Reference: Michael & Nancy Gold, South Residence ENGINEERING 16206 75`h PL. W., Edmonds, WA 98020 o%�o Please find attached a narrative prepared by this engineer and information from city records which concludes that on -site detention for the above referenced project is not required. The site is in very close proximity to Puget Sound and a Meadowdale Drainage Investigation Report prepared in April 2000 by R.W. Beck concludes the piping conveyance systems within the drainage basin have adequate capacity for full build -out of 100-year peak flows. As a result on -site detention is not proposed for the development of the site. Sincerely, ��Jp MAY - 6 2010 Donna L. Breske, P.E. D_E'VEs CFi. UJ SERVICES CTR. \_ EET FLE CITY OF EDMONDS TR • I MEADOWDALE BEACH QJG�� 3 156TH ST SW 3 COUNTY PARK N HAINES WHARF. w SITE Q RD MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 168TH ST. SW VICINITY MAP MIKE & NANC Y GOLD, SOUTH HOUSE 16220 75 th PL W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 DIRECT DRAINAGE DISCHARGE TO PUGET SOUND MICHAEL & NANCY GOLD — SINGLE FAMILY HOME -SOUTH LOT 16220 75TH PL. W., EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 1, 2010 REASON FOR REPORT: The 1992 DOE Manual Minimum Requirement #5; Streambank Erosion Control applies only to situations where stormwater runoff is discharged directly or indirectly to a stream. Thus, per the 1992 DOE since discharge from this site does not enter a stream, no detention is required. Furthermore, per the city of Edmonds detention system fro new impervious area may be eliminated, if the site is in close proximity to Puget Sound, and if it can be demonstrated that the downstream pipe conveyance system, which outfalls to Puget Sound, has sufficient capacity to accept the un-detained flows. CONCLUSION: Per Meadowdale Drainage Investigation prepared by R.W. Beck and dated April 2000, the pipes in Basin "D" and down to Haines Wharf have adequate capacity for full build-out-100-year peak flows. The subject site lies within Basin "D" of the R.W. Beck Report, (see attached map from the Report), Specifically, Section 3, Page 11 of said report states, "All of these pipelines in Basin "D" and down to Haines Wharf have adequate capacity for full build -out 100-year peak flows. OVERVIEW: The site is located at 16220 751h PL. W., just uphill of Haines Wharf. The west boundary of the site is approximately 100-feet from the edge of the water of Puget Sound. A single family home is proposed for construction on the site. An existing unoccupied and uninhabitable house is currently on the site. The house is proposed to be demolished and a new access provided from 751h PL. W. will be used for the new house. Michael & Nancy Gold -South House -Direct Storm Discharge FURTHER DISCUSSION OF R.W. BECK DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION: Per the R.W. Beck Report the flow for the 100-year full build -out of Basin "D" is calculated at 7.8 cfs. Additionally, per the R.W. Report, the existing conditions, April 2000, for the l 00-year storm are 4.2 cfs. (See Table 2, Stormwater Peak Flows from the R.W. Beck Report). For this project, coupled together with the adjacent Mike Gold project to the north, an additional 0.14 cfs for the 100-year storm will be added to Basin "D". (See attached Water Works Calculations and supporting Exhibits prepared by this engineer). This 0.14 cfs adds to the April 2000 calculated 100-year rate of 4.2 cfs, and contributes to a portion of the overall 100-year full build -out rate of 7.8 cfs as identified in the R.W. Beck Report. DOWNSTREAM PIPING SYSTEM DISCUSSION: Storm drainage flows from the site will be connected, via a drainage easement from the site to the north, to an exiting catch basin which is labeled 1-90 within a Basin Map from the R.W. Beck Report and attached herein. Flows will be directed downhill to the west in a 15" CMP pipe segments within the city right-of-way of 162"d Ave. S.W. Then the flows will enter a catch basin and head north in another 15' CMP in the city right of way of 75`h Ave. W. at which point they enter another CB and are directed to the west. From this CB, the pipe increases to a 36" CP and travels under the BNRR and outflows to Puget Sound. Prepared By: Donna L. Breske P.E. Phone: 425-334-9980 Michael & Nancy Gold -South House -Direct Storm Discharge !.i: its 1� y .......... ........ r" ........ ... 44 . .... . ............ ) ........ ... . ... ....... .......... 'o ... . ............. . .......... ..... ?t W ... ......... .. . .......... . . . -- - ----------- ............ . . . ....... ......... .... ............. ........... .......... I SITE 16220 75th PL W. SUBBASIN DESIGNATION SUBBASIN BOUNDARY SLIDE BOUNDARY* 0 500 SCALE IN F7 FIGURE 1 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION STUDY AREA MAP 7] w D E E E y N V) N. h y L y � Y ra O c) N C4 h r f� F d °00- 00 3 0 c c c -p c cm o� v_) v) cL) 03 N 0 � 0 O � CD V r N O 0o t` N O w 4 O co r r N r r7 V r C O v C O O m m f— cn 0 Cl) r O n r Ln i..i N N O r to CO C7 v p w O M •O m r N N O 03 M t` N O N CM r C7 O N c7 CD N C0 O N V O O E M O 0 w N co Ln t` N M O N t, 1� r tt r N O O y y t�1 C O II O r N CD CD r 0) Cl) o o N ri cri r ui o 0 O p y U .- w fn t1 r M O r M cn Co r) r X O O O O O r r O r O O w N c~i co co 3 a a »Go a a > a a L >a Q T T Q L L Q L U r L C f` +_... rL.. .Oj O Cf) Ct� N 00 O CD r cn cn Cn O CC) 1- N y O M r Go* N I� 1- r O r r C`') Cl) co N u Q ev Ln 0) y m t = Nm m m m r Tcts mm 2 C cII 7 U y N N m T m p a N r mmma)m U o U LL. in C .y rl C4 m Q m1,0 L- n v a m E d cp O y � O O Q 'C E y o CD o � C) a) O U r m ccu U C C n Lo co y m o a) cm C m O .0 E o � C T (D d .a O N cm: > CD` 0 c o r E Q CO CO y O T Cl)_ y N a� am— y N m > c o y •- c � E 3 y O C O Y U O y y N C U O CO 7 L d rn C 3 r 0 W LL. 0 U- r N M Cl FINDINGS7MD RECOMMENDATIONS from the south (Subbasin 0). Portions of this branch precede the 1984 work and are in fair condition. The branch cuts across the valley bottom and was intended to collect at least a portion of a small stream. The area also appears to be a small wetland and has been reported as a seepage area. The vegetation and deposition is limiting the effectiveness of this line, eliminating any inflow from the stream and perhaps allowing outflow from the system. Although it is no longer desirable to collect the stream flow, the system should be cleaned to prevent outflows. Installation of solid catch basin/manhole covers would stop collection and would reduce maintenance. The small stream is collected into the North Meadowdale Road trunk at the west end of the subbasin (see Report Map). The intake for the small stream now has a small trashrack that is subject to clogging. A replacement trashrack and headwall is recommended to ensure better collection. Overflows down North Meadowdale Road have been reported. A detail of a trashrack and headwall ' wit)i adequate surface area is shown in Appendix C. Two other inlets lie on the north side of the North Meadowdale Road trunk Both should have larger trashracks installed. Six seepage or wet areas were identified during the 1984 work. One, discussed above, should remain as is. Another is currently being eliminated by construction of a house (16123 North Meadowdale Road). The area at 16119 North Meadowdale. Road is very small. The area near 15910, 15917 and 15920 72"a Avenue W appears to be adequately handled by private french drains. Both slides and seepage have been reported on the Johanson property. The slides did not involve public property or drainage facilities. The uphill property owner, Mrs. Glantz, reportedly installed the additional drainage system requested by the City. Slope stability at this location remains the responsibility of the property owners. This property was the location of the stream prior to road and pipe installation. It still rests in the low point in the valley. Seepage in this area is to be expected. Elimination of seepage here would require that seepage following the topographic bottom of the valley would have to be collected. This would require a very deep french drain that would not be cost effective. BASIN D Basin D covers 21.5 acres and includes the steep and moderate slopes between 72"d Avenue W and 75' Place W. Seepage is heavy along the steep slope in the middle of the basin. The basin is partially developed, probably inhibited by steep slope and stability concerns OR The existing collection system includes both surface and groundwater components. Three separate groundwater collection systems he along the slope. These feed into a surface system along 75`t' Place W. Flow from Basin D combines with flow from Basin C near Haines Wharf and discharge to Puget Sound in a 36- inch RCP. I All of these pipelines in Basin D and down to Haines Wharf have adequate capacity for full build -out 100-year peak flows. i X0017722.123 V17100 R. W. Beck 3-11 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 13,930 SF 0.32 AC CN=98 TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA = 14,390 SF 0.33 AC CN=86 FROM ECDC 18.30.010 DERN1 AONS SEC71ONS CC, RR, & TT P2 = 1.5 IN PER 24-HR P10 = 2.5 IN PER 24-HR P100= 3.0 IN PER 24-HR DEVELOPED COND17ION-IMPERVIOUS AREA EXHIBIT MIKE GOLD PROJECTS 4-2-10 t f -7 DE7EN17ON SYSTEM �i SUB -BASIN �_ i� 1 ,BOUNDARY ' / i / ' AREA=27, 965 SF a '� ,S}b/f '/ ir 011 / / f i /� /! / r J It I f / 2 / 1.; 1 r r ,' /r t / �f % -------.✓ 41 FROM ECDC W0.010 DEnNI710NS SEC77ONS CC, RR, & TT P2 = 1.5 IN PER 24-HR P10 = 2.5 IN PER 24-HR TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 27,965 SF , P100= JO IN PER 24-HR 0.642 AC CN=85 TIME OF CONCENTRATION PRE -DEVELOPED SITE EXHIBIT MIKE GOLD PROJECTS 4-2-10 3/15/10 1:40:10 pm page 1 Mike Gold Meadowdale, 75th Ave W. BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: A10OX NAME: 100 YR, 24HR EXISTTNG SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.64 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERV PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 0.64 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.... : 85.00 TC.... . 20.55 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.18 cfs VOL: 0.08 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: A10X NAME: 10-YR 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.64 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL HYPE-....: TYPEIA PERV +�� PRECIPITATION....: ME 2.50 inches AREA..: 0.64 Acres INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TC..... 20.55 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.12 cfs VOL: 0.06 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: A2X NAME: 2YR, 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.64 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERV PRECIPITATION....: 1.50 inches AREA..: 0.64 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TC..... 20.55 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 41.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.2380 TcReach - Sheet L: 18.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.4440 TcReach - Sheet L: 52.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.1150 TcReach - Sheet L: 19.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1,.50 s:0.2000 PEAK RATE: 0.04 cfs VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min IMP 0.00 Acres 0.00 0.00 min (DO - yr qeu 100 -yr E xfsfi 0.32 U. 14 C i�c�'eaSe At 4/2/10 2:3:21 pm page 1 mike Gold Meadowdale, 75th Ave W. BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: B100D NAME: 10OYR, $4 HR DEVELOPOED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.65 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 0.33 Acres 0.32 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00 TC.... . 6.30 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0,32 cf s'l VOL: 0.12 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B10D NAME: 10 YRT, 24HR DEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.65 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL tYPE.... : TYPElA PERV IMP .... : 2.50 inches AREA..: 0.33 Acres 0.32 Acres 1, �PRECI•PITATION ``L'IME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00 TC.... 6.30 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.25 cfs VOL: 0.09 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B2D NAME: 2YR, 24 HR DEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.65 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....: 1.50 inches AREA..: 0.33 Acres 0.32 Acres TIME -INTERVAL .... : 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00 TC.... . 6.30 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 0.12 cfs VOL: 0.05 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min • 0 C m O CD co r m CR M co u N M M c0 ai v a ami t^DlpaMo rmi w) V) v) En z t; o 0 0 0 a) m a o n 0 r- Qj M M M m Y ll) M M m V O O O O O J �J co 0 o tO C O v w to to O tD r Cy O O CD N N N N O c o 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O M NO to tD tD a o O Cl! N M N M O CO O c0 0 0 0 0 0 v M M N O r O r O r a r 0 0 0 (D � N o V s Ql h tD CO tD r CD J C c tD ar0 N O h 3 M to � q c v a 00 oi v mm r O O N N n d 7 Cl) d M cri cn N, r 0 m 0 mCD m 130 r U U U c M to 00 O O ul O M r O to ~ C 7 7 b c) '7 co O> Z CL O O n N r Y O W o a`) o a # # rn c tLco } U U ( m U Z c m E N M U \_� 0o m ,® Es Z;;Qg N 1 00 n U O rn N I h W N Q W C� a CO N U�a ro L-Li cc oo 11 Oo j z C CL tO �n O CO wt 3 00 A ^o I �uj^ V xg4i Wa4i V e Wes_ WSW > V = V� LB LU ADI N o N ��,�' ` \ v6rR�y6 I• - ,\.@ 69 \ Rob IL 2 co t z 09— co N {� r I 22 Ian U Il py \ �i W'�,. -� `� (, 1�. ``�!•\ �` Pal 6 WSW loe e� i 00) uuu-1 aI � SFr 5 '� � \ •5 \ I � �` I '` _ I Cb IN •.\ o Ltd O aid .9 ii L9 ' Go Iron WSW`\°��O Q� Mitre �iv(cE � "Z8- ro STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN�Q inlet control conditions, which may be present or anticipated in the system, are not specifically addressed. Each pipe within the system is sized and sloped such that its barrel capacity at normal full flow (computed by Manning's Equation) is equal to or greater than the 25-Year design flow. The nomograph in Figure III-2.1 can be used for an approximate solution of Manning's Equation. For more precise results, or for partial pipe full conditions, solve Manning's Equation directly: V - 1.49 Rom" s"n n or, using the continuity equation, Q = AV where: Q 1.49 AR238"2 n Q - Discharge in cfs V - Velocity in fps A = Area in ft2 n - Manning's roughness coefficient Table III-2.2) R = Hydraulic radius = area/wetted s = Slope of the energy grade line in 9-ft'16 (see perimeter, in ft. in ft/ft For pipes flowing partially full, the actual velocity may be estimated from the hydraulic properties shown in Figure III-2.1 by calculating Qf,11 and Vf„11 and using the ratio of Q&.;gn/Qf„11 to find V and d (depth of flow). Table III-2.2 provides the recommended Manning's "n" values for preliminary design using the Uniform Flow Analysis Method for pipe systems. (Note, the "n" valves for this method are 15% higher in order to account entrance, exit, junction, and bend head losses.) Table III-2.2 Manning's "n" Values for Pipes Analysis Method Type of Pipe Material Backwater Uniform Flow Flow A. Concrete, pipe and CPEP-smooth interior pipe 0.014 0.012 B. Annular orru a e e 0 or Pipe Arch: 1.2-2/31w x 7 corrugation riveted) a. plain or fully coated 0.028 0.024 b. paved invert (40% of circumference paved): (1) flow full depth 0.021 0.018 (2) flow 0.8 depth 0.018 0.016 (3) flow 0.6 depth 0.015 0.013 c. treatment 5 0.015 0.013 2.3" x 1" corrugation 0.031 0.027 3.6" x 2" corrugation (field bolted) 0.035 0.030 C. Helical 2-2/3" x 1/2" corrugation and CPEP- single wall 0.028 0.024 D. Spiral rib metal pipe and PVC pipe 0.013 0.011 E. Ductile iron pipe cement lined 0.014 0.012 F. High density polyethylene pipe (butt fused only) 0.009 0.009 111-2-6 FEBRUARY, 1991 DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. June 29, 2010 City of Edmonds Attn: Jennifer Lambert 121 5`h Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 R [M u 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Ph: 425-334-9 1. Snohomish, WA 98290 Fax: 425-334-7380 e-mail: donnabreske@comcast.net Subject: SCQ Minimum Requirements 2-10 per ECDC 18.30.060.13 Reference: SFR located at 16200 75'h PL. W. Plan Check #: BLD20100339 SCQ Minimum Requirement 2: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems: Per ECCD 18.30.010.AA ` "Natural drainage course" means the location of the channels, swales, and other non -manmade conveyance systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps for photographs, or such other means as appropriate.' No such natural drainage course or courses exists on the site and hence this requirement is not applicable. SCQ Minimum Requirement 3: Source Control of Pollution: Household chemicals and lawn & garden products from the single family home have a minimum potential for contamination of storm water flows. The homeowner is expected to read and follow manufactures directions on such products and follow them accordingly. SCQ Minimum Requirement 4: Runoff Treatment BMPs: Runoff Treatment for the pollution generating surface consisting of pavement is provided with the installation of two Type 1 catch basins catch basins near the north property line of the site. These Type 1 catch basins provide a sump area for collection of sediment prior to release of storm flows to the city conveyance system. SCQ Minimum Requirement 5: Wetlands: This requirement applies only to situations where storm water discharges directly or indirectly through a conveyance system into a wetland. That is not the case with the discharge from this site and therefore this requirement does not apply. Mike Gold, 7510 162"d St. S.W. Page 1 of SCQ Minimum Requirement 6: Water Quality Sensitive Areas: Per this section of code, "Where local governments determine that the minimum requirements do not provide adequate protection of water quality sensitive areas, either on site or within the basin, more stringent controls shall be required to protect water quality." This section does not apply. No such determination has been made by the city of Edmonds. Furthermore, there are no water quality sensitive areas associated with this site development to be protected. SCQ Minimum Requirement 7: Off Site Analysis and Mitigation: An analysis of off -site water quality impacts resulting from the project has been addressed in the Direct Discharge Report prepared by this engineer and dated April 5, 2010. The report verifies that the downstream conveyance system has adequate capacity to convey storm drainage flows released from the site. SCQ Minimum Requirement 8: Basin Planning: There is no adopted and implemented watershed -based basin plan. Hence, this minimum requirement does not apply. SCQ Minimum Requirement 9: Operation and Maintenance: The applicable operation and maintenance schedule for proposed catch basins storm water facilities is attached. SCQ Minimum Requirement 10: Financial Liability: Per city review comments dated June 8, 2010 a $50,000 performance bond will be required prior to issuance of the permit. The owner intends to post this bond and thus the requirement will be fulfilled. Sincerely, Donna L. Breske, P.E. Attachment: Operation and Maintenance Schedule for Catch Basin Mike Gold, 7510 162"d St. S.W. Page 2 of 2 No. 5 —Catch Basins Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed._•• '. ` ... e. ~• .'. Results=Expected When, Maintenance 's .. •J. .� ,.• •. .- :. �. performed'... General Trash & Debris Trash or debris which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking inletting capacity of the basin by more than 10%. No Trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin or on grate opening. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60. percent of the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest No trash or debris in the catch basin. pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case, less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. ' Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more.than 1/3 of its height. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No dead animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 percent of the sump depth. as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest No sediment in the catch basin pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Structure Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame not securely attached Frame is sitting flush on the riser rings or top slab and firmly attached. Fractures or Cracks in Basin Walls/ Maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Bottom Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlettoutlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Pipe is regrouted and secure at basin wall. Settlement/ Misalignment If failure of basin has created a safety, function, or design problem. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across.and blocking.more than 10% of the basin opening. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlettoutlet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart. No vegetation or root growth present. 4-fib Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs August 2001 No. 5 — Catch Basins C orripopeMaintenance Maintenance is Needed... esults Expected.lNhen':'.' is performed Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). No pollution present. and Pollution Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Catch basin cover is Cover Place Any open catch basin requires maintenance. closed Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts proper tools. Not Working into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult . Ond maintenance. person cannot remove lid Cover can be removed by to Remove after applying normal lifting pressure. one maintenance person. (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) Ladder. Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not Ladder meets design Unsafe securely attached to basin wall, standards and allows misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets (If Applicable) Unsafe design standards. - Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than Grate free of trash and Debris 20% of grate surface inletting capacity: debris. Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the. Grate is in place and Missing. grate. meets design standards. No. 6 — Debris. Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) MaIntera0cL,, one,Needed(; on itton When i"ihtehandeJ4' -Results.Expocte e Maintenanceis Performed General Trash and Trash. or debris that is plugging more Barrier cleared to design flow Debris than 20% of the openings in the barrier., capacity. Metal Damaged/ Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 Bars in place with no bends more Missing inches. than 3/4 inch. Bars. Bars are missing or entire barrier Bars in place according to design. missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%. Barrier replaced or repaired to deterioration to any part of barrier. design standards. FInlet/Outlet Debris barrier missing or not attached to Barrier firmly attached to pipe Pipe ipe pipe August 2001 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs .4-37 co K d a d m O --1 1 M 3 O A CD N O o ao O to CA C� (D 3 �a m O K -h N =r Cf O y '"D Q ACL O O CD 7 Ot C CD Q1 y N C O na O p� CD CD y G m °L a ao Co a CL O N :M �M c o' c as �0 Q M -a a h O O o O n Q c 0 a O 0 Q CD S c N =r 0 O 81 -9 O m S S. n S m N 3 <D 9 O s C a 7 co cn .r O 2. fD y N v CD cc c m X z m X z �vm m D� r� vm Cz r0 gm zW Oc nr Ov_ mz y0 mN 0 O z GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL INSPECTION SUMMARY LETTER GOLD RESIDENCE 16200 - 75T" PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR MR. MIKE GOLD NELSON G EOTECH N ICAL N ASSOCIATES' INC. GA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Main Office 17311 —13e Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County December 7, 2012 Mr. Mike Gold 15225 14s' Court SE Mill Creek, Washington 98012 Geotechnical Special Inspection Summary Letter Gold Residence 16200 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8196B 11 Dear Mr. Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 This letter summarizes our geotechnical consultation and construction monitoring services for the new residence located at 16200 - 75`h Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The project generally consisted of constructing a two-story residence. This residence is part of a two -lot short plat and is considered to be the southern residence of the two lots. We previously issued a geotechnical engineering evaluation for this project dated February 12, 2010. The City of Edmonds required geotechnical inspections for earthwork construction at this project site as indicated in an undated letter titled "City of Edmonds — Special Inspection and Testing Agreement." The geotechnical inspections included soil bearing verification, subsurface drainage installation, site monitoring during wet weather construction, temporary and permanent erosion control inspections, and foundation and site drain installation. We were retained by you to provide geotechnical engineering inspection and consultation services for the project. We monitored geotechnical-related construction activities at the project site on a part-time basis, on and off from May 2, 2011 to December 6, 2012. Our observations, opinions, and recommendations regarding Special Inspections Summary Letter NGA File No. 8196B 11 Gold Residence: 16200 - 75 Place West December 7, 2012 Edmonds, Washington Page 2 earthwork activities for the southern residence at this project site were included in Field Reports 1 through 8 and Field Reports 16 through 18, all of which have been submitted to you. We evaluated the residence and garage foundation subgrade by observing the material exposed in the excavation and by probing with a %z-inch diameter probe rod under moderate pressure. The soils exposed at the foundation subgrade consisted of native blue -gray silt with varying amounts of sand that we interpreted as native glacial soils. In general, the footing subgrade probed approximately 6 to 24 inches and was interpreted to be very soft to stiff. The foundation excavations were over -excavated a minimum of two feet below the proposed foundation subgrade and backfilled with 2- to 4-inch rock spalls. The rock spalls were tamped in place with the trackhoe bucket and a bulldozer. We also encountered an old concrete foundation within the western portion of the residence. We understand that this concrete was removed and replaced with 4- to 8-inch rock spalls capped with 2-to 4-inch rock spalls. In our opinion, the foundation subgrade was suitably prepared in accordance with the plans and our recommendations, and should adequately support the planned loads. During the excavation of the southern residence foundation, significant sloughing and slope movement was observed along the eastern and southern portions of the excavation. The residence excavation cuts were shored with large metal plates that were anchored to the cut slopes to allow installation of the residence foundation. These failures encroached onto the neighboring property to the south causing cracking and subsidence in an existing asphalt driveway and landscaping features. Your contractor informed us that they had repaired the driveway and vegetation area for the neighboring property to the south. During our most recently site visit on December 6, 2012, we observed some minor settlement and cracking of the neighboring asphalt driveway surface. We recommend that this area be monitored for any additional movement or cracking, and repairs be implemented immediately. We reviewed pictures of the footing drain installation around the residence that consisted of 4-inch PVC perforated pipes embedded in washed rock and covered in filter fabric, extending around the perimeter of the structure per the project plans. The contractor informed us that the footing drains were tightlined to the existing system in accordance with the plans. In our opinion, based on the information that the contractor provided, the footing drains appear to have been installed in accordance with our recommendations and the plans. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Special Inspections Summm Letter NGA File No. 8196B 11 Gold Residence: 16200 - 75 Place West December 7, 2012 Edmonds, Washington Page 3 During our December 6, 2012 site visit we observed an approximately 2.0 to 2.5 foot vertical cut along the southern property line near the southeast corner of the residence. It is our opinion that this cut could experience some erosion and sloughing if left unsupported. This could further impact the neighboring property to the south. We recommend that this cut be graded or supported to reduce the potential of future sloughing and erosion. We also observed some erosion within the sloping area along 75"' Place West in the general location of the newly installed water meter. We recommend that this area be repaired to prevent directing runoff from the roadway onto the property, and any exposed soils associated with the installation of the water meter should be protected from erosion. It is our opinion that there is still a potential for minor sloughing events to occur on the slope above the residence. Such events could affect the short block walls that were placed on the slope and the residence. We recommend that this slope be monitored for signs of sloughing through the wet season and repairs be implemented immediately. The, vegetation on this slope should be maintained until fully established. Erosion control measures were utilized at the project site. Temporary erosion control measures generally included a silt fence and plastic sheeting over the slopes of the excavation. We did not observe stormwater flowing uncontrolled off site during our visits. Based on our observations while on site, materials were not tracked into public right-of-way or onto neighboring properties during earthwork construction. It is our opinion that temporary erosion control measures both during dry season and the wet season were adequate. Permanent erosion control measures were observed on December 6, 2012 at the site and generally included mulch, grass, bark, and low vegetation. We did not observe any exposed areas or areas that we would consider at a significant risk of soil erosion. We recommend, however, that the sloping areas within the site that have received vegetation be monitored throughout the wet season and repairs be implemented immediately should any signs of erosion or plant die off be observed. We observed that some of the roof drains had been removed to be painted. We recommend that these be replaced as soon as possible. We were informed that they were going to be installed on December 6, 2012. We also observed wet surface conditions throughout the site. We would anticipate that wet surface conditions will likely persist on this site throughout much of the year due to the fine-grained nature of the site soils. These conditions could be improved by the installation of near -surface cut-off drains connected to the existing storm drain system. We are available to provide recommendations for these systems if they are desired. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Special Inspections Summarz Letter Gold Residence: 16200 - 75 Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8196B 11 December 7, 2012 Page 4 We also observed the subgrade for the concrete driveway. We evaluated compaction of the subgrade with a'/z-inch diameter steel probe rod. Probing generally yielded penetrations of one to two inches within the upper portion of the driveway, indicating medium dense to dense conditions which we interpreted as well compacted. However, the lower portion of the driveway was significantly wet and probed approximately 12 to 18 inches indicating very soft conditions. This soft area was then over -excavated by approximately 8 to 20inches to expose soils that probed approximately three inches which, we interpreted as suitable for backfill placement. The over -excavated subgrade surface was then covered with an Amoco 4545 non- woven filter fabric and then backfilled with 2- to 4-inch rock spalls capped with 5/8-inch minus crushed rock. In our opinion, the driveway backfill was suitably compacted and should support the planned loads. Based on our part-time construction monitoring, it is our opinion that the geotechnical special inspection items for this project that we observed were completed in general accordance with the plans and our recommendations. u NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Special Inspections Summary Letter Gold Residence: 16200 - 75`° Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8196B 11 December 7, 2012 Page 5 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. rt v�ras�\ E 2883 S®r�1 (';61t7 LEE S. BELL,7H Lee S. Bellah, LG Project Geologist Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal Three Copies Submitted LSB:KMS:bd NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ��-�. �L� ` _ � FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Gold Residences File No.: 8196B 11 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Mike Gold Date: 10/17/2012 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: Edmonds, WA Report No: 16 17311 135TH Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny, 50's Page 1 of 3 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: LSB We visited the site today at the request of Mike Todd with Todd Homes to evaluate construction activities at the Gold Residences project located in 16620 — 75t' Place West in Edmonds, WA. Upon arrival, we met with Mike. We observed that driveway area had been graded to the approximate subgrade of the concrete driveway. Some surficial mud and standing water was observed throughout the driveway area. We evaluated the driveway subgrade with a %-inch diameter steel probe rod. Probing generally yielded penetrations of 1 to 2 inches within the upper portion of the driveway, indicating medium dense to dense conditions. However, the lower portion of the driveway near the residences generally probed 12 to 18-inches under moderate pressure indicating very soft conditions. We recommend that this area be overexcavated a minimum 18-inches to expose competent native soils. The overexcavation should then be covered entirely with a heavy duty unwoven filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent and backfilled with crushed rock. The crushed rock should be compacted in place to an unyielding condition. We will return to observe the overexcavation and backfill of the soft areas. We have been providing monitoring services on a part-time basis only. Our findings and conclusions are based on construction activities observed while on site. Attachment: Site Plan, Density Test Sheet Signed: Distribution: JI _ ,� / °� �' �� ^ l3h!• 1 V I f « - � ;ram- �-. --,� ol f � Ch f , ` f f0/��G1ONlitE1E �• �� � � � ; PA11O ^ EL = 4SO HOUSE FF=55.0 ► % ' '° f / / I / B-1 \ BASfJN"T = 4,5.0 � , • , , -� — "-- OF SMWiNT 2 VW AT C8 10 71 70 BE ( -yr REAlOYID GARAGE FF 54.375 -• f}j' f )/' ' 1, ,'1 iM7`35 43'YY �' — — —u' ' _ , - ., 18,6.29' f FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Gold Residences File No.: 8196B11 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Mike Gold Date: 10/19/2012 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: Edmonds, WA Report No: 18 17311 135m Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Overcast, 50's Page 1 of 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: DPN We visited the site today at the request of Mike Todd with Todd Homes to evaluate construction activities at the Gold Residences project located in 16620 — 75`h Place West in Edmonds, WA. Upon arrival, we observed that 5/8-inch minus crushed rock had been placed over the filter fabric. It was compacted using a walk behind plate compactor. We evaluated the subgrade using a %z-inch diameter steel probe rod. Probing generally yielded penetrations of up to 2 inches, indicating medium dense or better conditions and should provide adequate support for the planned loads. We have been providing monitoring services on a part-time basis only. Our findings and conclusions are based on construction activities observed while on site. Attachment: Site Plan, Density Test Sheet Signed: Distribution: a°°ao� Q1ifill \ figE arxx-a rT71 -9 V S dWft 4b 7 s rb M, :I1I 1311:1', 91 tj I � °� - i I - - - -- -'4'-- \ \tea\ \ � i •. : �"..... \... ` �- � � ASS'- ��� ����� •-�-" � _� A f6, Ah O N m Q) Z h� g A pA191� a iN I ' c a W I I 4x?'se�,g no .srir�t SO I 1 �1in &sa w^ i ISO + ;; w e � R� v ♦ N /e to LO 4! o o 3 0 �n o mad (G ON N 1?' 7 m = W Zoe cpNG W Pi do, v o[� 41 � 2 !�o a 1 ` oI�I= � N O N � O o � Aar � � w "a ®' o � co G E-+ w David West & Co. (Professional Land Surveying) 1476 Melissa Way (509) 630-0783 (cell) Wenatchee, Wa. (509) 470-6204 Nov 26, 2012 Mike Gold To: City of Edmonds Re: Driveway Slope Plan Check #BLDG20100339 16200-75" Pl. W.. Edmonds Wa. 98020 To Whom It May Concern: I, David G. West Jr., a Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Washington, Reg. No. 30442, do hereby certify that I shot the driveway situated on above referenced parcel and found it to be 20% or less based on said shots as depicted on the "As -Built" drawing dated Nov. 20, 2012 Sin erely, David G. West, Jr., P.L.S. FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Gold Residences File No.: 8196B11 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Mike Gold Date: 10/18/2012 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: Edmonds, WA Report No: 17 17311 135"' Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny, 50's Page 1 of 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: DPN We visited the site today at the request of Mike Todd with Todd Homes to evaluate construction activities at the Gold Residences project located in 16620 — 75a' Place West in Edmonds, WA. AM Visit Upon arrival, we met with Mike. We observed the overexcavation of the lower driveway, as shown on attached site plan. A 10 ft. by 10 ft. area at the southeastern portion of the driveway was overexcavated approximately 20 in. to expose gray -brown silty sand with gravel. The rest of the area was taken down approximately 8 to 12 inches, exposing the same material. We evaluated the soil using a %2-inch diameter steel probe rod. Probing generally yielded penetrations of up to 3 inches, indicating medium dense or better conditions and should provide adequate support for the planned loads. PM Visit Upon arrival, we observed that the contractor had placed 2- to 4-inch rock spalls in the deeper overexcavation in the southeast corner. They had also covered the whole overexcavation with Amoco 4545 non -woven filter fabric. We will be back tomorrow to evaluate the 5/8-inch minus crushed rock which will be compacted on top of the filter fabric. We have been providing monitoring services on a part-time basis only. Our findings and conclusions are based on construction activities observed while on site. Attachment: Site Plan, Density Test Sheet Signed:--=✓�'' Distribution: I 81 I °j I I gall,1 ° y � I its il'.115 Ile pi ppi' � 9� .■,°�' filire v 0 q q q Y 0 Y p p q q q q q t p Y B@ p@ B 1 ��� y ��g �i� r@ � � t_ ► @gf a @� pg98 � " R�J� �f� it i gg @pp° !al� 9 1 p A °IE i pp p�f 1� geY� Ip ►r ► l° p ++ ++ a a q e v Y n n R tl y q •.� � tea.. ,. - �. \ ° 0 1 ` •.,1 1 1 e 1 1 ,�1 11 111'r� I �v tl _ •` 1�._ � a ♦ • ' ``ae► -•. 1•.� `�� �,� . fir. 1 A • q;`. _ ��\ �` � "tip oe — la .I11 E, 41— Ii: ° Y 1 ! ® p a 9 - t _ 4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 16220 75T" Pl. W EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR MIKE & NANCY GOLD MAY P 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS NGA 1 Main Office 17311 — 135'" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County February 12, 2010 Mr. Mike and Ms. Nancy Gold 15225 14"' Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 NELSON GEOTECH N ICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75'h Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 819609 Dear Mr. and Ms Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — 16220 75"' Place West — Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions within the site and provides recommendations for the proposed site development. Our services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on January 11, 2010. The site is situated on gentle to steep west -facing slopes overlooking Puget Sound. The planned development area consists of a relatively level bench with steep west -facing slopes extending up to 75ch Place West and down to the right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Railroad and the shore of the Sound. There is an existing residence with a daylight basement in the southern portion of the property. The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide area and is located in the designated "Zone A" between 75"' Avenue West and the railroad right-of-way. This zone includes the lowermost (west) parts of the landslide. Slide movement from the large-scale slide complex and small slides within the complex can both affect this zone. The planned improvements will include the construction of two new single-family residences on the northern and southern portions of the property. Final grading plans had not been developed at the time this report was prepared, however, based on the preliminary plans and the site topography, cuts on the order of 12 to 15 feet may be needed along the toe of the upper slope. We understand that a detention system is planned to handle stormwater generated on the site with an outlet to a municipal system northwest of the site. It is our opinion that the planned development is generally feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of this project. Our explorations indicated that the site is generally underlain by silt and clay. The site slopes appear to be generally stable, but we observed fill soil along the top of the lower slope below the planned southern residence. There is a potential for sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steep slopes. We recommend that a debris wall be incorporated into the design of the residences to protect against potential slides on the upper slope impacting the residence. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Summary - Page 2 In our opinion, based on the explorations, the planned residence foundations could be supported on the medium stiff silt with some improvement to the foundation subgrade areas. We recommend that the foundation areas be excavated at least two feet below the planned bottom of footing elevation, and that a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls be placed beneath the footings. Foundations prepared in this manner should be designed using a bearing pressure of not more than 1,000 psf. All foundation elements should be tied together and isolated pad footings should not be used for this project. The southern residence is shown to be as close as 20 feet to the top of the lower slope. In our opinion this setback distance is adequate, however, to protect the residences against potential slope activity, we recommend that the west foundation line of the residences be embedded at least four feet below finished grade. We anticipate that the footing lines in these areas would need to be excavated at least six feet to satisfy this embedment and the recommended layer of rock spalls. We should be retained to observe foundation excavations prior to placing forms. The above recommendations, as well as recommendations for site grading, subgrade preparation, drainage, and erosion control are further discussed in the attached report. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. C M41 r�__ MW7AA Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal Two Copies Submitted TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... I SCOPE.........................................................................................................................................................2 SITECONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................2 SURFACECONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................3 HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS........................................................................................................................5 LABORATORYTESTING..............................................................................................................................5 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION.........................................................................................................6 SEISMICHAZARD.......................................................................................................................................6 EROSIONHAZARD......................................................................................................................................6 LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY....................................................................................................7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................7 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................7 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES......................................................................10 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING.......................................................................................................... I I STRUCTURESETBACKS............................................................................................................................12 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES...................................................................................................12 FOUNDATIONSUPPORT............................................................................................................................13 STRUCTURALFILL...................................................................................................................................14 SLAB-ON-GRADE.....................................................................................................................................16 RETAININGWALLS..................................................................................................................................16 SHORING..................................................................................................................................................17 SITEDRAINAGE........................................................................................................................................21 USEOF THIS REPORT..........................................................................................................................22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Cross-section A -A' Figure 4 — Cross-section B-B' Figure 5 — Soil Classification Chart Figure 6 through 9— Boring Logs Figures 10 and 11 — Grain Size Analysis Figures 12 and 13 — Atterberg Limits Figure 14 — Cut-off Drain Detail NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation of the planned Gold residential project, located at 16220 75°i Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The tax parcel numbers for the property are 00513106000100, 00513106000200, and 00513106000400. For our use in preparing this report, we were provided with plans titled "Gold Residence North and South," dated September 15, 2009, prepared by Randall J. Munson. We also reviewed a report prepared for the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, titled "North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Summary Report — Edmonds, Washington," dated March 14, 2007, by Landau Associates. The site is situated on a gentle to steep west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The planned development area consists of a relatively level bench between steep west -facing slopes extending up to 75"' Place West and down to the right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Railroad and the shoreline to the west. There is an existing residence with a daylight basement in the southern portion of the property. The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide area and is located in the designated "Zone A" between 751' Avenue West and the railroad right-of-way. This zone includes the lowermost (west) parts of the landslide. Slide movement from the large-scale slide complex and small slides within the complex can both affect this zone. The planned improvements will include removal of the existing residence and filling its daylight basement area, and the construction of two new single-family residences on the northern and southern portions of the property. Access to the north residence will be from the existing driveway north of the site. A new driveway traversing the slope below 75"' Place West will provide access to the southern residence. Final grading plans had not been developed at the time this report was prepared; however, based on the preliminary plans and the site topography, we understand that significant cuts may be needed along the toe of the upper slope in the eastern portion of the development area. We understand that a detention system is planned to handle stormwater generated on the site with an outlet to a municipal system northwest of the site. The proposed site layout is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, evaluate slope stability, and provide general recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: Review available soil and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with four geotechnical borings. Two borings were performed on the central bench area using a truck mounted drill rig. Two additional borings were performed on the steep slope east of the bench area using a small portable drill rig. The drill rigs were subcontracted by NGA. 3. Map the conditions on the slope and evaluate current slope stability conditions. 4. Perform laboratory classification and analysis of soil samples, as necessary. 5. Provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation support, and slabs -on -grade. 6. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation. 7. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control. 8. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The property covers approximately 0.9 acres and is situated on a gentle to steep west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The site is bordered by 162" d Street SW to the north, 75`1' Place West to the east, residential property to the south, and railroad right-of-way to the west. The vegetation on the site consists of young to mature evergreen and deciduous trees, grass, brush and blackberry vines. The central portion of the property consists of a gently sloping bench. To the east of the bench, a moderate to steep slope extends up to 75th Place West and beyond. To the west of the bench, a moderate to steep slope extends down to the railroad right-of-way and the shore of Puget Sound. The overall inclination of the upper and lower portions of the slope is approximately 20 degrees (36 percent), with actual inclinations of 10 to 27 degrees (18 to 50 percent). There is a small steep slope along the west edge of 75"' Place West with an inclination of about 45 degrees (100 percent). We did not note evidence of recent sloughing, sliding, or significant erosion on the site slopes. Some of the trees on the slopes NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75'h Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 3 exhibited a downslope curvature at the base of the trunk, which may indicate creep, the slow downslope movement of the near surface soil on the slope. The Site Plan in Figure 2 shows the property lines and topography along with the existing and planned site layouts. Profiles of the site slopes are shown on the cross sections in Figures 3 and 4. Along the north side of the property, 162" d Street SW provides access to a gravel driveway on the gently sloping bench in the central portion of the site. Scattered small water puddles had accumulated in flat areas along the gravel driveway during our site visits. Soft wet surficial soils were encountered when the drilling equipment got off the gravel driveway. We did not note seepage on the slope; however, most of the slope was covered with thick vegetation. A residence with a daylight basement is located in the southern portion of the property. The upper portion of the lower slope was removed west of the residence, and it appears that the soil excavated for the basement was placed as fill in the area north of the residence. We did not note significant cracking or settlement of the structure during our examination of the exterior of the residence. A remnant driveway traverses the slope above the residence extending to the northeast. A manhole was noted west of the residence, which is part of the sanitary sewer easement that crosses the northern and western portions of the property. Subsurface Conditions Geology: The geologic units for the site vicinity are shown on the Preliminary Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Ouadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washin tgton, by Mackey Smith (U.S.G.S., 1975). The site is mapped as old landslides (Qols) and near contacts with the Whidbey Formation. The old landslides are described as large slumps that occurred during the ablation of the Puget Lobe of the Vashon ice sheet by lowering of water -table level. The Whidbey Formation is described as nonglaical river flood plain deposits consisting of clay, silt, and sand with a few lenses of small pebbles. The native silt and clay with sand seams encountered in our explorations are consistent with the description of an older landslide in Whidbey Formation soils. Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on January 18 and 25, 2010 with four geotechnical borings. On January 18, a truck mounted drill rig was used to advance two borings to NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 depths of 29 and 34 feet below the existing surface on the bench in the central portion of the site. On January 25, a small portable drill rig was used to advance two borings to depths of 19 and 24 feet below the existing surface on the slope east the planned development area. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. An engineer and a geologist from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed during drilling at selected depths to obtain soil samples, and to document soil consistency at depth. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outer -diameter, split -spoon sampler 18 inches using a 140-pound hammer with a drop of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and is presented on the boring logs. The N value is used to evaluate the strength and density of the deposit. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which is presented in Figure 5. The logs of our borings are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 6 through 9. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the boring logs should be reviewed. Boring B-1 was located on the bench near the existing residence in the south central portion of the site. B-1 encountered a surficial layer of fill extending to a depth of about 4 to 5 feet. The fill consisted of silt with sand and gravel. Underlying the fill, B-1 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt to depth of 14 feet. Below 14 feet the clayey silt included some sand seams and became very stiff to hard with dense sand seams to the depth explored at 34 feet. Boring B-2 was located on the bench in the north central portion of the site. B-2 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt with fine sand seams to a depth of approximately 12 feet. Below 12 feet the clayey silt became very stiff to hard with dense sand seams to the depth explored at 27.5 feet. Slight seepage was encountered at a depth of about 5 to 6 feet in B-2. This seepage as interpreted as a perched water condition. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 Boring B-3 was located on the upper slope in the southeastern potion of the site. B-3 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt with sand seams and organics to a depth of approximately 10 feet. Below 10 feet the clayey silt became very stiff to hard to the depth explored at 24 feet. Boring B-4 was located on the upper slope in the northeastern potion of the site. B-4 encountered a surficial layer of very soft silt and very loose to loose sand to a depth of approximately five feet. Underlying the loose sand, B-4 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt and silty clay to a depth of approximately 12 feet. Below 12 feet the clayey silt became very stiff to hard to the depth explored at 19 feet. Each of the borings encountered slickensides in the clayey silt samples at depths ranging from about 7 to 12 feet, and as deep as 19 feet in B-1. Slickensides are polished surfaces of cracks in the soil and may indicate the zones of past movement within the soil. Hydrologic Conditions Slight seepage was encountered at a depth of about 5 to 6 feet in B-2. This seepage was interpreted as a perched water condition. We did not encounter groundwater seepage in the other borings. It is our opinion that a perched groundwater condition may develop on this site during the wetter times of the year. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of relatively low permeability materials. The more permeable soils on this site would consist of the topsoil, fill, and weathered soils. The low permeability soil consists of underlying clay and silt soil. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched groundwater to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. However, there may be areas of seepage and wet soils on the slopes even in the drier times of the year. Laboratory Testing Laboratory analyses were completed on selected soil samples obtained from the explorations. These analyses included grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits. The Atterberg tests indicated inorganic clays of high plasticity. The sample from B-1 had a liquid limit (LL) of 53.7 and a plastic limit (PL) of NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 approximately 27.8, yielding a plasticity index (PI) of 26 as shown on Figure 10. The sample from B-4 had a liquid limit (LL) of 62.0 and a plastic limit (PL) of 27.5, yielding a plasticity index (PI) of 34.5 as shown on Figure 11. The sieve analyses indicated cohesive soils with nearly all of each sample passing the No. 200 sieve as shown in Figures 12 and 13. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard We reviewed the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) for seismic site classification for this project. Since competent cohesive soils are inferred to underlie the site, the site conditions best fit the IBC description for Site Class D. Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft deposits. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the groundwater table. The competent silt and clay soils interpreted to underlie the site have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. The competent cohesive soils interpreted to form the core of the site slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated slope failures. However, the overlying loose surficial materials on the slopes have the potential for shallow sloughing failures during seismic events. Such events should not affect the planned residences provided our recommendations for foundations and debris walls are incorporated in the project designs. There is also some potential for a large scale seismic event to reactivate the large- scale slide complex. Erosion Hazard The criteria used for determination of erosion hazard areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams 25 to 70 percent slopes. This unit is listed as having a high NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 7 erosion hazard. The on -site soils should have low to moderate hazard for erosion where the vegetation is not disturbed. Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater conditions. The overall inclination of the upper and lower portions of the slope is approximately 20 degrees (36 percent), with actual inclinations of 10 to 27 degrees (18 to 50 percent). There is a small steep slope along the west edge of 75`h Place West with an inclination of about 45 degrees (100 percent). We did not note evidence of recent sloughing, sliding, or significant erosion on the site slopes. We did not observed evidence of past erosion or seepage on the slopes adjacent to the site during our site visit. We observed fill north of the existing residence on the bench and along the top of the lower slope. The core of the site slopes is inferred to consist primarily of competent native silt and clay soils. Inclinations of up to 27 degrees on the slope indicate relatively high strength and internal friction angle within the underlying soils. Relatively shallow sloughing failures as well as surficial erosion are natural processes and should ould be expected to occur on this slope. It is our opinion that while there is potential for erosion, soil creep, and shallow failures within the loose surficial soils on the slope, there is not a significant potential for deep-seated slope failure under current site conditions. Proper site grading and drainage as well as foundation placement as recommended in this report should help maintain current stability conditions. There is also the potential for a large-scale seismic event to reactivate the large-scale slide complex. It is our opinion that there could be a moderate risk for shallow sloughs and slides in the loose surficial soil on the slopes within the site and above the site to the south of the property. Accordingly, we provide recommendations in our report for a debris wall on the upslope side of the residence. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is generally compatible with the planned development. The explorations indicate that silt and clay underlie the site. The consistency of the upper 8 to 12 feet of the cohesive soil was soft to medium stiff. Below the soft to medium stiff layer, the NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 8 consistency of the soil was stiff to hard. The site slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated failures. However, there is a potential for shallow sloughing and erosion events to occur on the slope. We anticipate that during periods of extended rainfall and/or as a result of seismic activity, shallow slough -type failures may originate on this slope and travel down slope towards the planned development area. There is also the potential for a large scale seismic event to reactivate the large-scale slide complex. In our opinion, based on the explorations, the planned residence foundations could be supported on the medium stiff silt with some improvement to the foundation subgrade areas. All soft/loose soil and undocumented fill should be removed from the foundation excavations. We recommend that the foundation areas be excavated at least two feet below the planned bottom of footing elevation, and that a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls be placed beneath the footings. Foundations prepared in this manner should be designed using a bearing pressure of not more than 1,000 psf. All foundation elements should be tied together and isolated pad footings should not be used for this project. The control of surface water and near surface water will be of great importance for the stability of this project. We recommend the installation of interceptor drains in the slope above the planned structures and drains should be installed for all retaining walls and foundations. Water should not be allowed to concentrate on or flow over the site slopes during or after construction. Stormwater infiltration is not recommended for this site. Poorly drained soil and wet conditions should be anticipated on this site. Adequate drainage, waterproofing, and ventilation will be important considerations for the design of the structures for this project. Depending on the final grading plans for the project, shoring walls may be necessary for the excavations along the toe of the upper slope. Debris walls and/or debris fences should be incorporated to protect structures from the potential for sloughing and shallow failures on the slopes above the residences. The preliminary plans indicate that the southwestern portion of the new southern residence may extend into the area where the existing residence with a daylight basement will be removed. The fill for this project will need to be placed as structural fill to support the structure and for slope stability considerations. