Loading...
16315 75TH PL W.PDF1111111111116074 16315 75TH PL W TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 5/3/`z)C1�,l BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): /q9e�, 7 COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: b M � � Trq� D < � � U j7 CRITICAL AREAS :! !l / I DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver �tudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 21 PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHEC: SCALED PLOT PLAN DA SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FIL£c:i�((' 0 LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: lJ� SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) SOILS REPORT DA STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: lG ° L� v , r LATEMP\DSTs\Fomis\Strcet File Checklist.doc CITY OF EDMONDS 890 19 Address of Construction SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT ENN�F6O1;_U_N'E' Property Legal Description (Include all easements): 11e1 ­���`00- n&A •,() f.,�,4 s'-- 1. .1, 7 AS% Owner and/or Contractor: �� / `%� ` c f I C_ j� t'� i-�u ( . State License No. Building Permit No. 0 (po Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public Invasion into City Right -of -Way: ❑ No ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: ❑ No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement rl�lxJ t Z y that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements dicated on the back of the Permit Card. Date 'CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-=X PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: - Issued By Trunk Charge: Date Issued: �� - �69 Assessment Fee: GJ Receipt No.: % 'V Lid No.: Partial Inspection: Date -Initial - Comments Reason Rejected: Final Inspection Approved: Date-�f` ? ''Initial Date Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3 90 0) C CO W 0 V z d z < w 701 z 0 z 0 u z 06: 0 Z u 0 0 i 0. z Z O O z 0 z IZ F= J�4 J\.� A, .'21' V7 ti P) -JAI L4Q 0 AQ WAF' was Cat p!:"'b to th.-, The, city of forth an .4.iding, ni, C i 'Crr— L�:ftt'l t C III,are n is C d t7l N ors b jl < On a o h a1 C. F �s n bits CP Ole 7.1 � � t X. K»i........ ' 1}:�;i.:�{'�`:irf:;::i:;':'•?i?::{•ji:,..jFii:�i••::•:'•�::,••i.'•;ss„•+.{::�::•::;.;.::?. ;j2jr;j.0 'yr;}.;;;,; I z •�� _ �•'•��»'•: `.:::jy��^{:;:.:���.,.,,•:;•'h�•�f,,�..�.•�;'�,.,:,•,: ;.??pS::.: psi ii:;•s:•.^ •: x �1 `+��� �•+:{.:v{LY: j:;i}i.r-:.n• nid.{?.r':ii:j I zE ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . I � {:j>;:;:y}:yi .. �:{•: .f?+S tk .xY..v.. v:: :. v'(\;ri:}iy,!��L:;:tiiL:�i: •: :v'•i v' ::f vh'::?i} {}{{}n;.Y}:.Lfi :�{.,fi::i \v:i 1 '•. ••xY::.,'.:•:ti{.jYi :?•f.: {k.4f i4{,:;:•;l;;:w.+;;+tiff `/� fjP:ti4-::{i :j::W!.:VM:\!f}i.:. j.•:C v,,4L�•{{:v;� �{ v4-. 'O `/ i n :i�:ti:{3'�<':2j:'•:'•"{%::%: n:{: '';'d:}:,Lvf'.'.:¢�:."x 'L.;i^;}>:{<:%::.:} ;•; a'}.>: ':;�;,:.-v..... 4.?'. ''YY.•4�G•{. ?.xyC'.�.jv i':j:}+�� I• J I ?4:4:S:t :Y:}:S:'}R'r-'iyj$id::;.;+:; ii:;{ �$:j,{:ti -',}.: ;.4•.'Y.^t>.j}: :f'4{'xv,,'v.'{•y.,,v: i Crj V e ::i{}';::•ji.„,i. i..:Y':4?}ti:j;X;:-?:; <}'.<}'' ,:.,¢.:Y?r4, '};{p••v:4tii J'4 "•?}1,`'�s{i;.;;'4'1. ///��� O o 0.� t11 ., :: tii'k•:{}:�5: it` L(�{Jli(JI n N m 'all 0 / o I ;�: Y. {?. •k::::vas::;:;•;. OD T wn 501 s Ilo \ QII 17 — �_ •� SCOPE _ GA FI _E NO. ticChecklist al Areas Checklist, �. �i SiteInformal iQn (soilshopography -tom. ` .,y�, �• ::� -.r...�` ��� 1. Site,Addressocation: 2. Property Tax Account Number: 3. Approxunate Site Size (aces or square feet): l .. . ... :`.:._... -.. -. 4. Is this site currently developed? _yes; Z— no. If yes; how is site developed?