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 9 The residence is shown to be as close as 20 feet to the top of the lower slope. In our opinion this setback distance is adequate, however, to protect the residence against potential slope activity, we recommend that the downslope (west) foundation be embedded at least four feet below finished grade. We anticipate that the footing lines in these areas would need to be excavated at least six feet to satisfy this four foot - embedment and the two feet of rock spall fill that is recommended beneath the footings. We should be retained to observe foundation excavation prior to placing footing forms. All grading operations and drainage improvements planned as part of this development should be planned and completed in a manner that enhances the stability of the site slope, not reduces it. Excavation spoils should not be stockpiled near the slopes or be allowed to encroach on the slopes. Also, runoff generated within the site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system and not be allowed to flow over the slopes. Future vegetation management on the slope should be the subject of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by the City of Edmonds. The slopes should be monitored on an on -going basis, especially during the wet season, for any signs of instability, and corrective actions promptly taken should any signs of instability be observed. Lawn clipping and any other materials or debris should not be cast over the slopes. The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered highly moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. To lessen the potential impacts of construction on the slopes and to reduce cost overruns and delays, we recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months. If construction takes place during the rainy months, additional expenses and delays should be expected. Additional expenses could include the need for placing erosion control and temporary drainage measures to protect the slopes, the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, and construction traffic areas prior to placing structural fill, and the need for importing all-weather material for structural fill. We do not recommend that use of the on -site material as structural fill. We understand that a detention system is planned to handle stormwater generated on the site with an outlet to a municipal system northwest of the site. We recommend that the system be reviewed by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City of Edmonds. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 10 Under no circumstances, should water be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction, and after construction has been completed. We recommend that stormwater runoff from the roof, pavement, and yard drains be collected and tightlined to a suitable discharge point. The slopes should be protected from erosion. We recommend that all disturbed areas be replanted with vegetation to re-establish vegetation cover as soon as possible. Specific recommendations for erosion control are presented in the Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures subsection of this report. Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is listed as high, but the actual erosion hazard will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the site slopes. Stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting during wet weather and stockpiled material should be no closer than 15 feet from the top of the slopes. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low. Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area and top of slope not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No additional material of any kind should be placed on the slopes or be allowed to reach the slopes, such as excavation spoils, lawn clippings, and other yard waste, trash, and soil stockpiles. Trees should not be cut down or removed from the slopes unless a mitigation plan is developed, such as the replacement of vegetation for erosion protection. Vegetation should not be removed from the slopes. Replacement of vegetation should be performed in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. Any proposed development within the slope setback area, including landscaping walls, should be the subject of a specific geotechnical evaluation. Any deck footings in the setback areas should be embedded at least five feet to maintain stability. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 11 Site Preparation and Grading After the existing structure has been removed and erosion control measures are implemented, site preparation should consist of stripping any soft/loose soils and undocumented fill to expose medium stiff or better native soil in foundation, slab -on -grade, and pavement areas. The stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill within level areas of the site. Stockpiles should be kept a minimum of 30 feet away from the top of the steep slopes and should be covered with plastic. If the ground surface, after site stripping, should appear to be soft, it should be over -excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If loose soils are encountered in any slab areas, the loose soils should be removed and replaced with rock spalls or granular structural fill. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed, and the exposed subgrades should be maintained in a semi -dry condition. Exposed subgrade areas should be covered with plastic sheeting during rainy weather. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site stripping and grading techniques might be necessary. These could include using large excavators equipped with wide tracks and a smooth bucket to complete site grading and covering exposed subgrade with a layer of crushed rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered or construction is attempted in wet weather, the subgrade should not be compacted as this could cause further subgrade disturbance. In wet conditions it may be necessary to cover the exposed subgrade with a layer of crushed rock as soon as it is exposed to protect the moisture sensitive soils from disturbance by machine or foot traffic during construction. The prepared subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface water should be diverted around prepared subgrade. Shallow groundwater, if encountered, should be intercepted with cut off drains and routed around the planned grading area. Sloping areas to receive fill should be benched for added stability. The benches should be horizontal with a minimum width of four feet, and the fill should be keyed into the competent native soil of the slope. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 12 Structure Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure and the top of the slope so that ample room is allowed for normal slope recession during a reasonable life span of the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback distance, the lower the risk of slope failures impacting the structure. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on the slope's physical characteristics, such as slope height, surface angle, material composition, and hydrology. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. The southern residence is shown to be as close as 20 feet to the top of the lower slope. In our opinion this setback distance is adequate; however, to protect the residences against potential slope activity, we recommend that the downhill (west) side foundation lines of both new residences be embedded at least four feet below the finished grade. We anticipate that the footing lines would need to be excavated at least six feet to satisfy this four -foot embedment and the recommended two feet of rock fill below the bottom of footing elevation. We should be retained to observe the foundation excavations prior to placing footing forms. We should be retained to evaluate the residence foundation setback distances and subgrade soil prior to placing foundation forms. Any proposed development within the setback area, other than light decks or patios, should be the subject of a specific geotechnical evaluation. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes, during or after construction. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface water or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the soil and groundwater conditions encountered, and able to monitor the nature and condition of the cut slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 13 The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the upper site soils be no steeper than 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1 V). If significant groundwater seepage or surface water flow were encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. The slope protection measures may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1V. However, flatter inclinations may be required in areas where loose soils are encountered. Permanent slopes should be vegetated and the vegetative cover maintained until established. We should specifically review all plans for grading on steep slopes for this project. We do not recommend grading on the moderate or steep slopes. Foundation Support We recommend that the residence be designed utilizing shallow foundations. Footings should extend through the undocumented fill or soft/loose soil. Where medium stiff soils are exposed in the foundation excavations, we recommend that the subgrade be over excavated by a minimum of two feet and replaced with a two -foot thick layer of 2- to 4- inch rock spalls. The rock spalls should be tamped into place with the trackhoe bucket. Our explorations generally encountered medium stiff or better native soil within approximately three to five feet below the existing ground surface. However, deeper areas of unsuitable soils or fill could be encountered in unexplored areas of the site.. Where soft/loose soils are encountered at the planned footing elevation, the subgrade should be over -excavated to expose suitable bearing soil. The rock fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over -excavation below the bottom of the footing. The downhill (west) foundations should be embedded at least four feet. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 14 All foundation elements should be tied together and isolated pad footings should not be used for this project. Footings, including interior footings, should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the current IBC. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and the allowable soil bearing pressure. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the design of foundations supported on the medium stiff or better native soils and two -feet of rock spall fill. A representative of NGA should evaluate the foundation bearing soil. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are needed. Current IBC guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short- term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one -inch total and %-inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet based on our experience with similar projects. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 150 pcf should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should extend a distance equal to at least three times the footing depth. These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium stiff soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing. We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. Structural Fill General: We understand that the existing residence with a daylight basement will be removed from the site and fill will be needed to restore the southern portion of the property to approximately the same grade as the rest of the site. The preliminary plans indicate that the southern residence may be partially NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 15 supported on this fill. The plans also include cut and fill grading for a driveway that will traverse the upper portion of the slope to the southern residence. The fill for this project will need to be placed as structural fill to support the structures and for slope stability considerations. Fill placed beneath foundations or other settlement -sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection prior to beginning fill placement. If fill will be placed on sloping areas, the slope should first be cut with level benches 4 to 8 feet wide, and the fill should be keyed into the competent native soil of the slope. Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather structural fill should contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). We do not recommend the use of any of the on -site silt and clay soils as structural fill. We should be retained to evaluate proposed structural fill material prior to placement. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 16 Slab -on -Grade Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining gravel with less than three percent by weight of the material passing Sieve #200 for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch thick moist sand layer may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand layer is optional and is intended to protect the vapor barrier membrane during construction, and aid in curing the concrete slab. Retaining Walls The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces, be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 45 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 65 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. These recommended lateral earth pressures are for a drained granular backfill and are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface behind the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharge loads. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, slopes, or other surface loads. We could consult with you and your structural engineer regarding additional loads on retaining walls during final design, if needed. The lateral pressures on walls may be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. Recommendations for NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 17 frictional and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundations subsection of this report. All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in eight -inch loose lifts and compacting the backfill with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one- half the height of the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be reduced to accommodate the lower compactive energy of the hand -operated equipment. The recommended level of compaction should still be maintained. Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and observe installation of the drainage systems. A debris wall should be incorporated into the uphill side of the residences to protect against potential slides on the upper slope impacting the residence. The debris wall could be as separate structure or an above ground extension of the shoring wall or the reinforced concrete basement retaining wall. Shoring General: Final grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. Depending on the final grading plan for the project, shoring walls may be necessary to support the excavations along the toe of the upper slope. If the excavation cannot be suitably inclined to provide stable temporary slopes, we recommend that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. The shoring wall can be designed as a temporary system and the building designed and constructed independent of the shoring wall, or the shoring wall can be made permanent and integrated into the building design. In the latter case, the shoring wall would likely be designed to resist vertical loads as well as lateral loads. Soldier Pile Wall: A soldier pile wall may also provide a feasible shoring system for this site. A soldier pile wall typically consists of a series of steel H-beams placed vertically at a uniform distance from one another (typically six to ten feet). The beams are usually placed in drilled shafts that are filled with concrete or grout. The concrete shafts are typically embedded below the bottom of the planned NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 18 excavation a distance equal one to two times the height of the cut to be shored. The steel beams are extended to above -finished ground surface to provide shoring capabilities for the cut. The beams are typically spanned by pressure treated timber or concrete panels. The H-beam sizes, shaft diameter, shaft embedment, and pile spacing are dependent on the nature of the soils anticipated in the cut and at depth, cut height, drainage conditions, and final geometry. Soldier Wall Design: An experienced structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington should design the shoring wall. The wall designer should be provided a copy of our report, and NGA should be retained to review the shoring wall design prior to construction. If the shoring wall is allowed to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the above ground portion of the wall, the wall should be designed for an active loading condition. If the wall is restrained from yielding by external bracing, tiebacks, or wall stiffness, the wall should be designed for an at -rest loading condition. Active pressure acting on the piles and lagging for design of the soldier piles should be calculated based on a triangular pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If at -rest conditions prevail, the wall should be designed to resist loads resulting from a triangular pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 65 pcf. These values are based on an assumed level wall backslope, not subjected to hydrostatic forces, and assume no surcharge loads behind the wall. Additional surcharge loads on the wall should be considered, such as from adjacent foundation, slab, or traffic surcharge loads. We are available to provide consultation regarding additional surcharge loads on the shoring wall as the project plans are developed. The above loads should be applied on the full center -to -center pile spacing above the base of the cut. These loads could be resisted by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the piles, and/or by tie -backs extending into the native soils behind the shoring wall. The passive resistance could be calculated based on a 150-pcf equivalent fluid density acting on two effective pile diameters below the base of the cut. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 2. The below -grade portion of the wall should not be shorter than 1.5 times the wall stick-up height. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 19 Shoring Wall Installation: The shoring wall should be installed by a shoring contractor experienced with this type of system. During explorations we encountered caving of the excavations. We also encountered cobbles and boulders within the site. We recommend that the selected shoring contractor verify the potential of open hole drilling for installing the soldier piles. The contractor should be capable of casing the holes should sloughing conditions and/or water seepage be encountered. It might be prudent to perform a few "test" holes to confirm installation conditions prior to finalizing work plans. It may be necessary to remove boulders form the pile borings, or to relocate some soldier piles if obstructions cannot be removed. Excavation equipment should be available on site during soldier pile installation. Any sloughing or water that may collect in the drilled holes should be removed prior to pouring grout. Grout should be readily available on site at the time the holes are drilled. The holes should not be left open for any length of time, as that may increase the potential for caving and water seepage to impact wall installation. If groundwater seepage is encountered, we recommend that the concrete be tremied from the bottom of the excavations to displace the groundwater to the surface. Extra Portland Cement may also be placed in the bottom of the excavations to reduce the affects of seepage. The spoils from the soldier pile excavations are expected to be moisture -sensitive materials and should be hauled off site. We should be retained to observe shoring wall installation. Rockery Construction Final grading plans were not developed at the time this report was prepared. Cut and fill rockeries are anticipated on the site. In the following paragraphs we provide general rockery information, but specific rockery designs will need to be provided when final plans are developed. All rockeries should be constructed in accordance with the specific design, current Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) guidelines, and appropriate local standards. Both cut and fill portions of the rockery should bear on medium stiff or better native subgrade soil. Any soils disturbed during subgrade preparation or due to weather conditions should be compacted to a non -yielding condition or over - excavated and replaced with rock spalls or crushed rock. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 20 We recommend that rockeries be placed against stable cuts in competent native stiff to hard cohesive soil. If fill rockeries are planned, the fill should be reinforced with geogrid, which will require a specific design. Any retained fill should be placed and compacted prior to rockery construction and then cut back to desired geometry at the time the rockery is constructed. We also recommend that the base row of rocks measure at least one-third of the total height of the rockery including embedment, in the direction perpendicular to the protected face. Each successive rock shall bear on at least two rocks in the preceding row. The rockery should have a minimum embedment of one foot below final grade in front of the rockery. The face of the rockery should be constructed with a batter of approximately 1 Horizontal to 6 Vertical (1H: 6V) back toward the surface being protected. A drainage blanket 12 to 18 inches in width consisting of two- to four -inch rock spalls should be placed between the rockery and face of the cut or fill. A minimum four -inch diameter, rigid, perforated, PVC drainpipe embedded in a minimum of one foot of pea gravel or washed rock and wrapped in filter fabric should be placed at the bottom of the drainage blanket. This pipe should be sloped to drain under gravity and outlet into a permanent discharge system. Surface water should not be allowed to reach this drain by sealing the top of the drainage layer. This could be accomplished by replacing the upper 12 inches of the drainage layer with low permeability compacted soil. Backfill for rockeries should be compacted to 95% of the ATSM-D1557 and be reinforced with geogrid. The length of the geogrid used in the wall is typically 0.6 to 1.0 times the height of the wall. Actual design of these types of walls is beyond the scope of this report, but can be provided once final grading plans and wall types are devised. The ground surface above and in front of the rockery should be graded such that surface runoff is routed away from the rockery and is not allowed to flow over the rockery or pond in the vicinity of the rockery. This could be accomplished by designing appropriate yard drains or drainage ditches strategically placed to collect and route storm runoff into the storm system. We should be retained to review final rockery location and plans, and provide construction monitoring services during rockery construction, to evaluate subgrade conditions, cut conditions, fill compaction, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 21 provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions differ from anticipated, and to evaluate whether rockery construction complies with the design and specifications. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the slopes and away from the planned residence. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building and top of the slopes. Runoff generated on this site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system at the bottom of the slope. This should include all downspouts and runoff generated on all hard surfaces and yards areas. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slopes. Water should not be allowed to collect in any area where footings or slabs are to be constructed. We understand that runoff generated on this site will be directed into a detention system. Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits where the water can be pumped out of the excavation and routed into a suitable outlet. We recommend that the residence down spouts and footing drains be tightlined to an appropriate discharge location. If seepage or indications of seepage encountered in the excavations for the residences, we recommend the installation of cut-off drains on the slope above the residences to intercept and remove groundwater from the slopes. The cut-off drain should be constructed as shown on the Schematic Cut-off Drain Detail, Figure 14. In general, the drain consists of a 24-inch wide trench excavated into the stiff native soil. The depth of the drain trench can be defined in the field based on the actual conditions. A 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe is placed near the bottom of the trench, which is then backfilled with free -draining gravel. The gravel can be placed either up to finish grade, or covered with a geofabric and up to 1-foot of topsoil/sod. The cut-off drain system is sloped to drain into the main drainage system. Poorly drained soil and wet conditions should be anticipated on this site. Adequate drainage, waterproofing, `and ventilation will be important considerations for the design of the structures for this project. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 22 We recommend the use of footing drains around structures and behind retaining walls. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than three -percent fines), granular material placed along the back of walls. Washed rock is an acceptable drain material, or a drainage composite may be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of low permeability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize the migration of surface water or silt into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF THIS REPORT NGA has prepared this report for Mike Gold and his agents for use in the planning and design of the development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the property if the home is sold. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 23 We recommend that NGA be retained -to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. ••• NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75 h Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 24 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FYPIiTES rf.-2 Michael D. Rundquist Project Manager MDR:KMS:kmn Fourteen Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. VICINITY MAP Not to Scale 158th St SW . !-4 % b4adorda/e. 0 157th St SW jjt� Cvrmr J � � 158th St sW ^E 15801 PI SW Project l}y��. Site 180thrstsw rf .} 3 160 PI sw 181st St Sw �ryvs e Per P Edmonds a 1 Souo7d �l{(/r t; o- 102nd PI SW �;y(J g f183rd PI SW P. y" 164111 St SW �"— 164th St SW �• �j! 184th PI SW 1" /> 3 9 r Ids Q x6� a tv thllV 9Zth PI SW - �¢ n le PI SW hkado�d.4 ��. 4 741h PI W C/raiJiorae., �Lyninwood' 8a ch R d a ^ o 150m � �6adopdal¢ tv ..168th St SWft .' ]20�R2nd6boNAy©211U9NA1?EO /l� Lynn{�ioyod�4� ! n g9 Edmonds, WA Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK a ASSOCIATES, INC. N 819610 16220 75th Place West NGA 1 2/10/10 Original TSB MDR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Vicinity Map Figure 1 17311-135th Aw. NE.nhm Srohom ah County (475)33909)7669 N/oodimib, WA BBOn W—kh..X bn(56657896 (426) 486.16691 Fez 481.2510 www.nslmrpsobdvnm 7 LEGEND • — Property line B-1 _ _ Number and approximate 410 location of boring . Approximate location I_J of cross-section 0 40 80 Scale: 1 inch = 40 feet Reference: Site Plan based on a plan dated January 30 2008, titled "Gold Residence" prepared by Randall J. Munson. IFE Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK2 slssos 16220 75th Place West NA ASSOCIATES INC. y+D,o Original LsaMDRm Site Plan GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 2 17311-lfto5thA WA9F A=) Snot mish Cany(425) 337-16M i (425)4B8-t669/Fm 4812516 W.,= elsvgeoisi 7 la 0 N CU N 00 O O O CD V m m . `.' z -.. m 'o m 0 Co N O N 4 O 42 (D U C C) "- N (a C N N N f6 L > ii E O to aC _ O a� c •v CUU N N f6 E C 3 a QO CL c o- O C N N U 0 f6 fah O C f/) a .0 W._2)x76 - 16 > w N N z 05 w Lu R O L CU CU z 1 Z C .a. a C.- m o o � N I �y co W T l'• 0 o L T Iv to 0 lit)Itttli(IIt(iltt111ttIlttltlll w N O L L (p N C)C> CO iC W m N a o a> U r d d� f Uc U CD c Z CM3: C x 0 Lll '0 x0 U i C u (1991) uogenal3 91ewixaiddy r- � tL a� co o 0 m n N0 o rn Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK ON ASSOCIATES] INC. E; 819609 16220 75th Place West NGA 1 2/10/10 Original LSB MDR Cross -Section A -A' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 3 17311-135th Aw NE, A -SW 437 East Penny Road Woodimtlb. WA 98072 W WA 98801 Q neth... (425)480-18891 Fa. 481-2510 (509)MW698 in z F,I ca a� 0 C) O U) CO) a z U � D- m .0 .Q LO 1 O 00 CV O CV O O CV 7 N O ? 0) Z 0 if C) O a (L C'. Z Ina o IN O - r� 2 /WWM1, N w N C' o U O .r C c Cn L (O N O O 0 _J 1'� UO LO r- oWO @ Z E x °) Cc C) ,com '0 oo0(taa1) a uol1eAa13 ajewixoiddy CO a0 N �Co 0 coo � Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK o ASSOCIATES, INC. 819609 16220 75th Place West N A 1 2J10/10 Original LSB MDR a Cross -Section B-B' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 4 17311.135th A— NE, A-6W 437 East Penny Road wooM", wA 08072 wenaton.., WA WWI O 6 (425) 488-16691 Fax 510 481-2(509) 665-76M Z UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON SOILS NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % IN RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 NO. SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND PASSES NO.4 SIEVE SC WITH FINES CLAYEY SAND FINE - SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 % SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 % PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY NO. 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Moist -Damp, but no visible water. is based on ASTM D 2488-93. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from interpretation of blowcount data, below water table visual appearance of soils, and/or ; test data. ; Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West Soil Classification Chart NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 2/10110 Original LSB MDR Figure 5 17311-1351h Ave. NE, Abut Snohomish County (426) 337-1669 Wood nVU18, WA 95072 Wenatchee/Chelan (509)=7698 (425) 696-16591 Fee 491-2510 www.nelaon9eobd�.eom BORING LOG B-1 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 46 feet Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - 9) rn N Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50 H Installation - Description n 0 o _ c 0)?-,, o m Ground Water Data Moisture Content 0 o f o Co E c�i t (Percent - ■) o (Depth in Feet) c9 U) in 0 10 20 30 40 50 50+ m J Gray, silt with sand and gravel ML 10 ' (medium stiff to stiff, moist) Fill ----------------- Gray iron oxide stained silt with sand and gravel _ � 5 .... ........................................... 5 (medium stiff, moist) ML Rock in sampler Gray silt with clay (medium stiff, moist) g t ML Gray, clayey silt with hackled fractsre anFs- lickensid'es to 9 ' 10 ...... ........................................... 10 (medium stiff stiff, moist) ML ----- Gray, clay with silt (medium stiff to stiff, moist) — 9 ' AG CL15 .................................................. 15 Gray, clayey sjlt with sand ane fine sand seams end 22 ' gravel, bedded, blocky fractures, slickensides ML (very stiff, moist) 20 .................................................. 20 25 .................................................. 25 Gray, silt with fine sand seams (very stiff to hard, moist) ML 34 ' Gray, silty fine sand (dense, moist) SM LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content Depth Driven and Amount Recovered 0 Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterbergn-siz Limits p G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered ❑ Silica Sand P �Ic Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed I with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311-135th Aw NE, A-600 Snohomish County(425) 3391SW wooainwl.. WA 98072 Wanotd—/Chsbn (509) 66.17690 (425)4a8-1669/F-461-2510 www.nslao 9-telh.— 1 2I10/10 Original LSS MDR Figure 6 Page 1 of 2 BORING LOG B-1 (cont.) Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - 0) N Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50 Installation - Description L rn a o n 3 = d 2 a°" Z Ground Water Data Moisture Content a (� J o % m O V (� L (Percent - ■) O (Depth in Feet) C9 U) co � v 10 20 30 40 50 50+ -am p J Gray, silty fine sand (medium dense to dense, moist) SM Gray, bedded silt with fine sand seams 68 ' (very hard, moist) ML ........ ••.• .........................•••••• ......• 35 Boring terminated below existing grade at 34.0 feet on 35 1/16/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered during drilling. 40 ................................................... 40 45 ................................................... 45 50 ................................................... 50 55 ................................................... 55 LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content Depth Driven and Amount Recovered ❑ Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits p G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Cap ® Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit ❑ Silica Sand p Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial ` NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311.135I Aw NE. A-5M SmhGMsh County (425) 339-1669 Wo do WI.- WA 98072 Wenat h-Xh.1 n (509) 66557896 (425) 48&16691 Fart 481-2510 www 1.ng-t,.h.— 1 2/10/10 01i0in91 LS8 MDR Figure 6 Page 2 Of 2 BORING LOG B-2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 41 feet Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - 9) y Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50+ H Installation - Description 2 rn 0-a 3 �, a m Ground Water Data Moisture Content � o f a o m E u t (Percent - ■) o (Depth in Feet) c7 cn U N 0 10 20 30 40 50 50 m p J Gray, iron -oxide stained silt with fine sand seams and ML 7 ' trace organics (soft to medium stiff, moist) Gray -Brown, iron oxide stained clayey silt with silty sand _ _ 6 5 ' ................................................ 5 seams medium stiff/loose, moist to wet ( ) ML Gray clayey silt with fine sand seams and trace organics, 11 ' bedded, blocky (stiff, moist) ML -----------------, Gray, clayey silt with fine sand seams, blocky fractured 8 ' 10..... ........................................... 10 zones slickensides (medium stiff, moist) ML Gray, clayey silt (stiff to very stiff, moist) 17 ' ML15 ................. ................................. 15 Gray, clayey silt with sand (stiff to very stiff, moist) 26 ' ML 20 .................................................. 20 Gray, clayey silt with fine sand seams 43 ' (hard, moist) ML25 ........................................... ....... 25 Gray, bedded clayey silt with sand seams (hard, moist) ML 56 ' Boring terminateO Delow existing grade at 27.5 feet on 1 /16/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered during drillin . LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content Q Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Cap ® Native Soil IDS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered ❑ Silica Sand P * Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit t Water Level T Triaxial NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis andjudgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West N A ASSOCIATES, INC. t 2/10/10 Original LSB MDR Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 7 17311-t35th A- NE, AG00 6rohomiah County (425) 339.1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 Wsnatchw/Chelan (509) 885-7898 (425)486-1669/Faa481-2510 a w.n.lw peabd eom Page 1 of 1 0 z T a n aI rn 0 0 J BORING LOG B-3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 61 feet Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - 0) .N Piezometer 10 .20 30 40 50 50 1 H Installation - Description a rn 3 a Ground Water Data Moisture Content m J o f O In U E_ (Percent - ■) a (Depth in Feet) c9 In U) J 10 20 30 40 50 50 J v Brown gray, clayey silt with sand and organic fragments, 7 sand lenses (medium stiff, moist to wet) 3-inches of red -brown sand with silt interbeds ML 7 ' with sand lenses 5 ................................................ 5 0.5-inch layer of organics at 5.5 feet 6 ' Becomes gray and Fractured Becomes blue -gray silt with trace sand, clay and organic 11 ' fragments (stiff, moist) Slickensides at 9.0 feet reduced slickensides, no organics 8 Becomes very stiff, no slickensides 17 ' ML15 ................................................... 15 Becomes hard 26 ' 20 .................................................. 20 43 ' Boring terminated below existing grade at 24.0 feet on 1/25/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered 25 .•...... •..... .. ................. •..•••... ••....• 25 during drilling. LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content 0 Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Cap ® Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit ❑ Silica Sand P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this IN. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 010110 Original LSB MDR Figure 8 17311-13581 Aw. NE. A5W Snohomish Ceu1Gy (425) 339-1889 WeomrnYb, WA 98072 Wenatrlisa/Chelan (509) 6657898 — nel—geo>ec,— Page 1 1 of (425)488-18891F-481-2510 BORING LOG B-4 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 60 feet Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - ■) N Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50+ F- Installation - Descriptionca o rn C a 3 % a.� z Ground Water Data Moisture Content m o f c o m v E t (Percent-■) o (Depth in Feet) C9 cn in 0 10 20 30 40 50 50+ m p J Brown gray,clayey silt with sand & organics(very soft,moist ML 2 Red -brown, fine to medium sand with silt (very loose, moist) SP-SM Becomes brown -gray, silty fine to medium sand with silt 4 ' and sand lenses ( loose, moist) SM Becomes blue -gray clay with silt (stiff, moist) 9 ' ith slickensides 9 ' A G Reduced slickensides 8 ' 10 .... .......................................... 10 Becomes hard, no slickensides 39 ' ML 15 ...................................... .......... 15 46 ' 37 ' Boring terminated below existing grade at 19.0 feet on 1/25/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered 20 ..••••• ......... ........ .......................... 20 during drilling. 25 ................................................... 25 LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe concrete M Moisture Content Q Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Cap ® Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit ❑ Silica Sand P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations'at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2/10/10 Original LSB MDR Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 173t 1-135A A- NE,AEW Snoh nve County (425)339.16W Woo'n Ale, WA OW72 Wenahiroh elClron (508) SSS7890 (d25)486-(889/I'm481-2510 —.ne„ongeete�,.con, Figure 9 Page 1 of 1 Atterberg Limits 60 50/^s FL 40 x (D a 30 U N _N a 20 //,00r 10 - 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 80 90 100 110 Liquid Limit (LL) d s N m O O C9 W O Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK o 819609 16220 75th Place West Atterberg Limits NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 y10/10 Original LSB MDR Figure 10 `,,,)' 17311-135th Ave. NE, A-600 S-homiah Ccunty (425) 337-1689 Wwdim•Ble, WA 98072 WanatchWChelan (5W) 784-2756 (425) 488-16691 Fax 481-2510 w.wi.nalsan9satadi.mm � Q (� Z G�, ,P MH r OH ML or OL CL-ML 7 Symbol Sample Plastic Liquid Plasticity USC Limit Limit Index Symbol � B-1 @ 27.8 53.7 26 CL 12.5-ft 50 a 40 n- 20 10 0 0 Atterberg Limits �e G�, / MH or OH ML or OL CL-ML 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Liquid Limit (LL) Symbol Sample Plastic Liquid Plasticity USC Limit Limit Index Symbol B-4 @ 27.5 62.0 34.5 CL 7.5-ft Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West NGA ASSOCIATES INC. 1 2/10110 Original LSB MDR Atterberg Limits GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 11 17311-135N A— NE. A15W S-h rm Couhrty (425) 337-16W WoodmYM. WA96072 Wenstrhee/ Zan(509) 7642756 < (425) 4MI669I F- 481-2510 www. 1—VeoUc h— C' • ,111""„"1,111"1 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ :E:E:EEEEEEEE:�:E:E: ,'�:�E=EEEC�C�C�E=CEEEC iiiiiiii�ii■i�iii�i�ii • , • ,1111""'1,1""111 I • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ " • JSD =now "1111"""111111" • • • • • • • • • • • i ••• • - - NELSON GEOTECHNICAL . • •- Sieve z O J � O � II �fn II (0 Z O o J � O m U C� 7 m w N J � as �w O � N Z O� ~w �m O� m az X w UO co J • "111111'1""1111�' ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ • ""'11111"""'11' ::':E:l:EEEEEEEE:E:E:E: • -:EE:EEEE:EEEEEEEEEEE �iii��■ii�`■■��iiii�iiii CL MEM1111111 ME , ...■■.....■....■..■. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ , -------------------- • • • • • • • • • • • Sieve Analysis NGA • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS z o o � J � O o a� O o II Q m II A N � II N fA � � � N — Z O a a.+ o o� � U Cu'Ln V Qi m J = N � d. � O O QW Z O � W CmC Q G m a- Z X W J UQ 00 � � J Typical Cut-off Drain Detail (Groundwater Interceptor) Depth Varies (to be defined by NGA at the time of construciton) NOTES 2-inch washed rock -0 --I-d 2 ft. min. 4- inch perforated pipe • The cut-off drain should be embedded at least one -foot into unweathered soils. • The depth of the drain should be based on planned site grading and groundwater conditions. • Pipe should be sloped to drain at a minimum 2% grade. • For permanent installations, rigid pipe with accessible cleanouts should be used. • NGA should provide on -site consultation regarding location and depths of the drains. NOT TO SCALE Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK o 16220 75th Place West ASSOCIATES INC. o 819609 N A ' 1 2/11/10 Original ZTD MDR o Cut -Off Drain Detail GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 14 17311-1351h A— NE, A600 Snohom sh CouMy (425) 337-1W9 WoodnWb, WA 98072 Wsns h../Chehn(509) 784-2758 (425) 486-16691 Fu 481-2510 ww.v.nskanpsobdl.wm 6 r. ri r 1' i - i - _ I - i - - t. e _ y - - l 1 - - Iv . - - - _ i- - j I ,r .E - S Li ,rr t` - 'r lI , 1' l - i. L :4 li• h. r. d i - N- J -i � - J�. i• - - F t• _ 1 .r! ,t _ _ 1 - 4� 1 I - a Ilii `li eZ • fT •t77_ ( _ ;i i - - ,r <�3 a-4... tl' r -- ' -a�ci �, 7•�: .�c.,�r.r�;;• --_ _ 'rL,p•- ,-:Jl` r�� '�- - �,'a'• - '=- .,. ' ') � 4 ~ Y• : � 1 !� >` ;t'. • F•" a\�-7 >'�: __ -!..' ,.ram i.-- _ !_ _ _-t .r.. 'P: -y 5wF 3--1 ,.�_.,> •yi ` -x -l.: .� I � � r--' _ '!t `'I `,�.I- _ I_.. _j~ _ I .-,"_r~ :.1 � rx 5. _ A' I1-rs ��" "s•-t'- 1"r _.% �_ �. ' I .'i'•1' � � <. k' _ :, ,,rx _ yr.^� r:' , . . �.1 't'; - = c. ` :i� -r" '- _ +%r - . -.I _ '��, •`,�:.. '-E:. V�. s I-Y4a �,t ';T.„ �.: 1 i 1� .a.' -.�' .I t �•H'«' `fc` . �' i�' � '� ;i .,'� i.•.- H; :.' . A g � 'i� ,.'?k...mr. : 1 �1 i .fir• t 4� -V ei� L�` •�€ `t -4' .�, rl2��.- <,s _ I _ .•'�-.w —1f �— s, ate.. i. 1 r 1� I h f 1 fYr� `.. �=L�. ��lJ^=- �cr:� _ �:l N. I a 5�_ f-I - �i� ' sr - \ /♦ r O L L 0 0 E coo) ca co Oca z ♦+ N c Wouoi� ��°)i v L 2 w - `V (D E rn 3 CL r O f4 � co C N +' E O E v o ` f/) m L 'a C� m O O N O 'a Q :) N O 0o / c N �o o ai- a,�o anW-o �';c o°° / R „N LN L c v oc� LU �.0 L O� Cp (� mz ■.� 'w is oQo tB as v.► o 0 op - �� ..� 20 W00 �.w'0— v Qi� L o.W 3Z aC oz S4 CD S 020 o . �° o a� W...a-O� `� L E op o m o o-T Lp -0 aa)i L `mg� o� rn� o��E'. lot co "a -0 C Wi> >U E n m c a o C CL Qovw W > a) Q O cC W O toct; 0 tv M C Q co U m$ V C �� a) N t1 O N � O VJ N.� 9,U V uJ �w§� C C O O a.� N O S N C� O).0 ca -0 . .+ 2 0 U Z J ZJ�? o coo inv) 3� o.__M Comm i'' o c D o � o damo LU U f IX I m VI OfE I�r/ �i 4E1f = n E E, H Q r l~ 1 Y' S. z: r L t 1�1 6 .t S i LIS J j Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.10 sites designated within or near the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area shall be designated on this map which indicates areas of earth subsidence and landslide hazards in excess of normal allowances. In order to designate the subject project development site located at /Ca2� -'7 c.� Edmonds, Washington, the following maps, surveys or other noted items below were used: • Geotechnical Report Prepared by NGL50 � GO2O tMAtN -AA-4! GA I1:,S, Grc C • Land Survey Prepared by' P AVI n 1W � T-�i C , NY 1LL C "I certify under penalty of perjury that the site location designation has been made to the best of my knowledge and belief, following an investigation of all information and documentation in my possession as well as reasonably obtainable information in the possession of others, including public agencies. Any information which would tend to designate a differing location for the site is attached as a part of my designation as well as all information upon which I reasonably relied." Site Plotted by Signed Title 0%-*4 N eR tq 'R0 /3 Clot' IC 7 co g-mG r 4- Z! —/o t J�o •. coo Q MEADOWDALE:. MARINA. Q . 0� SNOHOMISH OLYMP�� �Ew w Q is PARK 1 MEADOWDALE BEACH sl 3 SITE 1���ooluplc COUNTY PARK Rp MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 168th ST SW VICINITY MAP N. T. S & HAUL ROUTE [M[Esulm STRE T FEE a�clTyOF S®ONDS - , Keystone Cap Unit Interceptor Drain per Keystone Standard Unit \I. uevzec necommenuunon (CTR.)\,"11"'11111 i /r. �Unit Drainage Fill ,r1 Finished Grade ,iP 1-j" Washed ,'IN iL Rouned Rock) ; I`i�1. -�1I 1- - 'Filter Fabric top, ; I' l + , =f, side, &bottom I / I' �� Unreinforced Concrete or I Crushed Stone Leveling Pad 6" Perforated PVC / II 'II ll �� ./I'' ,I /' Drainage with holes up. , I , , II / / I/PP MODULAR BLOCK (KEYSTONE) WALL I' / / I' -/' WITH I N TERCEP TOR/FOOTING DRAIN ; 10' SANITARY I + r + SEWER ESMT / N. T. S. - I // I y) I / ,/ I ryI , / ! / I.", � :/ + / / / I ! , l I / / / I � / I I ; / l ! , , , , I l I ! , l I' // / I / i 'J , I I p , � ° it"I /,, / I I , I , I I / Q , y 1 /'�O t % ,' ; i ; / ; � , / ,' r I / ' / / �� /' � I '/ // .✓J � / r r , r I , , , r / , I , , I r / �q, I r , r ; I I � / , , , -- I ( / 1 J / r r r / I I I / / - '/ I r` / I It f �' , , I I.' I I I/ 1( I �I . ^_ I , I 1. / t/ � "'Ij t"e, r I I I' + , l , I ! k I ) , ; y I ' II .: i ' ' '' I / / / ' l ' i� / / I , I t ' I / ' r r r ,' � / / / , , ,' ,' I r 1 i ' / l , r I , I I / . 1 , , ' I. . r , , ,!' I . I / r , I i , , , r ! , / f r i ! i I / r i! , r I / J ; ,, I I,/ / 0 __/ 'r I ! ! , , / , , i , ,/ / " / i. / L. I / r� J /' ! / / / / O I f �/ ,/ , 7 . / ! r , / ! I . / ''. , - ` I' / J , / I. ,. ro . S T I I LO . M ! l0 DR N ♦ i 9 7 i / / , . ♦ ♦ , + , l i . . , r ,' , � , , BENEFlT LOT; 3 &4 � ,, O , r r I I. r r / , / , , , , ''3 I / / r , , , / i r 1: , I� r / / .ti �l Co I . ;,' / , / �I fb• ^ / , , Al / , ►' , O "� / / / /h�,. O . / , //. I , / O I I. , Q ;" + & P I /� , ♦ r ,; + iE71! FlLTER , I I O. , /: - t , + 2, FABRIC FETdC/NG I / I / / ,' - , I , EX. SSMH J i , O LE / CO C P , N BETE I � .RIM=43.35 � N / Sl� � ' P. V i / EL - 45.0 ' . / "r , , i /. . ., Q I' rr�� J ^ / , / , / .. , `c/ / + 1 HOiISE.Ff=550 �r:',:. / I i ,. / 1 / , / /- B-1 I . BA £MENT = 45 0 S I `•'I /' I/ / , // II.- . , I 'y/--- .I. 1 _-_-.-_-.--- / I 1. + , / , J r �� , r '' l ,` ,' / /' '` '` , %' TEMP SEWiMBVT :'I , / / ,' ,/ AI M I O ��"I I y X. , - z , TRAP Ar c� / /wl ' / ' ' �( / I. , , / / r I I I / / ,rJ , N m , . r / v �7 Cj/�� r / / S I / , , N ' / y Ex• J / r , / , 0 , TO BE / J I ' ' '/ ' ' /I I / Ili �F/ - REMOVED / // / + I 10 SANITARY I �° / / , IZ . j) It r / 1 I + SEWER ESMT y �Iy ' _ - - - l / / I I Ir / / I 1.�, ,i A2'; it,/ , / , I , I I p/f. J - - - - - _ - fY8T35'43 "W - - - - -.�/ / / It , o /- / / / 18� HAINL !N / K FENCE f ON LINE / ,/�, , / - ,r , / h .. _. - J PROPOSED DRIVEWAY L OCA TION- SOUTH HOUSE j �: I PROPOSED DRI VEWA Y PROFILE FOR MIKE GOLD - SOUTH RESID&,CE � % SCALE 1 " = 20' � ' 80 --_i!y- -r-- ` -1� - -LeNli- - _ -- -- 80 Z PROPOSED SLOPE ZE USE IMPORTED S7RUC7URAL FILL y' 0 BENEATH DRIVEWAY. DO NOT ..a__ 7.57. 72 o USE ON -SITE MATERIAL PER GOETECHNICAL REPORT. 18.0% ` 60 _ 60 -( I = 54.375 _ _-- _ ___ - ' : II PER NELSON GEOTECHNICAL; CUT FF - - - - - - EXISTING SLOPE WITH LEVEL BENCHES -s EXIST. GROUND PROFILE 4'-8' WIDE BEFORE PLACING STRUCTURAL FILL. FILL IS TO BE KEYED INTO THE 40 CB 1N71PE 1 COMPETENT NA71VE SOIL OF THE SLOPE. TOP =53.9 �__^.___..______ 2' TYP.NOVER EXCA VA71ON REQUIRED AROUND HOUSE TO ACCOMOATE - 40 '-'"---�-'- -------' ______ .--_--__-.-_.-_ _ __ _- _ _ CONS7RUCRON OF THE CONCRETE I FOUNDA77ON RETAINING WALLS i 20 -L---------.-I 20 - 1 +00 0+00 - _ _------.__------------_. _.- .-_-__ .---^----.-- -- - -I EX. CB RIM=35.77 I.E.=30.67 S.E. i.E.=29.87 N. - 'I 0 . I . - . __ .. .. .. ...:. ....... ., . .. 1111111�� I I N'' k IdE �° V`;� ` li""kI t '. ; r , r '�r�� fin - ___ t, r �. c ����" i RR' h EX e / �I , • �t •� q' . ir1 Y 6S8L % ► %' ..bA^\'s";",:p:,ti., A1OII •o MARINA 1111PONw-' t • ..�•� / y �- r. ,I , COI 4w a 4 a a4�k�wlw '4i a'+}��ti{,�f' "011 �7 VICINITY MAP & HAUL ROUTE N. T. S. ti f7LL WI QUU i n rrrUOL LU tiXAUING UUAN 111 - _WI_771IN 200' SETBACK FROM SHORELi;II CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE EQUENCE TOTAL CUT & FiLL WITHIN 200' BOUNDARY CUT: 622 CY (375 + 62 + 185) : I. CALL ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE (425-771-0220, EXT. 1326) TO SET UP A PRE -CONSTRUCTION FiLL: 591 CY (447 + 144) • I MEETING WITH OWNER, CONTRACTOR, DESIGN ENGINEER AND CITY ENGINEER. 2. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CUT & FiLL FOR GRADING WORK AROUND HOUSE: CONSTRUCTION OR SITE CLEARING. CUT.• 7 CY (622 - 615) I 3. REVIEW EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES. FILL: 445 CY (591 - 146) 4 CONTRACTOR iS'TO PROVIDE DUST CONTROL MEASURES';4S. REQUIRED, jNCLUDING' STREET SWEEPING. .: CUT &FILL FOR SLAB ON GRADE, FOOTINGS & STEMW;A` LS: 5) ROUGH GRADE, ,INSTALL' UTILITIES & STORMSYSTEM PER PLANS. . 6.' DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT II II KEY PROJECT ASPECTS' DURING CONSTRUCTION. CUT. 615 CY (622 - 7) 1 ; 7. FINAL GRADE, PLACE.AND HYDROSEED PER NOTES & DETAILS II FILL: 146 CY (144 + 2cy fill under garage slob) I. III1 8 REMOVE T.E.S,C. - FACILITIES PER CITY" APPROVAL: GRADING UA T7 Q N AES ARE ROUGH C ALCULA7)0 NS THAT DO . . NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SHRINKAGE OR SWELLAGE `i , . . ,.' r-. I .. . + . -1. . 5 .] �.: Z: . •i' Y. .. .. .. ," . „. „ F' P ROFII_ A A .' w . . , ; MIKE GOLD - SQIJ'TH' RESt�� , :. . t�I a I.; I. .; li;': SCALE.' J I = 20 .. , � .. � � ' 11 d. 1. .:•_ `` o PROP,OS ED 80 . ... ;/h,. EXIST. GROUND PROFILE I C . LA NDSCAPE, GRAQE . 'I I BLOCK WALL - f .. '. .. H ;�(vl h ,. j ( PROPOSED AREA. OF 1'�1f. '.. PROPOSED.AREA � OF CUT W ,ir . : z, I . • E I :. STRUCTURAL FILL t ; ,, .'` f .60 . - .1 ; : II iu j PROPOSED T -� ` I - ___ :. 4 ... GtC _ �i, , FAMILY ROOM FF = 55.0 \I I_���11'1'; �:' '" 1�11/'**t UARAGE FF-54.375 ,1 1,�1, ; . �. -:. - , PER NELSON ' GEQTECHN ICAL.i' CU T GRADE ; EX HOUSE. d . .-7 ':. ��.". I I� -I _F ., - 4,--- �`� r ��. IS EX TING ELOPE WI77�,; LEVEL .BENC,NES ;, ' ` � a ` TO L =I- E REMOVED ''- .. - - - . , N /._;__ 2 J1P. 0 VER EXCA NATION . REQUIRED AROUND' HOUSE TO -r 4 8 WI DE BEFORE PL l; A /TUG FILL. 'FILL 1S I. a - '-�' - ;- i. �BAS MENT' _ , E zFF 45.0 ACCOMDATE:CONSTRUCAON TO BE KEYED INTO TH E COMPETENT N A17VE SOIL OF THE SLOPE - = �. .. - +¢ 1 `.$ . _1- �I. OF THE CONCRETE FOUNDA77ON �/, .:: ,II 40.. 4 ' y._ .., I .. ., . , ,-. . _, �� . j 1 .7� I"I 1 2-FOOT OVER USE IMRQf TED STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ; EXCAVA77ON UNDER ` . PROPOSED AREA ` OF ' 3ENEA7H' FOUNDA770N DO NOT AREA OF CUT USE ON=SI �E MATER/AI PER FOOTINGS AND FILL WITH 'RICK SPALLS PER ]N NATIVE MATERIAL . .90ETECHNiCALI REPORT. - i. , .. y A. ESC MINiM D. . UM RE UIREMEN Q iS ALL ACiI VI TIES NECES SlTAlING A"CLEAR/NG.OR GRADING PER ALL U11LilYg. PROJECTS CONSSSENG OF MORE THAN 500 LINEAL FEET OF TRENCH EXCAVA77ON SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TO ,:PERMANENTLY STABILIZE EXPOSED SOIL RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION. PROJECTS INVOLVING A CRITICAL: AREA MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY COMBIN, ON OF THE ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE WILL CBE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE IMPLEMEN TA 77ON OF A. APPROVED ESC PLAN. GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ESC PLANS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL. THE PLAN MUST ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. ESC MiNiMUM REQUIREMENT, - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE. CONS7RUCRON VEHICLE` ACCESS SHALL BE WHENEVER'PRACTICAL, LIM17ED TO ONE ROUTE''ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED. WITH QUARRY SPAI'L.� CRUSHED ROCK TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADS IF SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORT ED':ONTO A ' ROAD SURFACE, • THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DA'Y. SEDIMENT SH,! ' '_, REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPOR7E0 TO A CONTROLLED SEDIMENT D.VOSAL AREA WI7H/N 24 HOURS 7N/i STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN MANNER. 2. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILiZA77ON OF EXPOSED AREAS ALL SOILS EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBA16, AC77WTiES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SUITABLE APPLICA77ON OF BMPS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 50 HYDROSEEDING, OR OTHER VEGETARON, PLAS77C COVERING, OR MULCHING. ALL BMPS SHALL BE SELECTED ' ESIGNED, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. THE EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED ACCORL196- TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. (TYPICALLY, NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO DAYS FROM JCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30 AND NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER- 30). I.: 3. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - PR07EC77ON OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ADJACENT PROPER77ES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOS117ON BY APPROPRIATE USE OF VEGETA77VE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS GR ;FILTERS, DIKES OR MULCHING, OR BY A COMBINATION OF THESE MEASURES AND OTHER 'APPROPRIAIE BMPS " • 4. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - MAINTENANCE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE CON77NUED PERFORMANCE OF ]HEIR INTENDED tUVC.RON. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. ` 5. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - 07HER BMPS. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS TO rh1'r7GATE THE EFFECTS OF INCRE ASED RUNOFF SH ALL BE APPLIED.11 6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONS7RUCRON, THE CONSTRU(776N OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING: A. EROSION CONTROL FOR EXCAVATED AND STOCKPILED MATERIALS; B. THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY AND SPACE CONSIDERATIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES, C. TRENCH DEWATERING SYSTEMS (MUST DISCHARGE INTO SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS); D. TRACKING AND SPILLING OF MATERIALS ON STREETS DUE TO HAULING,• E. DAILY CLEANUP AND STREET MAINTENANCE. Z ADDiT70NAL ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES LAND DISTURBING AC771417ES OF GREATER THAN, OR EQUAL TO, ONE ACREIN ADD177ON TO MEE77NG THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH ABOVE SHALL COMPLY WITH ESC REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW! 1. 3 4 5 UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTiL177ES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING 7HE U71LI77ES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCA71ONS PRIOR TO CONS7RUCRON. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING U77Li7Y LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN P07HOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING U77LI77ES AT THEIR LOCA77ONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST LOCA71ON OF SAID U71LI71ES AS SHOWN ON 7HESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIARON. SW 1/4 , SEC. 05, TWN. 27, /:. / I / / � .1 � (CTR.) Benchmark: TOP MONUMENT - ELEVATION = 62.23 (NAD 88) 0 / ." !":. / __ -____-_ r/ „1 n.'I"I,VI_I 1vn rillan'„- .'I ik J� _ / � . OWN ER1G0NTRAc,rQR IS RESP0NSAS 16Q FOR EROSIOk,' 00 TR(� AND NAM. y, r„ EX. B C . A , ). �' RIM=7730 s I.E=71.60 1 I', ': I RNG . 0 4, W.M. Keystone Cap Unit Keystone Standard Unit 8" Min. Well Draining Soil ` 1 ' , " Unit Drainage Fill `j Finished Grade (. 1-i" Washed �v �� Rouned Rock) lil i ... .- II _4 �` rr i - Filter Fabric top, -r11r_ II ' � side, & bottom Unreinforced Concrete or Crushed Stone Leveling Pad „ 6 Perforated PVC Drainage with holes up. MODULAR BLOCK (KEYSTONE) WALL € - 3 eat , -.!21r . � at l . ..avv,n r-Rvuct./ V1XMW11Vy WUfi1V1111CJ CUT & FILL FOR FOOTINGS & STEMWALLS: CUT. 391 CY (293 + 98 CY over ex for rock spalls)) FILL: 228 CY (native material around foundations) CUT & FILL UNDER HOUSE: CUT.• 637 CY (excludes footings & stemwolls) FiLL: 22 CY (excludes footings & stemwalls) TOTAL CUT & FILL, (including footings & under house): CUT.• 1,063 CY +-9g'CY + 290 CY= 1,451 ! CY (cut on site & under house + cut for'footings) FILL: 898 CY + 22tq CY = 1,12b' CY (fill on site & under house + fill around footings) FILL N ROW. 55 CY CUT 1N ROW ZERO CY: GRADING QUAN1777ES ARE ROUGH CALCULA77ONS THAT DO AI,1T TAlrf I--.111,l•r nl.hl.111- -- -... . -- - . EXPOSED E D SURFACES Rfi A C E Co= ES TD c . ,.:E Q ^pip gg � g �� ill b<°A'S / R \ . / / a �� t r am"T, ■ ■ rmmwvwl aom � t WORK /TGJ /IT/t1 iI�JN NU ►t /'` EART?♦{ ORK IS FES7RIC7E0 BEWTEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL 30 AND;; ANY EAP,774WORK iN THE IS 77HE PERIOD REQUIRES I APPR,WAL FROM BOTH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORp AND THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL. i; 11 '; � ' ' 1. DURING CONS7RUCRON, STRAW;`OR OTHER MATERIAL TO COVER EXPOSED EARTH SHALL BE LOCATED AND READY TO U$'E. 1F THE NEXT WEATHER DAY FORECAST IS RAiN, THE S17E SHALL BE COVERED AT THE END OF THE DAY. THE S17E / SHALL BE COVERED iF THE NEkT DAY IS A NON -WORKING DAY. 2 SOIL STOCKPILES ARE TO BE COVERED WITH ViSQUEEN WITHIN 24 HOURS 3. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH,6RADiNG FINAL LANDSCAPING iS TO BE INSTALLED / OR HYDROSEED OR MULCH AREA OF EXPOSED EARTH. INSPECTION NOTE CALL THE CITY ENGINEER INSPECTION LINE (425-771-0220, EXT. 1326) 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR 'k( ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS. I' EX. C.B. RIM=78.87 Ii I.E.=73.67 EX. SSMH rih, TOPOGRAPHY & BOUNDARY SURVEY PROVIDED . BY- - RiM=79.30 DAVID WEST & COMPANY, l.E.=70.50 (CTR.) PLLC PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PHONE: 425-530-�424 _ GEOIEC (TIP.) 20 8. ESC MIN IMUM REQUIREMENT -DELINEATE CLEARING AND EASEMENT LIMITS. IN THE FIELD, MARK CLEARING LIMITS : AND/OR ANY EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE/C0177CAL AREAS AND THE BUFFERS, TREES AND DRAINAGE COURSES 9. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - SEDIMENT TRAPPING.' PRIOR TO LEAVING THE S17E; ' STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL PAS S THROU GH A SEDIMENT POND OR SEDIMENT TRAP, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE'BMPS: SEDIMENT PONDS AND ]RAPS, PERIMETER, DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS, AND. OTHER BMPS WIEN= TO TRAP SEDIMENT ON -SITE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN GRADING THESE BMPS SHALL BE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE LAND DISTURBING AC711477ES TAKE PLACE. EARTHEN STRUCTURES, SUCH. AS DAMS, DIKES, AND DIVERSIONS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED 17METABLE. - 10.` ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT' - CUT AND FILL SLOPES CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE EROSION. IN ADD1770N, SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORD WITH ACCORDANCE 7H ESC REQUIREMENT N0. 2. : 11. ESC MIN/MUM REQUIREMENT - CONTROLLING OFF -SITE EROSION. PROPERTIES AND WATER WAYS DOWNSiREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT S17ES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION DUE TO INCREASES IN THE VOLUME, VELOCITY, AND PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT SITE 12. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZA77ON OF TEMPORARY CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. ALL TEMPORARY: ON -SIZE CONVEYANCE CHANNELS SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION FROM THE EXPECTED VELOCITY OF FLOW FROM A TWO-YEAR, 24-HOUR FREQUENCY STORM FOR THE DEVELOPED CONDITION. STABILIZA77ON ADEQUATE TO PREVENT EROSION OF OUTLETS, ADJACENT STREAM BANKS, SLOPES AND DOWVSIREAM REACHES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE OUTLETS OF ALL CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS 13. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION. ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT ENTER 7HE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT. 14. ESC REQUIREMENT - REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY BMPS ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED W RIIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL S17E STABILIZA ]ION IS ACHIEVED OR AFTER 714E TEMPORARY BMPS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED. TRAPPED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE. DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESUL77NG FROM REMOVAL SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 15. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - DEWATERING CON37RUCAON SITES DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL DISCHARGE INTO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT POND. 16. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT ON CONSTRUCTION SITES ALL POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT THAT OCCUR ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE HANDLED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONTAMiNA77ON OF STORM WATER. 17. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - FINANCIAL LIABILITY. PERFORMANCE BONDING, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CON7ROL PLAN. [ORD. J013 § 1, 1995] DRAWING INDEX OWNER: MiKE & NANCY GOLD SHEET 1 OF 3 GRADING ]ESC & PROFILES P 0 15225 14TH COURT SE SHEET 2 OF 3 ROAD, DRAINAGE & TESC DETAILS MILL CREEK, WA 98012 SHEET 3 OF 3, TREE REMOVAL & CLEARING PLAN ZONING ��� D 16200 75TH PL W. SITE ADDRESS . (_-A ztl� RS-20, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN71AL 20,000 SF �� LOT AREA = 20,773 SF . CIT GiNEERING DIVISION DATE EDMONDS, WA 98020 REV. # DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Revise house footprint per crchitect's revision & profile 'A -A" Respond to city review. 6-29-10 -',•J' PREPARED BY.•. I , I �lr'lv""", �","'G"', RA,L, DING, TESC & PROFILES IPM��ltOftsf 0� ���YA fQ , ' r �w 0 ,� D ONNA L BRESKE P. E. FO B la 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. � �!- �'- wolnia AUG 2 7 SNOHOMISH W 0 Mike Gold 20i0 a 'V GI GIST ERGO - .. O PHONE. � (425) 834 - 9980 LOT J. 00513106000200 - NA�LE-� � FAX. (425) 334 - 7380 TAX iD: LOT 4: 00513106000400 PFN: PLAN CHECK# �BLD20100339 _ 2 breske@comeast.net SCALE: 1"= 20' ISSUE DATE: 4-20-10 SHT NO. 1 OF 3 RNG.4.9 I / I , 1-10. / W.M. L"Y' SIS"111/1'r, --- f " . ,; / / �/ ... ... 2 I llf-./ , v " - �11, ... . ............. , ,-.1-56,001 11 , I I I . rl ".. ... , I I - C& I '. ." I I � 1/1 j � / " N ; . I . . 11 ; / � I ; --- l!", ----------- ! -,V.. -%, ", / : i " I // " , 11 , � I ... J, I � ........... . .. - ; f F - Rhl,,� .... e'; 5, 2 2 , 1, I I I �; ..".1, , '11; ;, ! __:� r � ........ . .... ; -, 11 'IT I , � , , I ... .. ". , I ..; ( . .. ..... . : , � ; . , I 11 i� /` i � � _�,, ; 11 ; I "' - I f : I I 11 . " ." I .... ......... I � . I , ;.1/1", . I . " ;� �:) I . t I "" ... f � I , ,,,, / 11, � "'.. , I 11 ,f f , , 11 11 i / / "" . // -N CB "I.I. '. ; 11� I /,".",�:'. (3 ; .......... .1�11 ..... ; f ; 1 / / / I,/ N ,� / -1, !�,, , , , - r2 GRATED LID SUMP DETAIL I fl; / ,; I � , -/,�,,�, 1�111111111111 I., -x,I ,),. , -� 1111111111141111111111111 / . . I. ; I I ZN8 " , . I e / � I ; I .,/ '. , . , .1111-4 1/1,11, / 11111111111111 I., 7-35,4311W 1126 / - / I -1 3 ; I � - - - - - __- � I I � e . 59, - �1-_',?5` e,,�.V` 1, �,.--;��X"' - NOT TO SCALE I ; ? f d :�'. I �/ i , ��, e,;, U I ', _,�,%., / ,,,,,,I . ......... . � I � ,e - . /_;_;_/�;,�., I / .11 - ,� I : I , ) , �Z;;, ) "..."..z/ $ ` " ", I ,� ......... �, , _;' -;-.,.;;._1-..>;, , / I ." ' I .1 11 : - . mw I I , ....... , _/ ; , " " "', !,?11�,� 1111111� ,' _g 71,----:S;._ iw&�� , , 11 .... � ., , I I --- -;:-.,, ,!,�� .. 77�,,_/;v ".�-,��l�-".'..":Z.,.,�,,., " � I 1 7 , - -P-,— � _,_ , I . I I I 1; /� e e i I e ,,, k... �_J f I e e / -, li,� / J. �. .'' '! ......... q,&,� / ... ... Y /,/�. / � I // ; / ..a lkz'l ,w / I ', _ , , ." .1 I I / ; �; ,777 Z�7 "_I��__._f�_... a� ....... :� , -, I ;?" I — , � I � 11 '.,.��, ... ? " � A 'WI / ....... I / I I I /I , ... I " '> I / 1 7-,j . , I . .1./ , / 11" : i I -_ I/ . ...... "I" I I 1� .1 f / ... / / "/ I I . . ; —_ , V�zvllA"?71 "I / . I 11 I .... , / " : , .,/ ." . — , e . 11 ., ,// ; I I Y1111 , __ kl i ; 5, ----;_�-, ; 7 .... .... � � . : ...... , , . , , f I I I I I I /I I I I --/, _,/,,,,,, , , . __ ,,,• , I , ; ,11 I , ( : &\ I I I I / f " , ; I I , I I ; A .., , I _� -_ """, � 11 , , -, " ,/ , * ; - , 11 . / i Al , I V 11 , I ; r I IF " � i , I I " , I I V " , . , .; /, , / - V -.1 I / 'r. / 5po �,; '1� i 1 `fit 1�111 - I I ; , / ; ; , " . , I __1 , __J �., , I .. 11 i ? "./ , I I " ,� '11"'y "i'If"), , , I/ * 11 ; ; ? I I : -- __,�, rl/ I ,/ I . W I " ,� , i " " 111111.,' / ,f , , ; " ., , / / J , ,I _ , i / - ,. 11 " " i /, , I f / 11 f ; 161 . � I f / � / . , � e; "I '. , , 1� , e , " / " / I' I,- , ; . I / . , , , ; � ? , ,J I 11 � . 1 / . - ; I '-____�-. ; f I './, , , I �, /I _ , , � -.-'/ , I I , 11 I _f, , - ", , , .b � "• , I , / -..� f ; e " " " , I . 11 I I , __ I f . I 1. , , , / , , , " , . ; " ; _�) / . I / 1� I ; " / ., I ; � / , I f / , / , 11 f, f , 11 1,,, \ / f/ 1, /; ; I I � � .1 /I I " � " . f , . I , / ,;,_1 -_ � , " / I / / ", I ), " � , I i le 11 i '/' I 11 I / e / ; ; I _,� ,!; . - , — I ; I /I Al/ ! ", 'I / / I � ___� f i I .1 " " / 'x'� , I �� �, , 7 e' � , . I., ., I 11 ; 1 13 /I ..... I -_ �, I ; " I _. �-.,/ e I � . \ / I ;� I I 1� I , i ; ... . , � k 11 I ; ; / ... 