-- _ 5. Describe the general site topography. Chedcall that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire.site.. Rolling:. slopes on site generally less than 15%,,(a vertical rise. of, lOfeet over a horizontal distance of 66feet). H•dIy: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical. rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33 feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water. ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. YID : Approx. Depth What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway VIP floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- . round? rO Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow _;shrubs ; mixed ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: 1-7 ikv Q.o/La'93 Cv z- Lrz= N 3 S;--s r. le9a-19qa City of Edmonds Critical Areas- The The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, RECEIVED '.. AU6 0 61995 PERMff COUNTER and submit it to the City. The City will rcwiew the checklist, malm a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application- .. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject par el(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (eg. site plan. topography gip} etc-) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Name 1 S �G��lan Vaftvv� -A de s Street Address J5 o JjAkk [Al IM Sal Ci State, ZIP Phone J. g a1,57r Signature Date Applicant Representative: k-(cU� -1! Name Street Address OVIP (%D aS Z Phone Signature Date V Z = Z F W CL � LU LU -j U � 0 U O � Lu LM ` J . N O W Q �. J N Or F W� Z F=- Z Uj W G � 0- 0 L-: = vL LL ZI LU UY U 0 ~� Z , IIIIIIII L631 Yid Cdrt /9.05' j CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION USE PERMIT z NE NUMBER J G/�T77 . ' . , I f 1 I t ' ., O�W-7NER ` A%E NAME CF�.U.-S�!INESS oa ADDRESS 1. 'I ry 7"- L SUITE APi ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION Cr.ECK Z Su8Dw151On NO 1 -f LID r.p '✓' MAILInG ADpHESS ' /, _•1. {11 `l y ► v Jri �o. n - c k�IF,h L• At'>,(-, IsiNG URCION EPDRU%OBPLOIC$RIGHT OF OFJ� RTnEWfSpPeCcePlr•TDAnlpt pRRrpaeeuvaWOROODEDAAS ❑❑ Dtr•UreeRpep ❑ Ilk Soe�Alf ReOvveP ❑ W CITY g� VJcCG ArA 1f�)( ` 1 • I (��\t ( GI /~� t" 1•l �• MET f IZE LIN SIZE NO OF FIx1URES PH. of UU1q EU r- v REMARKS yl �' :II; I 1 f;;("1 f JI .I- `J I (; '•' .T 1 I" C TELEP"ONE NUMBER l'1 �• jl -t •.J I;, ,k vt E : C �l)' 751-t` i l: - (i77 '" �--____. �'„IJ:��J 1�3�--t',%,I � f l V AME�.,�•• _ L E ADDRESS � �. 16 6ENGINEERe1G r!IJiI`.Ii.'li i`i Yl1r`.t`+•(: f. l.�C. IL)�,'�. K..1`rD M.UAD DA T Ell q __ ,(y r/�fZ96 r� TV.E"Eo IIv 'r� . - - /•• = CITY zipELEPHONE 9^ NUMBER - /) f IIHE MEMO UATED HEVILwcU Ur IT - STATE LICENSE NUMBER L%PIRATION GATE /- % tea, SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED j!• fl A SEPAREVIEW COMPLETE E%EMPT EAPI ` NO A / Legal Dewinnon of Property - include all easements 2- Vf —5 V LINE• VDA t�07 VARIANCE OR CU I EVIEw BY T-, account Par.•w=l 12) 1� CCr� I Nn V ZtIEW 'C Y_I RESIDENTIAL Im PLUMaING ADO'tION EJ CGMMERc IAL T MECHANICAL OREMODEL APT BLDG. SIGN /yy)I�� GRAr""n O FENCE OREF— pS L—.—FT) I DEMOLISH IIIIa N'OOOSTOVE SWIM INSERT HO TPOWOL SPA �GARAGE RpM!telgp'EPM-t/ a wtii--- ROCKERY RENEWAL (TVPEOF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN. ' NUMBER as MBER OF DWELLING CRITICALOF ..� AREAS n STORIES UNITS f7� , NUMBER/ DES RISE W1ORKyTO DONE (ATTACy PLOT PLAN) G {' n A,I VVL;' JL\ L. IA V` t u✓s/E' /( // �orS o . 0, 9 HEATSOURCE GLAZING 71- % Plan Check No. This Permit coYers work to be done on private properly')NLY. Any construclinn on 'ne public domain (curbs, sidewpIks, driveways, marquees. BIC.) will require separate permis5lon. Permit Application: 160 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant. On behalf of his Or her SPOIL; Se, heirs, assignS.and o successors in interest. agrees to indemnity, defend and hold W harmless the City of Edmonds. Washington, its officials, 2 employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to P modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor fimil in ary way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance Pinvision... I hereby acknowledge that I have road this application; that the infolrnatlon given is correct; and that I am "a Owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I egree to comply with City and state laws.egulaling Construction; and In doing the work authoriz• ad thereby. no person will be employed In violation of the Labor Cod Of the Sta•C Dt Y-ds�in; Ion relating to Workmen's Compensa• lion nsurance d RCW 18.27. SIGH RE ICwNE R AGENT' DAIE SIGHED SETBACK'. FEET HEIGHT LOT / vEa i FRONT (� SIOE ��J REJ�� i R; EJMAFK$ �� C�% S(iTW r,, sma+na✓ j'.sntoo Af d 5-l- STORM ENO. TOTAL CHECKED gY TYPE F CONSTRUCTION vDAj, COOS UCCUFANI AC/Q ( GROUP SPECIAL rNSPECTOR AR�e OCCUPANT ftEQUIR'�."f YE5 'rt U93 LOAD EMARK$ PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 s u .r Aesl,*Ae A. gOfsjouri, Pc 1F(N rzw fir* /Aua .)l1 .4` — ( w O •. JfoRAI RIdEGf 93 b/AQ FINAL INSPECTION REOUIRED VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL GRADINGIFILL 72 STATE SURCHARGE .50 DRAINAGE FEE �J INSPECTION FEE , ;i UN CHECK DEPOSIT I AMOUNT DUE �. / eY• ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL THIS PEIT AUTHORIZES RM This B PP II 'cation 13 not a DCTmIi until ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her i WORK NOTED Deputy; and tees are paid, and receipt is INSPECTION DEPARTMENT acknowledged in space provided. . CITY OF , O F CIAL 5 IGn ATUPE DATE f :OMONDS 5196 ATTENTION CALL FOR gELEA DATE i INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY Ar BUILDING OR STRUCTURE `�rI� t UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCM HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC 7 / O2ZO ORIGINAL — FIIP. YELLOW— Inspector i CHAPTER 3. ' Tpzar - M1 PINK — Owner GOLD — Asses50rl, J ol 01. JIM LLI F- I'M to Ar yamy. � ,t �� �z( i _ � Q __ _ _ __ �_.r___ __!r� .:4 .E >. KtF CD 15 41 0 1 14 L7 Ir —LA ij T te a' ry 40 0 -1 Sl 3WVHJ SIHI NI.LN3vyn000 .LN3V4n:)00 3HIjo Ainvno3HJ. 01 3na i(q:olj.,6tq 0 Ml UV310 S53 3H-' .11 10110N NOV-06—SS 17.00 FROMsTERR SSOCIA .II3s206 4334 PAGE 2/3 �.. TER-RA'ASSOCIATES, In.c,,A • A ILb Consultants •in Geotechnidai Engineering, Geology ` and. ' Environmental 'Earth -Sciences November 6,1995 Project No. T 335 4' -Mr. Michael George,.AIA 1024 First*Street ' Snohomish, Washington ' 98290 Subject: ; Review of Plans bean Residence. Lbt 2, Pearson Short Plat 16400 Block 75th Place 'West. Edmonds, Washington • • • Dear Mr: -George: AS regiie'stedy..we have reviewed plans for the Dean residence:to be constructed on Lot 2 of the Pearson ' short plat in Edmonds. We previously, prepared a geotechnical report -for this project.aitd presented our',' findings and 'recominendations. in a reportdated August i 9; 1987. • .Th'e'•di-awin¢s we previewed included Sheets •A-1, A-3, and A,-5' provided -by your office .and Sheets S-1 and S-2 prepared by Mr.. Mark Codispoti, Structural Engineer.. We reviewed- those ' aspects of the plans that relate. 'to geotechnical conditions At•the •site. The project plans indicate that the'main floor of'the residence wilI.'step' up VVo Ievels with the lowest level at approximateiy •Elevatlon� 100.5. , This Ievel witl step up in tovo steps,to Elevation 104.5 at the garage level. Excavations and fills required to'create finished grades will be•miriimaI. Al small retaining wail will be. required at the uphill (east) side of the proposed garage. The structure will be supported on pile foundations in accordance with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical report. A tentative pile Iocation plan has been prepared "by. Mr. Mark Codispoti and is showli on Sheet S7 of his drawings. Based on our review of the drawings; it is ,our opinion that the drawings are generally in conformance* : with •the recommendations presented in our-geotechnical repot The garage' door 'is shown as being supported as. a slab -on -grade floor While:'all. other. floors .are -constructed -as-•struotural slabs 'or wood, floors •above a crawl space level. As we havve'previously -pointed out, the garage floor; when constructed a's a slab -on -grade, will be. subject to some settlements and. cracking. , If such settIement and cracking is not tolerable, we recommend -that this floor also. be -supported on pile foundations, 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 e. Phone (206) 821-7777 . NOV-06-SS 17t01 FROM=TERRAOSSOCIATES ID:20604334 PAGE 3/3 Mr. Michael George November'6,1995 Pile foundations•may be desigRpd in accordance with the parameters presented in'our earlier report. For augercast piles, we recommend a minimum diameter of 12 inches and a• minimum penetration of ten feet into competent native soils. in no- case should piles have a length less than 2S :feet. These piles may be designed for -an allowable load capacity of 20 tons and a•lateral capacity of one ton. per pile. The retaining wall -on the east side of -the garage•as well as any other retaining walls on the site should - .be designed to support the. Iateral pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid wejgb;ng. 55 pounds per cubic foot .If needed; batter piles may be.installed to resist lateral loads. Retainin •walls should be provided . ,g p ed . with a continuous blanket of free -draining material to prevent development of hydrostatic pressures. All. recommendations contained in our geotechnical reportshould be followed -during design and construction. For any inspections required by..the City or its building codes, --we request *that the contractor provide us with a minihium of 4$•'hours notice to enable us to properly sehedule.sucb inspections and/or -testing. , We cannot make any inspections unless specifically requested by you and/or the contractor. We.trust our review of the ,plan$ for •the bean residence is sufficient to enable you to proceed with design and construction.. If you have any question, please call. , Sincerely. yov, �� 8V71, Presi, ,17005��v�'�. AB:tm oNA.L ' EXPMS n / 9 / 9 Project No. T-335-4 Page NO.2 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc® Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology w' and Environmental Earth Sciences Ms. Dolores Dean c/o Mr. Michael George 1024 First Street Snohomish, Washington 98290 Subject: Final Report Geotechnical Observations Dean Residence 16315 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington � Ivir V APR 21 A997 ENGINEERING April 18, 1997 Project No. T-335-5 References: 1. Geotechnical Report, Scully Short Subdivision, Project No. T-335, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated August 19, 1987 2. Letter, Plan Review, Project No. T-335-4, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated November 6, 1995 3. Letter, Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation, Project No. T-335-4, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 12, 1996 4. Daily Field Memos, Project No. T-335-5, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated May 21 through October 18, 1996 Dear Ms. Dean: As requested, we have intermittently observed the geotechnical aspects of construction of the Dean residence. We observed the installation of augercast piles for support of the proposed residence. We also intermittently visited the site to observe site conditions and test patio fill placement. Our geotechnical recommendations for the residence were previously provided in the referenced geotechnical report and letters. AUGERCAST PILES McDowell Northwest Pile Driving Company installed 55 augercast piles for the house and garage