11 _- -- , I 1 I , t \ � / ; \\ ; 11 ;I / I � 11�� / .,.",/ f-- :;�__ 11 f , "; , I , fy I ( 11 11 / f / -_ _� . // C* I " / / / / / / , , b , 11 , / f. I ? , , ; ; ,� ..... " / I/ I ; 11 ? I ; I "/ (V , / / !, / / 11 y , . 'i � I ; / ,- , ", ", 1111f," , ., li / _,., 11 \ I- / . . f e -�z ,,, / I � I , ; / I 1 , ; 11 � I " / " 11 I 11 11 -jf e " e i f ; 11 J / " ", I i I I ; � 140, / 11 f �' e ) , , ., .1 I I f � f " ; .1 f / / , I , / / �.,,,, �i��"", I I / I 11 � - , / - . ? f � ; ; I � M11 " I � ,,- ,; - " ;, (3 ., e , I "" I , , \ , I ., , 1�(.-. I / , ; , ;; " I / 'L::�A ; , 1( � I ; , / . .. .... ... ;'P', ,Q�, / ,,, ; X, f v, 11 / / " - / � k ,, 13 , / / , ' ' / / - I ;1 I / V e ' I/ . � I , , � �� ; - , / - ; / .�_ 1� 4 ,�_ /I , , _1 f I � e( _� ; ,Z) 41.11 ... / � f , , " , _:::� 3 ,; I I , " 1j, J, ;' , " I � , I , \ , el N; �' I , 11 ; i � , I "' / / ; .1 e, e J " 1� / / " ; I I ,� I e , / /f f / , / , 11 e / , I I . I I ".", , , , I 1 C5 / ,; ; ; f e " 14, / / f ; I ; e f ,� - �\ I 1� i IR . I f .1 " / ; , , , I , ) "...... ; I ��, t, , . I ; ! / " i ,; f ; ; f I.;, / / 11 t . I / / 11 /I/ & , 4Q� P ,1, , / i .... - " / ?I ; / / ; . / , , f V I � - ; � ; I . ........... / I . 11 � ; ; il 1 4 V___� / , ; / e , � , " 11 �e I ,I " ...-.1, / / / ; , 11 11 f 4 .... .. 1. / ; � I e I il / \�� / ; / /1, , I" I / / / / , � . / //, , � " // // i ,,,/ I / ; e , I ,_ , , f / I , , / ; ? ; ; � e / / , B I I -; / " ;1 4 I I � I I 11 ,/ / f " ,�_-_-_-7' ; I I ,.��_� , 11 - I / I --A-- , / -------, , -cj " )4- ..", I -'/ , - I / e J , , - f - ! , �' , ? � , ; 11 " f / / / � I e /I / 21 — f \ " / �- " / / " I 7 I ('�b ,\ / I / , y . . . . . . . . ", _,, - , . T-111"'.'. I 41 1 , . , 11 (b I I r - I I I -- --t " _r / ,; / 11 11 ,11� e " I , I / / 1 /�� / � --+ � .- I —;���'-I` , " \ , / / /L �'/ "I' - ;, /1P , 3 / "T, , , , - f, , / � , ; / 11 , "! " — \L — ��J / � 1; " " I , ; " ; , f < I I i ?, ee � ; el / ,� e•� �c - �X\ / , , V�/ ;f C e .1 : ,/ / , , , / /. V ---, -- I / I / ", , ", / �, " " ( � , � e / ; 11 I I "I I ; I I � , , 11 \\ ,// -/ --r- , ____74/ 1 . I 0,/ P J -, ;, / /� ", I ;,�,..... , . / I 11 ---�'��," e , ; , I , / - e e I I f / / 11 J� , -*- , 11 � / ®- , ; I IQ)* - " / � / f .; / �,�..,,-,, , il ;,/ "/ / /" I)L ,— — —�,�,7-, - 4 / " '. / - / ,, \ � / if I e I I ( 11 I / , / I ; -81 11 // - r" 11 i e /1' 11 , j - / ! I - / , � I , / //1 I , , " C r , I �rl!", ; I 1,1�1. - f ....... / / 11 FF=45.0 7 / / . 11 . 11�. " I i "!L �vh�,_,. I ; I' A 11 " / I ;. 21� HN k,U � P % " , I er 11 I I ,/,.. , ", / . I ; I / I , ' , _t / ", ""', i n� " � / e il I I I ,-�� / I ; ! / , ; I / ", �1/ " Q: ,,, ,,, I " 11 I I . - . / _0 "I tll`�'111'11 , .... " / � �, f . , , 11 , J / , ./ ,,, : / 11 f .."..; / // / ; F (;." 11 �, ,,Ili �� �! I , " , � , , � ��//; ' " ' ; / , j .1 ' ., , , � . I \ .1 ;' e' " �, ,; , I I " I / / 1-... / �, / I 11 / I I __'_1.__1 I f I ? , / J I I ! � - __ .- , I ; , , ,,, � "', i 11 / / 1 r , , L _,,�I�,� 'E,2_1 11,& � / 77=45. I ; ;X ; ,/, - i , e / ; " ,/ / "I /� ,3 ,,, , / 11; ; I /I \ \ \ 2 , I � /? ,f a, f. V� - ) � / /,/ ,.,' , ; " e i fl� ... .. .. , / ..... **'* ; / / / ., . / e , "I ; � I I .(�, I 11 ` " I I I ; ) / " " " *�z ; . 4-)- , " ,. I , .'� , '. e � e � ; .1 / // / � � CATCH BASIN JJ ' � i -11 :- I I/ " I / I � / ; ! ? / I / / / i / / / ! / / I,/ / I �', / ,e,.;_p /�, /, �', / / /� ", I I I/ /I,- / --I---",- ,,, " * , �, -, / I / '� /' I/ f ,( I . , ; ; r I I ,/' : I I I I`\ , , / ! e / "-,.,..-..._/ 11 11 / 11 I / I Z` / I CATCH I TYPE I WISOLID LID � 1 " ,/ " / I I / ", ", / " ,�, ,,, , 11 , 11 . / / , , e, I / '� I / / .1, I / / ; , I J , ! 11 / / !, / / TYPE I " � el 11 ,. e r ! ! I l ", /, , I - I " - , 1; / / " f r , �-,.,. / e f / , ,; / / , f WISOLID LID, , ' TOP=54.9 ' _� � ; e`-� ", � - � , `� ., , ;1 "..� / " 1, ; 11 i " "I e " / ' ' 1�11_ 13`11 -/ I I %,, I � ,- / ..... .. -;", . ". , , , __ ...I I / , � -t' TOP=45.5 IE(W)=50.2-OUT ," ' � , / ,"', ;1 " , (" , / / I I . , ; ? / , . / I" '1/ � , / / / / - / / / I OUT ; I eef , I / I �/ ; � ; 1:1 11 � � � PROPOPSED GAS, r I I 11 111. I � I , POWER, / t i,� / I ) , , / f f / I = . - , � -//; , , ;��.,, ..... ' I 1E(SW)=41.O3-IN IE(S)=50.5-IN / 41 / / ;; ;, � , , , .... ,.�� / ". , . , , /11 f I , I / / � , , ; ! / i ' / _,_� / , J ; I ", e If " � / / , / ,�; , 1// r' IE(E -IN IE(E) 50 5 IN , - -4- / f ER PHONE, - i ; / ;� ...... " I 'I ( / / " ,/ ,� ;! I/ " , I )=4J.0 - , , ; I // " i � -, � ,,,, ,,/ I 1, " " .� / ; ,i� , 1� , / � :"/ " ; , . ; & CABLE " / ""' , . 1 " i� ;; " " ,,, ,, / / / , , ; e I I / , IE(N)=41.03-OUT I I I ;1 , ; ; , I , / / kl---:�_ -1 , / 11 $ 1 ; " / I I ; I / I I f " .. / , I I . i I 1� I I . / I f I I , 9 , ; ? I / I , , , 11 / I �, I I I" , I / , , �___ � , '� , -'.,.,_' ; . I ; ./I, I i I I —1 1\�_ /I "I "/ X,; I " i ", / t 1 `1�71 ; , ,/ I I I I , I -1 I I ,; I I / S I I / I I I , , � " / / -, // / , / ,", I � , I ! .1 f . �11"111 . / /11., " / S.� ; , // / / I I I , \\ r_-Z-::�.l , / / I � / 11 I e , ? I / i / , , , ; -� I , . / / - - /' ; ! . , I `-, ; J, ,-- , 11 / , - , / ?:, ; / / I I. �? " / / J / "I I e ff , I /.? I I f / S�_ e 11 110 ... 11, e, e', " ,; / / ,,/./ "� � ; / I , , " --/— / e 11 e i ,V" / I , I ,,� f, ,.� /, // / A 11 I I / " , '. :",./ e / : / — — — — _L___� �_ - / 11 I I/ " / 10, — —To , — — / IBI ? ; , ........ I I I , ,� I I 6 I / e DR,,;INAGE ESMT T I / , / / , �, I / / J "/ , / / , - ! / / ( ; , I , ! " - 11 I — � / ! I I I ,/ I i / / I .1 ;; I I , , I / � I �� !" " 11 I I ," bINEWCONTRACTOR IS RESPONSI _E 4-11-1. / / / / I " , 1A# I I �, , ; e :, / / / .,.) / f INS LL ,'-6---1 cts / 'P" - I Mri FROSIM,'� CONTROL AND DAMAGE- . e I ,/ f e ,;, I ; / ,; I (' , ; , ; � � /I B�NEF77* L07S 3 &4 ; 1", I' 11 . 11 _ 7- � — —/; J I B-4 , Q� r , I , - I / e , / I /I , I / I .,,,,,, c I ; � / , , I i_ " / , f I 11 � ? I / � e I I .. . / - ,,, " , I , / /,; , " ; i 11 I / . / / I / Go 12- TYPE I ,, % - "; - I`.; ,11- / " f I 11 /_ ; , /' f 11 / ; -7--'rf— 1 ; 11 ,' ASPHALT / � ,� I / / / I I 11 r ,e / / "-:"",.,,� ,I- � e r I / 7 / I / " e 11 I V I fe e I .1 ; .1 . If / , .. / , ; "i 1 I I e 11 ; ; f f I / , BERM I WIGRA IED LID , I " " 'I " " 'i f 11 f 11 14 / I I 11 I — ... # / , I , ,: f " � iT , , /' I I. r ; ; " e / ........... .. X" / / I'l / , / 1%, . _ 1-11" e I ,AROUND , ly I , I , / i ,( / / / , � I ; TOP=62.4 I �' , f ,(V -6 - / " /I I I e��,, I , . J,� /, I di. IE=58.0 / I I " �/ / , I - " I ' CB , - 4; , , // , N - '? / / / '(1, e / 11 ; " , , / I / r , ; / / �� , / f sQ / ;/ ," 11 I Z) ,-,/ / / / 11 (31) 5� �/ 11 I , / ,.,. ? a a ; / /I I I /I i I I . - .,\ � �_ � I I I - / � , - - ..... - - ,/ - A-cz vi"tziz- I i , . I I , ::: '.."..'.1 .,:,.* - - ALU Stka-V I , , . .. - / T I f ? , 11 / & � J I . ...... ..,.;...;..:` W.,--.:.:x' . ,,, , ,,,,, � _ 7 . .." I I f ,./.. 11 / " � I / , , ; / , /, I ....'... � � �,, . )�? / 0 ' :-�'..-".....'.....,...:.:.::::.-�:;:::::: , , , I , �( I—' / A- 0i t, I / ,` q , f 9 .C. , .-.1.:.:.X. �i�ii�i��i��. ::.,.,:iii:::::::- ..; . ........ ..... ... - - � , , I ....// 11 . ) , / ,,?p ' : '. ; ; / ,; I , / e I ,N / —, / 1 y�._. j , . , . ,�, 11 ; ; I.; ,; - , � / / , / 4 " III e. 3 PIPE ANCHOR 37 LF-6' PVC 0 1 ....., .... , : I Xl: I..X.".X.. f '.., I ; ; ,� , , // 1;1V " , 'I- , . ..... .... ....... -F \0 Tuv a W'W � , , 1. I 1. 'y/ ,- " , , (Sy r�; , �v \� -1/ '""' , � ... * ..... / , -, Q 4_.-,� ............ . ......... IL V00r FVOM 0 , - 01; :..:.:......:..... 1�- �:j:j:.'..; - /, / I fl� " , t, , I - " "I" i /_ r . ,ff. ", � 14 1 /I _� , ; 10 - / I X'. -,;;. :,.. x:,:,:*,;;:� .;,. I ; / - ae; otazc,reo -rc--b , I . :: ........ - -..:..,.xx .; i / , ; 9& i� �Iz� ;::::::x-.7. ................, ....."...". : ; .::: . "; K%5�T I -_ I I " , , / .. ::.._..:: .; ; 11z , , . X., ... .. I I .." ... I I f I 11 / ,:-� ... 11 . 1 / e - Ar - , i I :'.'.%.. . -.1.: : I / r A / " t / I � I ; 11 I ; " --.� C,0W-rCA- sptslt-,45 , , , / p / 4 " //� / 1 (3 1 1 / , ` I � / Q 4;p ,��,' 17 " / � ::��;�i��;� � I I � " I I/ 11 I 11 / I/..i��-. f/'1111 , I I I I ,f , " / , � — I ; - — . . I I I ... ; ;�, I , 7 I I I I I / , , I I /_111 , ! '11) I //11 �, 7 1 � .... ... � ,,, , , g; �"2 / , I I 1;i, // � 1.�, I ", '/ --- 7a 1 / :::: .i�ii��,� .. ..... _jL — - - I I I I rz, � I ; " i ", . I , , I .. , e I :1, : DRIVE .1 ,,, WAY INSTALLED " " / If .. ...: .: I / I ., . I ,,/ :�,� "Y , / , " / 4 ,e ��_� " __7 ;' 3 ,,,, , 4 Gi 0 / ;' ) WITH INVERTED I , / , " �, N�) 14 , ". ::,.:.,:, 1U...'...... I , 11. X.X` ; GU,f2 ' - .1 , ZIU., , , - , e V -z,,,' / - - -:1.:1. / , , , I � I , W / , CONCRETE , � I , /I f ; 1, / I" , , i ?,/,,-,f /�. 7 " / , '... il 't e / /, i / � � ,// .� / , f � 11. . ,::,.:. ::...:.. , / 12 Co //1 5 11 ." , , " / / I . . -�_�Pc , ;" IE=59 "' ?, " / / lr*=50 CROWN FROM , , . I - I ... - ,• / / A- �w , , PA 770 � _ ,..�1!-..-.....-, -, ....". " / . I ,': ( f R IE=62. ;e STA77ON 0+10 -- // / �,/" I— f , , , , . . .1.. , I TO I" , "' 'If", I -rI 0JC .. e / I , / fl, ,.' � / , � . I I I " � ,-v " -0 f7-orz. cm-T it-.) tz,)(I& -7 % ....... / " , 111"� 34 '10 11"f, " , f ", , --:,' .� P I , , _ /. ef f / ; , I - , ." ,,, " /, " /� I �i / ,( " J? , \ / . a VC ., 2.6 au � Ce I , I , I , /. EL = 45.0 .,i... . 6 e, " STA TION , <,�/ f I . , % - - .... , / 11 " / . , " I , ..,.. ',�C 1+05. , -f -1. _ ... - AI / " :::3" , , . / , ; 11 , /, f ....... " " Z; -�"",�. 11 , .�:��i� .. ; I I , ... ...... ;" I / 11 , 11 . -- I . ... ..Z: . 11 11 . ... ,\� " . /I t _,; �, ,,, I J/ TL4AL , / !, , � 11 '1/1 / / I � -, /' // "; ." / ... ", ---i: :��l-'..'.i....7 � � , , , , ,GL,o9e, A-Nx) Pi.AceMen%3-Ir or- s-rwA -c / / W /' , ., " , '*----,// ,�7 / , / - I __\ ii��!.'A-.,-.iii��iiiiiiiiii H , ,.*x - / -or -rV(r- ,OON/eWAY cow.-rtw-vu.) i / , - - , I � ::j_......... 6d:, , I / , , " - ,� ... / , I I - .. , . - . I I .:.,. :.. , .. ; , I I / "I � :::�.:::;:::;:::::...%, . I I / / ;1; I m� " " " f / e ; ; / "', i �,,i � :�ii, �� / " "* '. 11 I � , ,,,, / " " "/ ; ; ... .. ...... . ; � i�,;,;,/ ,, / i / HOUSE FF=55.0 FkLA� F L - I I/ / 1 � W -.I,.,.' ccrrl 1 e I I \ / ,.�.i��ii�i�i. " , /, .... :. .:.:.:. - / 11 " , . I/ .11 / I / " i U-1 BASEMENT = 45.0 % ::;��:���i�::,::: �i�:�]..*-�-..�i ; '.. / ", I , - , I ff / 11 11 / .:.:.; ! ; " I", / � .... � 11 : - I 'i ; I I 11..... J / / . ./ ; — '. I *, " '. / X;1�1 ___� '! . ; 11 I " , Ky, J 6' CO W/ 12' CASI IRON - ,/ ,� / - .. - `� I i 1� I � " , . I , , , f Gulb , ; � 11 " , /'O� "' � ,/ ; " ; / _17- - . ,",�;) / ;, 1. - 11� 'k / /, ; I , ,.; / I - �.x......x'. :.- LF IE= 5J 1111�11�1� " "; J.'; ; 3V "' ' LOCKING LAMPHOLE ��/ __ , 1 I /1"', NOTE IF R1111 TO INVERT FOR f , , 1� "I ,�.,-.- j �/ I - 11 "I I �. , ". ',',.) e I !:-;�.% 90 I .�41 I I f I I __ " ... .- ..... ... ..... I ,�,; / / 11, "' V . - V , - HE IS. / / — ... ..... - I I I y I I . �_ — — — \ - " - "' " , - .� -- " , " ' I / .,� , , ,�_ _. /I I COVER NTH I / I ; , — — .... '. , I , , I 1/1 I , , , PROPOSED CATCH BASINS .- I ... ........: P F I ..... I 1. ... .... 6 ,__ ", JI/ / / " � ` - EXCEEDS 5' THEN A TYPE I/ � _"� . , / I / b", / "', 1. , / � / GENERAL LOCA71ON OF EXIS17NG SIDE \ / vib -r:::r:;.-_ — -1, jL - I � I / "-- " i - i ' , _�- SEER IS SHOW. CONTACT ENGINEER 'r2 GRA TED .. M —, / I " , I I I ........ / , ' '/ , , -! / V.:.:�iiii:iiil�ii�� , "I I � I '47' ' LOCATE ON CITY SIDE OF �,. / ( -,� ; SUMP I , ,. / "', ,/� " " ':f' ,'EASEMENT /411 \ i��i!i�i��.-..*.-.T.-i,..i,..�.-.���i����������������i 0 CATCH BASIN MUST BE INSTALLED. / , / . . F. U�? * -1--A ". , '...."......... , ,// � I , '0--;.-1 -1 � W / '... . iq �/ / L� *A - I .... ........... lr� " I "', , , I ." " .. : - - - ,;"��:".. 1 11;9 . . . . . . . . . . ; g / ; IE=33.83 � OF RECORD IF AC77JAL LOCA71ON DIFFERS. , 'A'T i���i�!��iiiii�iii�i�,.�l.,�:.��i������!i���i..,."I��, � f .... 11 �. I , � _� ,/ DETAIL ' . :::, %,-.1- ... �is' � , �, ,,, ", // 17 1 1 11 11 ; 11 � "', X'............ -:-x-x-:�;�.:-.--- I I I ., , ; , ) `11' I , . ........:..:,.:::::..:.:....:.:.:.. . � .... el . " ( .. .. :: ���]����:: . - / / ..." 1��, ""' * **. . #1 81 ; / ; , __J I ��� GRA TED INLET Of ; i�i�i]i�i�i�i�::::::..:.:....:.;.:.. " I , / ; / I ; , I , /,J ,,/ " 11 P Ili , 1, —, :* I I . I 11 / // , 0, I / � ::�� I , , / , .. ,,,�/" . I / . , I , " , , I i I'll , f,�,; .. I , ..... / " / , > "I ( � / I I I I fl .. /� I If f I ; I I \ I" / I 11 - , "..... ? " , " , f ,; I � i " � I ! � 6" / �/ " *%5%:::::*-:' � / I � 6 11 I ,�\ , I ,/ ele �, 1�� / , - ALL PROPOSED 07IL177ES ARE � " !90 1 � e 11 M Q$ ; I ; _� / 11 NOTE. � '41 n ; I I /,/ e , , , q / / I I / I , ; . / I / - // �� 11 " , " I � ) / " I S &! �; ; 1 , .:,:.:. , "I, TO BE INSTALLED UNOCRGROUND. ;1 i 7, 1 . ;.'_.--;�.'.,�:::::::;:::r: �x / 00 - " ,,, "�_" / -7-' , I f , ... %........:ji ..... ... , �' , I ; "%.::: ... " i - /ol", f Q6 i /, , ,/,' I I � e�49 / / I M I /� C811- 1 ; � 1. I -,/:.j.:j:j:j:�:::j:j:j:::: Lf, ill' , e / 11 � I " 1� I / / li "I "I 1i ... I,, e , - ) ", e", / � W , ,,, f* , e., 461)r 11-1 . e �W,/ /' ,"� ", / Q I .. .. 1. � , / /�" I ;;/ ; 11 / """....;; / / , f i I " , ; / . e y TOP=5i.9 r f 1; " '. I / e / 11 I ,; ; / 13n, 11 / , I/ I ,,,',, /,",/ ul." 11 I I , / 1� 1, e P Cn , , I e 7 � / , �!, I ? � ; / 1. .1 / 11 f.. I " I 01 , I e , e p 1E`S=51.J-1N&OUT , �' 1-1 ,.,� I , / - � I . S/ e / / I ;1 e ; f ", " -,.-,-�� / " I 11 I 0*( / / ;j 11 , j /F11 ; 4 / I, 1,) 11 �; , I I I 11 / I I . "I ? I ? . . I I , / ; - I .; 1:t 1 C015 k /" ; / /, , , , , / I I ;I*-,, � I/Y / , � I / �y " , - ... .... �, I .//I I , I 11 I 1 � J ') � , � e 0/,P, , ; 11; " ,!IE=53.5 /f , , I � / ; / . I " ", " // � F/ , ., ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED VVITVW.N s? DAYS " / ; 11 11 It I f I Q� 'i I ,I I / 1. .1 ; co " I ; 11 ; I I I , f Y ,,,,, ACCEPTABLE'FIGHTLINE I I ; / "I 1 J f . I 31 1P. / V-- / / �, If � e I , I , " " e I ; co, " IP4_ / i ! ;' 10' SANITARY ----�i/ " , , / f " ;1 / y - 11 11 " e I EX, C8 ,,/�/� j I ��., , / 1� ;. , -, UlArrAut rr=04.J10 � " , . // / ,;"s , I / / ,�� , I/ I I , I'll— ....... I ................ I ..... I I \q /_�. 1_' I 1� 'eb-,� .... 7 " 3,0; / /, I ; , :?,� , / ; - I I SEWER ESM T , , , / ,. -_ . f NEW WATER SERVICE LINE I I ,'�iW ,� .......... . I / / , ;1 \ /I " e �, I f ;1 " " \ / L_ I I < 1 4 V " ; ... , MIATFERIML / e '*�' , — — "I I / / / " � " , "' I , , , I ,;� , , — / j C013 e � r I:' -;, 1, ii 6 0 1 , , - — — , , I MINIMUM 10 DIAMETER , , I ,�, , I I , ,? , / ,� I � / / " / I 11 � / ; , 11 — - — / 11 , / '4 11 / 11 SCH 40 / 11 ; I f / " , /I .1 - . / _1>/ / IE=61 ' ;` I V,/,"/ "DR 35 / I 11 / I / —, !\— ;____1__ - .! ; / , �,_� @ 160 PSI r .1 �1 1/,/, ; I " , � �_, I J " - "I Ill/ .............. - , ; / / 7-- --i , - / ,.e- 4_;L_71' V I 1�__--__;�1(` ,If' ; / ,,/,.- — el '. / /� ., f / ", "Ill, I . 1 " " I 11111111 - ,> " J I I --*1 Q,/ " / N- 12 -q!�.,;7 -� ., ... ... —.7— , 11V,A,/ / / ,(? I / J , 10— �� 111111, - - ;"� -_ , _ I/ I ) 11 �; ;.-,-�;,-�.",;. 11.11.1'..- : I - �: , I I -, ., / � .1 � .- " - I✓ 171?1 � , / 11� �. --oo"f � I �, I I., 1z, I / / . .L..).,� /" / I I 11 , '81 0 HANCOR ." f 1. * 11 I .� , 1, ,, / P 11 f /9,1 : .. . I . le", "' .1 / . . IE=63 � I � / 11 I / I � , , I � , I I I :1 I I I I,/ / /—_;,-.L_ , ", /, f .......... "-, -,, , , - - ... 11-11-11 � /1".. I ' REPLACE EXISTING WM ._�,) .... -- - SEWER LATERAL IS TO B . CHAINL'NK FENCE ± ON LINE ...... /"/ /--.". " �, ,F- ,i- 11 �e --;��11/-,_7;11111111 / / ,/✓ / ,.,., , ,,'�; , �;� ;;;, ,/ i I , - , , // ! , / ;�;" �, , , 11 � 11 , x / / f "-/f," � "I ,,,,, , " "I /I �', , , - -..'/ KITH NEW I" WM / USED, THEN IT KILL NEED TO BE TVd BY P f/ "` _� .. , �_, " I 1�1 ; ", ,,,, ,,, I / V ,/ , - 1 INOTE: IF EXISTING SIDE I'd / ... .'�. I , " I I � / , / , , , I I 1'e�. 11";( "I / ,,� ,-*,, � / � I / 1, I ", � I � / ; 11 I I ; I : � � ., " _�;�,__ 11 . : _� "I I,/ / �, 1 ,� ,,, , - PIPE ANCHOR REQUIRED FOR I ", , ,,,, ; , WORKS TO DETERMINE IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE / / P11 -�,/-, .....",�-1-- ......... . , 1, I'll) // , . 11 NO TE. -I'--;--- -- - I , ., I., /I /.<, ; 1, 11 __,/___-�,,t:�� � 1/' I COND177ON FOR RE -USE �, _,:��, I i I I , � I/ 11 , '�, , , , ; 11 11 " �.. ,; ,,-,, _-, 1. /l/ /� PIPE SLOPES OF 207. OR GREA TER. : ".', I � i 1�; ; /, ',/ / � I , I / � I '?,; "', I 11 ,� ..... CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS AT 425-771-0235 , ; / ,��,� 1�� : i , I../, / 11 � . / � : . 11 / ; , ? I .. / I IF COND177ON IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR REUSE,/ ,,, : s � ,,, /,,, "; / / 11 �/, 1, 11 / - , I , / , . ; I �, 11 11 . . -�If.ft"&� <151; I , / , I 1;11 - "�W� 1 ; � / " /I / "" , , ;� �, I THEN OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE / , ,fw,*�, ; / I >.. � i I ;, , . I I - - , / 11 A I I I I , - RESPONSIBLE TO REPLACE SEWER LATERAL. / AppliCant g "' I I / 11 - I ; I I 6,11 11 I 11411 repair/replace , ; / <'Pl I I / / / " /, / / mage to C, , 4 ; // / "I / // I / I 11 . ; / I 9,qe impro � -, / , . I utilities Or tr0t1t, face all da ."�, 111 / /I , I I / __J 11, ,,, I , "" 11 -OfvvayperC: Stan,'4- I';;". , e el /, � " " - / I ,`z,?-, I �1� I--- I right improvements in city . , , /7 ,F im 13 Caused - -if / / wi,�,� I .., / / / 60 , , , / �, ,,,,, ,,, I / , , ,; ��- / 11 , I , / o, // C, or Occur,- during the Permitted project. 11`,��` ,,, / � /, L / / / I , , / / f , /�/ r�7/,, rn#, -—- �_ ,;'� / / / , / - , . / 11 '. / - ' ,-- e, / , / , " ,,,/,,,,/ . ,/ / , - - , .1 i�- , , , " , / // , , " I " I , I . 11 " " -11, / I 'I. , "I // 16" . , , / ,,,, ; " I `;1., ,,, , I "". I , LEGEND , f / 11 / " , �.:;, ..;:::, �.... * ; , I I .%'. 11 . - , , /� '. '. '. I d , / '�.. .9 , a ." C " / C,�; �11 11 / " I ,4 � , r 114, / I "I .1 , " 11 . ; 11 I .. - ", i I . 1. .- ..I. .1 I , I ,/ c" / ... .- _. I I - -111, / e ,�� '. 1 8 ."", ....... I ........ I'._------- EXIS71NG EDGE OF PAVEMENT , , 11 , / ,,, I . " p ., I I / I i I '� , concrete block � " i 11" .. \ 11 11 11 11 / .'': ... *........,.."....................... ; / / ; // 1, 11,0111 - ... .. . .,.,:: . / / ; / 11 ............. - 11*1`-.:.--;-" . . ..... ...... ......... ........ ...: :....:::.,.:.:.,.....,....,-.....- ""' / PROPOSED PAVING ', f , / / ..... �..........................,.:,.�..:.:..,::..,::..,:",: . . ".":".:,.:,..:...,.,.".......:.: ....... ; � "',....".. , c. F�, ...,.::.,.:.,.,.,:.,..,....,..,..,.,..:,..-. ...."IX......'.. e.:,.,:,:,:-"."".....--.--.-. ASPHALT OR CONCRETE A , I e ....... ... - ........ % ...... . ........ � I.:�..".,..,............�"......�..".% ... ; / ..... f / \ '8�� '. I I ; I / / N IMPERVIOUS AREA EXHIBIT GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORK SHOW ON THESE PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE C11Y LOF EDMONDS STANDARD PLANS AND DETAILS. THE FOLLOWING SPECIRCARONS AND CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS' -CURRENT INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (16C) -2010 MOtIAPWAI grANDAM) SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION' -WASHINGTON STATE DtPM#JMT OF tC13L96Y 5-T01?A4W47ER MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN (CURRENT E01770N) 2. STANDARD PLAN AND TYPE NUMBERS INDICATED ON 774ESE DRAWINGS REFER TO CITY 9F EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS, UNLESS NOTED 07HERMSE. TIC9T7 11 3 A COPY Or APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOBS17E WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 4. DEWA 77ONS FROM THESE PLANS MUST BE APPROVED DY THIT FAICINCER OF RECORD AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD ALL APPROVED DEWA77ONS FROM THESE PLANS ON A SET OF 'AS -BUILT' DRAWINGS AND SHALL SUMMARIZE ALL AS -BUILT CONDITIONS ON ONE SET OF REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS FOR SUBYITrATO 7HF OWNER PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLE77ON AND ACCEPTANCE. A SET OF AS -BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE suamITto TO 11114f CITY OF ,EDMONDS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING OCCUPANCY/FINAL PROJECT APPR&AL 6. ELEVA71ONS SHON ARE IN FEET SEE SURVEY FOR BENCHMARK NFORMA770N. Z THE LOCA71ONS OF EXIS77NG U71LI71ES AND S17E FEATURES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY OTHERS BY FIELD SURVEY OR OB71ANED FORM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR To INDEPENDENTLY mRtFy 774E ACCURACY OF ALL u7iLlrY LOCA77ONS SHOO AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND PROTECT ANY 07HER U71LI77ES NOT SHOWN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND PR07ECT ANY OTHER U77LI71ES NOT SHOW HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENT47ION OF THIS PLAN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCA77ON, DEPTH SIZE, TYPE AND COND17ION OF EXIS77NG UTILITY LINES AT CONNEC77ON OR CROSSING POINTS BEFORE TRENCHING FOR NEW UTILITIES. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING U77LI71ES AND S17E FEAWSRES PRESENIED ON THESE DRAWINGS ENGINEER SHALL BE N077FIED IMMEDIATELY OF CONFLICTS THAT ARISE, 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PR07ECT ALL U77LI71ES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND U17LI77ES LOCA77ON SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONS7RUC77ON. 1 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL COND177ONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE PROJECT S17E BEFORE STAR77NG WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTA77W OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. PIPE LENGTHS WHERE SHOO ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY CHNAGE DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS - I 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE CE07ECHNICAL REPORT (WERE APPLICABLE) AND SHALL THOROUGLY FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE CON7ENTS THEREOF. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE K17H THE RECOMMENDA71ONS OF THIS REPORT 12 STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO 7HE RECOMMENDA71ONS OF THE PROJECT CEOTEHNICAL REPORT 13 MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, U71LI71ES AND PAVEMENT SHALL BEAR ON MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE NA 77W SOIL OR COMPLACTED STRUCTURAL FILL IF SOIL IS DISTURBED. SOFT LOOSE, WET OR IF ORGANIC MA 7ERIAL IS PRESENT AT SUBGRADE ELEVA 770N. REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL PER GEOIECHNICAL REPORT 14. SEE SURVEY AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS AND LOCA71ONS OF BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPED AREAS AND OTHER PROPOSED OR EXIS71NG S17E FE47URE5. 15. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR PERIMETER FOUNDA71ON DRAINS. FOUNDA77ONS DRAINS SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF OTHER S17E DRAIN LINES AND SHALL BE 71GHLINED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM WHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 16. ALL REQUIRED STORMWA TER FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUC70 AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO INSTALLA17ON OF ANY PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 17. ALL ROOF DRAINS, PERIMETER FOUNDA 71ON DRAINS, CATCH BASINS AND OTHER EXTERNAL DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM UNLESS N07ED 07HERMSE. 18 CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS 1-M Concrete footing keyed into undisturbed soil as shown SECTION A —A N TS - ,.,I ,/ / \ �, " - / . PIPE ANCHOR DETAIL , " ", , / \ ; I I ,/� / 1. t*07� BSBL BUILDING SETBACK LINE "" . "' Ex .5&�v,'� 6' MIN. ,V � .. ... ____ ............. ;__ 1, / R"A/L )_311 kl-__� NOT TO SCALE ; '� ,, - 7� ,;", _* I/ /, CO CLEAN OUT W . N4*1� )%, 10 11/1DESCRIPTION DATE & �� CB CATCH BASIN "r / - ; Respond to city review comments, add radius to driveway apron use Type 1 CB'q etc 6-29-10 TEMPORARY STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N. T. S. Ma e3om0iJOj :S-rAT,10A-a0 t)e:-7WLerl.2_ f SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT / j4 TOPOGRAPHY & BOUNDARY SURVEY PROVIDED BY.• W DAVID WEST & COMPANY, PLLC PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PHONE. 425-530-7424 - - # . 2 Address City Review Comments dated 9-21-10, Add asphalt berm at CB in driveway, etc. 10-4-10 1 i 4 5 . UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE. THE CON7RACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE 1'01? I,LRIFYING THE LOCA77ON, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXIS77NG U77LI71ES WHETHER SHOW ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY F01HOLING THE U71LI77ES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VER77CAL LOCA710NS PRIOR TO CONSTRUC710N. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING U77i iY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING U77LI77ES AT THEIR LOCA77ONS OF NEW UTILITY i,'HOSSINGS TO PHriICALL Y VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST LOCA 71ON OF SAID U771171ES AS SHOW ON THESE PLINS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMA 77ON AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. 6" min (typical) 1 min 6" min 6" min FILTER FABRIC — SECURED TO 2' X 2' 14 GA, WIRE FABRIC EQUAL 2' X 2' WOOD OR - EQUIVALENT CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL IMEASURES BEF❑RE W❑RK CAN BEGIN. I CB e ': FILTER SOCK WITH ` : OVER FLOW HOLES 1. . ...I I CATCH BASIN I YK- . . . .. . ".. :*.:, . A.. . . , I.. .:1 . . . .. "...... * . , . .. �. USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E111). THIS APPLICAITON N,"""."", SHALL BE MAINTAINED TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON PERIOD, TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CB 0 S NOT TO SCALE Edmonds STD E1.3 19. AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF S17E SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE EQUIVALENT OR THEIR PRECONSTRUCRON COND17ION IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. 20, ALL DISTURBED SOIL AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR STABILIZED BY OTHER ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR THE PREVEN77ON OF ON -SITE EROSION AFTER THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUC770N. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR SPECIFIC GRADIN AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIRMENTS. 21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF SITE S7REE7S CLEAN AT ALL 77MES BY SWEEPING WASHING OF THESE SIREETS WILL NOT ALLOWED K17HOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. 22. THIS PROJECT IS NOT A BALANCED EAR7HK`ORK PROJECT BOTH EXPORT AND IMPORT OF SOIL AND ROCK MA 7ERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 23. SLOPE OF FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE CONSTANT BETWEEN FINISHED CONTOURS OR SPOT ELEVA77ONS SHOW. 24. FINISHED GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WALLS AT MINIMUM 5Z SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10 FEET 25. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN SHORING AND BRACING AS NECESSARY TO PROTE, WORKERS, EXISTING BUILDINGS, S7REETS, WALKWAYS, U77LI77ES AND OTHER EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXCAV4710NS AGAINST LOSS OF GROUND OR CAVING EMBANKMENTST FOR REMOVAL OF SHORING AND BRACING, AS REQUIRED. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY AND FOLLOW CITY PROCEDURES FOR ALL WATER SERVICE INTERRUP77ONS, HYDRANT SHUTOFFS, STREET CLOSURES OR OTHER ACCESS RESTRICT71ONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT RELOCATE OR ELIMINATE ANY HYDRANT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL. 27. COORDINATE AND ARRANGE FOR ALL U77LITY CONNEC71ONS. U77LITY RELOCA77ONS AND/OR SERVICE 1N7ERRUP77ONS WITH THE AFFECTED OWNERS AND APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES. CONNEC71ONS To EXISTING U71LI17ES SHALL BE MADE KITH ADVANCE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE AUTHOR177ES GOVERNING SAID U770TES. 28. EXISTING UTILITY LINES IN SERVICE KNICH ARE DAMAGED DUE TO CONSTRUC770N WORK SHALL BE REPLACED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS AND OWNERS REPRESENTA77VE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 29. NEW U77LITY LOCA77ONS ARE GENERALLY SHOWN BY DIMENSION, WHERE NO DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, LOCA77ONS MAY BE SCALED FROM DRAWINGS FIELD ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTA77VE AND CITY JO. WHERE NEW PIPE CLEARS AN EXIS71NG OR NEW U77LTY BY 6" OR LESS, PLACE POLYETHYLENE PLASIIC FOAM AS A CUSHION BETWEEN IHE UTIL177ES, 31. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR CON77NUA77ON OF S17E U77LITES 417HIN THE BUILDING. 1 32. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAKINS (WHERE APPLICALBE) FOR EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL WORK. 33 SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICALBE) FOR S17E IRRAGA77ON SYSTEM. % 0 1 (i H ..-I I IE�Ifl I 8' PLACE 3/4'-1.5' WASHED GRAVEL IN THE TRENCH AND ❑N B❑TH SIDES ❑F FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE, TEMPORARY FILTER FABRIC FENCING FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN CONTINOUS ROLLS, USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE, WIRE MESH O O SUPP❑RT FILTER Fi BURY B❑TT❑M ❑F FILTER MATERIAL 8' TO 12' /'/ AAA EQUIVALENT E C. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN, N.T.S EDMONDS STD E1.1. CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION . 11� ;� ,� -I-. ". PREPARED B Y.- . , 110...- 1. - �... ..., , . . /", " .I. " !� 1. ,' -� I 1i I , � , , , .1,11 . %. DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. � ,, � "".! � !".. I � .1. , ;: �, � �: `. 6621 FOSTER S1,O UGH RD. . 1. , _ - ,,:.. , ` �,?,, . . . ?/, " I I "'', 1, `�,,,�; '. 11 :;*. SNOHOMISH., WA 98290 ,, " . ... 1.11 I , .. ,�e . I ". " ,-1 / 11 .. .. . , , - ,") 1-1,11 I.' - PHONE: (425) 334-9980 "I , , 0 -;-",�� , .-I M::, : , _.; ...:::._ A ... :. 11; "'.. - - -7380 FAX. (425) 334 ... �.. y donna breske@comcast.net / 0/2, " m DATE OWNER: MIKE & NANCY GOLD 15225 147H COURT SE MILL CREEK, W4 98012 S1 7E ADDRESS 16200 75TH PL W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 ROAD, , DRAINAGE., TESC DETAILS ESUB & UTILITIES FOR Cr - 5 2010 BUIL ING DEPARTMENT MIKE & NANCY GOLD SFR 01 OF: 6DMONDS LOT J. 005IJ106000200 PFN: PLAN CHECKI.• BLD20100339 TAX ID: LOT 4. 00513106000400 SCALE. I "-- 20' ISSUE DATE. 4-20-10 SHT NO. 2 OF 3 021WR IL F SW 114 SEC. 05, T WN. 27.9 RNG. 04, W.M. 50J�0•: L MEADOWDALE :, ' .' , / MARINA. Q It If If /13 If; ,� , , JIf ,' O r' I ' / / , / / It / / / ' / �' If If' CIf It / If ° If20-1 P If 1)0 If It ' i ,' /' ` ,� / ' �/ / 1, � / ° / l ' / / / � � � � _ •' ' ' ' '' / , /' '' ' / o REM vED BE TO / M cb (TYP.) If / / Q' , , / > GL.�q-iG1tvC,,, �iViTtt�tt� r!^ "_ / V' U� r S / r t f Q f r ,'OF o(Live iO ,/ ,' // / l I\ /' ,'' / / �` J ' ,' // ,, ,! /d'.!' !' �J Sq i i�1S1'I4i.1-Ki { 1 0 ONLN/�I.CT'�/ If T B.fl, Nr ",-EX .SSMH , a T.B.R. � r. , / t kt ! RIM 43.35 / , I. E. = 34 80 CTR. co If r — _'-- ------------------- If ,CLEARING L!MlT =i / , Ily ,, , ` / /'' ,-�� ` - �� _ T.B.R. f ' e- d ,. 4 / It If It VA0 V , 4 It / l I i 10' SANITARY r l ' / ' i' ,'' / i / / �P ,`� ; " EX. CB �/ / a� . / / 4 / Q' ��, f / / RIM = 77.30 SEWER ESMT �, — _ _ _ _ ' -tx - / \, / f It T B.R r ' ' --- --_-- --- 0 If ,--- I86. If / CHAINLINK FENCE- ON LINE 1 � f 1 ' 6 N '' / 1 CIT ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE If I, OWNER: MIKE & NANCY GOLD SI TE ADDRESS 15225 147H COURT SE 16200 75TH PL W. MILL CREEK, WA 98012 EDMONDS, WA 98020 REV ,` DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Respond to city review comments: minimize clearing in right—of—way 6-29-10 /�~ L . PREPARED BY.• CLEARING & TREE REMOVAL PLAN 2 .�Q'p4WAsHI� 4 D ONNA L. BRESKE, P. E. FOR RESU A 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. AUK 27 2010 5 SNOHOMISH WA 98290 Mike Gold SOUTH HO US 0 10 TOPOGRAPHY &` BOUNDARY SURVEY PROVIDED BY. . � � UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: _ �'0 27367 `�' LOT J. 00513106000200 DA V/D WEST 8c COMPANY, PLLC '`F 'PAC GISTER�a ��/ PHONE: 425 334 — 9980 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VER1F1?NG THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER S Scale 1 " = 10' PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE U77LI77ES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VER77CAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO sTGNAL E �� TAX ID: PFN: PLAN CHECK#• BLD20100339 PHONE: 425— 530— 7424 CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING �' FAX.- (425 ) 334 — 7380 LOT 4: 00513106000400 UTILITIES AT THEIR LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF, SAID U77LI77ES AS SHOWN ON TFIESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. �p breske@comcast.net SCALE: 1 = 10 ISSUE DATE: 4120110 SHT NO. 3 OF 3 vq / / r r EX. SSMH / RIM=36.76 r 1. E. =29.86 (CTR.) , / rr i / r , r N HI/GHTTIDE / G N N87',�5'43"W 126.5 ' i OP; / G + +,� ' ' " STOP,' SIGN E1X. SSMH - / / 1 Del,1{a-10,4'35 00 .E.=35.83 (CTR.) l / CzX. CB / 56.45 / ;RIM` 43. 5 % t/ i;, / ► l I.E-3860 of 2. + - +� ao l' t ry L=24,3.7 / h gPP / d ,0 / -•- / V 6 / 6/' . / / `lam 54 7' /' ��rtrt 5 +yet TOE' - ! / y sip • /. ' / t' ,tX. SSM/H��o RIM�43.35/ / / / l / / i l ,{ I,E=34.8.20 ,d/' �/ %/ / ii O j / ` a r' y� MB ° a EX. HOUSE i y 5 7C�6 ° °Pw , / y i + EX. CB RIM=35.77 / I.E.=30.67 S.E. I.E.=29.87 N. / / ?p. h1Q� O 162nd Ave. W. ry y EX. CB i i / ' / / ► 1' ! 1 , 0�+'6p�1 �^ %• / B RIM=77.30y % +/r GI.E.=71.60 }Wki' , t'�6• i�- ��6 ta9`�'.'i// /,P4 yry •/ , /+6G• / ^-_%_ / / 57-CS---------- ° o/ + I,`o,_ -N87'3543"W 80.29' y CHA/NLINK ENCE* i I / / / / / ON LINE , ; �6+ " i I I/I I I �/ ^^ + O / B / 10 ao@a coo fffflcffa@@w10A F o 1FA@0 QMOdo % PO. OW s• / k ,hry EX. C. B. RIM= 78.87 I.E.=73.67 EX. SSMH RIM= 79.30 I.E.=70.50 (CTR.) 1 I 1 1 V 0 Benchmark: +6�ryx�Ah TOP MONUMENT / ELEVATION = 62.23 (NAD 88) EX. SSMH eo RIM=65.27 L E. =57. 77 (CTR.) pe EX. CB RIM= 65.75 I.E.=56.00 I.E.=63.62 EX. F—HYD. Basis of Bearing: RECORD OF SURVEY (A. F. #8512135003) GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 & Legend. + EXISTING MONUMENT Q° EX. REASAR/CAP "GROUP 4" (OR OTHERWISE NOTED) (C) CALCULATED DATA (P) PLAT DATA (M) MEASURED DATA ® WATER METER EX. FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE Gv N GAS VALVE © POWER VAULT -o- UTILITY POLE E— UTILITY ANCHOR ❑ TELEPHONE RISER YARD LIGHT 4 BLOW OFF o MAIL BOX m JUNCTION BOX STREET SIGN STREET LIGHT ® IX. CB, TYPE I 0 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 ® SAN SWR. MANHOLE —ss— SAN. SWR. PIPELINE — w — WATER PIPELINE Legal Description: LOTS 1. 2 3 AND 4, BLOCK 60, OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 CONVEYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 669770; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTON OF VACATED SEASIDE AVENUE ADJOINING. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. STATE OF WASHINGTON. Equipment & Procedure: LEICA TCA 1100, 3 SECOND TOTAL STATION FOR FIELD TRAVERSE PRECISION EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS. MONUMENTS VISITED 9/2009 rn rn 0 0o I 0) 0 0 N m Z � O � Z V an a)10 U O 0 o D_ c0 Cq Cq m � LOU J ,y O � CQ Cn aS �y V o CLCQ x p +� � •� � W m A Q 0'141,\ MAY - 6 2010 DEVELOPN1ffT SERVICES CT CITY OF EDMONDS = STREET ev -2/y cm C. e-I cn rn cn C= @ GENERAL NOTES THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE SUBGRADES 4" BELOW HARD SURFACES PLUS/MINUS :1 FOOT. ALL ROUGH GRADING SHALL BE POSITIVE, DRAINING AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES. ALL STONES LARGER THAN 1.5" DIAMETER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE GROWING MEDIUM. TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4" IN ALL LAWN AND BED AREAS. TOPSOIL SHALL BE TILLED INTO THE EXISTING SUBGRADE TO ELIMINATE SOIL INTERFACE PROBLEMS. TOPSOIL SHALL BE RED—E'S WINTER MIX OR APPROVED EQUAL. ALL BED AREAS TO RECEIVE 2" OF FINE GROUND FIR OR HEMLOCK BARK, COMPOSITION MULCHES ARE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. TREES AND SHRUBS ARE TO BE PLANTED AT A DEPTH 314" HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL THAT THEY WERE GROWN IN THE NURSERY. BARK MULCH IS NOT TO BE PLACED ABOVE THE ROOT CROWN. ALL PLANTS SHALL AT LEAST CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. LAWN AREAS ARE TO BE HYDROSEEDED WITH VAN DEN AKKER'S EMERALD VELVET MIX PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. REMOVE ALL STONES LARGER THAN I" FROM LAWN AREAS. SUBSTITUTIONS ARE STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. IF PLANT AVAILABILITY IS A PROBLEM, CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR SOURCES OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES. IF THE SITE WORK IS DIFFERENT THAN SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, OR POOR SOILS AND DEBRIS ARE DISCOVERED, REQUIRING CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR INSTRUCTION. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LANDSCAPE DURING INSTALLATION, UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTY ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, FROM THE TIME OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANT DEATH CAUSED BY UNUSUAL CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, VANDALISM, THEFT, FIRE, OR POOR MAINTENANCE PRACTICES. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL HAVE SOLE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF DEATH. PLANT COUNTS PROVIDED ARE ESTIMATES ONLY. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALCULATING ALL FINAL AREA AND COUNTS. IRRIGATIONASSESSMEAT SUPPLEMENTAL HAND WATERING MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE FIRST GROWING SEASON TO ESTABLISH PLANTINGS, BUT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SW 1/4 , SEC. 05, TWN. 2 ■ , RGr04, WX / /ry o /_EX SSMH RIM=43.35 +� / / v I.E.=34.80 (CTR.) 3 ,� / WIA1114LINK FENCE t ON LINE' vP 5 BLOCK 60 MEADOWDALE BEACH (VOL. 5, PG. 38) 1 OJ�O 5. QJG�� 156TH ST SW J • a a : N MEADOWDAL:E : 2�F�Oo MARINA. � �p . • �� ��z SITE 9`� Q t-- Ljj co RD w Q 168TH ST. SW VICINITY MAP MIKE & NANCY GOLD, SOUTH HOUSE 16200 75 th PL W, EDMONDS, WA 95020 RIM= 79.30 I.E.=70.50 (CTR.) G -�339 STREET Fl GRAPHIC SC" 0 10 20 ( IN FEEL' ) 1 "=20' .90 O w w w C o N O E N N U 0) LO L() >_q cA¢in n p '-w- CU) >co wCMM 3 d it, m w- �co � State of Washington registered Landscape Architect P. Pau Ja certifica o. 566 APPLICANT: MIKE & NANCY GOLD 15225 14TH COURT SE MILL CREEK, WA 98012 425.337.3784 DATE: MAY 25, 2010 TJG JOB NO.: 10-1129 DRAWN BY: KL CHECKED BY: PJ COVER SHEET SHEET L-1 OF4 cu z N r u 0 N r O AUG 2 7 2010 SW 1/4 , SEC. 05, TWN. 27, RNG.04, W.M. °° EXISTING CONDITIONS *SYMBOLS NOT TO SCALE (4) Existing significant trees to be removed Tree Replacement Calculations Quantity of trees to be removed = 4 Trees Quantity of significant Trees retained to be retained= 0 Quantity of replacement trees required= 12 (4*3=12) Quantity of New Trees Provided: 12 REPLACEMENT TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE TREER *SYMBOLS NOT TO SCALE SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMONNAME Betula papyrifero / PAPER BIRCH SIZE 3" CALIPER MIN. CONDI?74N B&B + 3 Pseudotsugo menziesii / DOUGLAS FIR 3" CALIPER MIN. B&B 1 2 Piceo pungens / COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 3" CALIPER MIN. B&B 10' DRA�E ESQ BPFIT LOTS 3 /77 CIV AD Co CIV -EX. SSMH 5' � /-RIM=43.35 � s�� � n � 7' Al I.E.=34.80 (CTR.) / C) RI R, l � � DECK Cy- 0 � CHAINLINK FENCE ± ON LINE4-9,80 0 c i PP 9 W Q 0 N N O ti u (no > (n < a > o W > Ln N > (O U) Cl) N � 00 State of Washington registered Landscape Architect Pau Ja certifica o. 566 EX. RIM = APPLICANT: MIKE & NANCY GOLD E , = 15225 14TH COURT SE MILL CREEK, WA98012 p 425.337.3784 DATE: MAY 25, 2010 TJG JOB NO.: 10-1129 DRAWN BY: KL CHECKED BY: PJ TREE RETENTION GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN � �o 0 5 10 20 Eiiii- 0 '� ----I SHEET L-2 ( IN FEET) O F 4 RESUB AUG 27 2010 LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE REPLACEMENT TREES- SEE SHEET L-2 *SYMBOLS NOT TO SCALE *00 SHRUBS SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL! COMMON NAME Sim CONDITION O 20 Symphoricarpos albus / COMMON SNOWBERRY 2 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN, 5' 0,C. 14 Ribes sanguineum / RED —FLOWERING CURRANT 2 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN, 5' O.C. 24 Mahonia aquifolium / OREGON GRAPE 2 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN, 5' O.C. 21 Arbutus unedo / STRAWBERRY TREE 2 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN, 5' O.C. 12 Rhododendron mocrophyllum/RHODODENDRON ' 2 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN, 5' O.C. 3 Acer circinotum/VINE MAPLE 5 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN, 10' O.C. GROUIVDCOVER SYMBOL 077 BOTANICAL I COMMON NAME Sm CONDITI01V LLLLL 523 Gaultheria shallon / SALAL 4" POTS CON. GRWN, 24" D.C. + + 298 Arctostaphylos uvo—ursi / KINNIKINNICK 4" POTS CON. GRWN, 24" O.C. 4- � HYDROSEED LAWN — 4,135 SF � r EX. SSMH / RIM-43.35/., I.E.=34.80 (CTR.)LL LLL LL LLL LL / LLLLLL LL L L LLLLLLLL LL / _LLLL LLLLL I1,1 ' ' L � _LLLL ' LLL LLb LLL 'G� LLL LL _LLL -LLL . LLL LLL �1-LL� '_LL LLLL LLLLL LL LLLL LLLLLLLL / LL LLLLLL LLLLLLLL L #LL LLL L/ L- LLLLLLLL LLLL• / L LLLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLL' _LLLLLLLLLL LLLL' LLLLLLLLLL LLLL LLLL LLLL LLL LL ' / L L '- I I ,- / /00 ` / o SW 1 /4 , SEC. 05, TWN. 27, RN C.04, W.M. 4�9.807 kA A/-1 �' NV LY -7 AREA OF DISTURBANCE i' GRAMICSCALE 0 01 Z 0 U) W w w Q 0 C O t N O -Pg0) Q •- n o0 o D ;ym . L y V) 'a Ci > w •= to M 0 Of State of Washington registered Landscape Architect Pau Ja certifica o. 566 f Z z W g C) ~z a V) 0 w < � D U) w 0 > J W o � APPLICANT: MIKE & NANCY GOLD 1522514TH COURT SE MILL CREEK, WA 98012 p 425.337.3784 DATE: MAY 25, 2010 TJG JOB NO.: 10-1129 DRAWN BY: KL CHECKED BY: PJ REVEGETATION p LAN � ram- ' -)�� tdvW 04'. Vl"J*L'1 ( IN FEET ) SHEET L-3 OF4 SW 1/4 , SEC. 05, TWN. 27, RNG.04, W.M. e r. BACKFILL WITH EKISI SOIL. IF UNSUITA SOIL IS FOUND, CONT LANDSCAPE ARCHI79 FINISH GR, NOTE: DRIVE STAKES UNTIL FIRM IN GROUND TO SUPPORT TREE. \ TREE - .STAUNG SCALE: NTS INSTALL 1" ABOVE CONTAINER DEPTH PLACE 2" LAYER OF SPECIFIED MULCH OVER PLANTING BED. BACKFILL PLANTING PIT WITH SPECIFIED MIX OF NATIVE AND IMPORTED SOIL. MOUND CENTER OF PLANTING PIT COMPACT TO SUBGRADE DENSITY. CHAINLOCK TREE TIE 2" BVC ROUND STAKES SET TTSIDE ROOTBALL EMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR.) IRK MULCH 2" DEPTH CEP CLEAR OF TRUNK BASE L BERM/WATER BASIN IT AND REMOVE THINE ID BURLAP FROM TOP fD SIDES OF ROOTBALL, EMOVE ALL WIRE SKETS.) MPACTED NATIVE SOIL 1.5 D REMOVE UNTREATED BURLAP FROM TIP 113 OF ROOTBALL. REMOVE TREATED BURLAP Rootball OR WIRE BASKETS COMPLETELY. iamet®r (*D`) CONTAINER PLANTS —SCORE ROOTBALLS IN 3 PLACES TO 1 /2" DEPTH. � ® TOP DRESSING FERTILIZER. SEE SPECIFICATION. /------PROVIDE WATER SAUCER. oov.•.•.•.,•:.•.11HIEN-FINISH GRADE OF SOIL. ............ r.•.YO..000.: • -LANT TABS. QUANTITY ...,,,��ACCORDING B{�� NM- DETAIL APPLIES TO TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGS. SHRUB PL4NTTING SCALE: NTS TREE GUYING SCALE. NTS INSTALL GROUNDCOVERS AS SPECIFIED Io..IIm SCORE R001BALL 3 PLACES TO I/2" DEPTH INSTALL 1' ABOVE CONTAINER DEPTH INSTALL FERTIUZERS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS TOP DRESSING FERTILIZER AS SPECIFIED TYPICAL FINISHED i W/ 2' LAYER SPEC MULCH. VERIFY SAI ,y �. I I I- Ill—li - PLANTING FER7IUZER AROUND R007SALL BACKFILL W/ APPROVED TOPSOIL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SCALE NTS (RANDS #10 GAUGE W/ VINYL HOSE AT 3 POINTS TREE EQUAL SPACED WIRES 4 GRADE OF MULCH GUY STAKE PECIFIED E TREES OCCUR WN AREAS, PROVIDE k MULCH CIRCLE. PLAN VIEW OF SPACING 1/2 SPACING DISTANCE w. d State of Washington registered La dscape Architect Pau Ja certiflca a. 566 APPLICANT: MIKE & NANCY GOLD 15225 14TH COURT SE MILL CREEK, WA98012 425.337.3784 DATE: MAY 25, 2010 TJG JOB NO.: 10-1129 DRAWN BY: KL CHECKED BY: PJ PLANTING DETAILS SHEET L-4 OF4