on May 20 and 21, 1996. The locations of the piles were established by the general contractor and surveyor. The piles were drilled with a 14-inch diameter auger and extended to depths varying between 24 and 26 feet below existing crawl space grade. All piles were embedded a minimum of seven feet in dense and hard soils consisting of native clayey silt. Reinforcing steel was inserted in each pile under the direction of the general contractor. The pile locations and numbers are shown on Figure 1. Table A lists the drilled depths (measured from the excavation ground surface) for each pile and the approximate depth to competent native soil at selected piles. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 Ms. Dolores Dean • • April 18, 1997 GRADING AND FILL PLACEMENT Before placing import fill for the patio, the existing clayey silts were densified using a jumping jack. The soils were probed and found to be tight and unyielding. Clean import sand was then placed in layers and compacted. We performed eight field density tests in these patio fills at the approximate locations listed on Table B. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-2922 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of the compaction tests are listed on Table B. A representative fill soil sample was obtained and taken to our laboratory. Maximum density tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 698 (Standard Proctor). The Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Data is listed on Table C. The west slope was constructed to the south and west of the house at a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination. Due to construction activity and winter rainfall, some areas of these slopes were loose and needed to be consolidated. Subsequently, the general contractor hoe -packed the face of the fill slope to a dense state. Based on our observations, it is our opinion that the augercast piles were installed in general accordance with the approved project plans and specifications. Our field density testing and site observations indicate that the structural fill placed for the southwest and west patio was adequately compacted and prepared in accordance with the recommendations in our referenced geotechnical report. Based on my professional opinion, site observations, and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and with all geotechnical-related permit requirements. We have also reviewed the landscape contractor sprinkler plan for the yard. At our recommendation, an automatic shutoff will be provided in case one of the main water lines breaks due to slope creep. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information, pleas�1 Sincerely you TERRA Anil Butail, P President CP/AB:ef EXPIRES 12/9/ q,7 Encl: Figure 1 - Foundation Plan/Pile Layout Table A - Augercast Piles Summary Table B - Field Density Test Data Table C - Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Data cc: Mr. Lyle Chrisman, City of Edmonds Engineering Department Project No. T-335-5 Page No. 2 220 120-------- --- j I I 21 0--�---�- 15�-----20 - 7I 29 ----- 28 10 O I O 9. 19 ; I 20------ 6 - i 14 ------ 18 ----- I I � I I I 80 3 50 - ---- --38 - i j � --0 51 55 ---------E� j ---4-- 34? - 37,, 40i 27�--- 33@�--------36 ---1 39 i . 17� a -- -3- O 6------ —,--- ----0 24 O 13 � 5 --" 16 23A--L- 25 PILE LOCATION (TYPICAL) 45� � i�2� + 470 p 53 54 44; ' -- --- 48 52 43 PILE LOCATION (TYPICAL) APPROXIMATE SCALE REFERENCE: PILE LOCATIONS PER REVISED FOUNDATION PLAN/ PILE LAYOUT PLAN PREPARED BY CODISPOTI COMPANY CONSULTING, DATED 5/20/96. TABLE A Augercast Piles Summary Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Pile Number Approximate Drilled Depth (feet) Estimated Depth to Dense Soil (where available) 1 25 NA 2 26 NA 3 26 NA 4 25 NA 5 25 NA 6 25 14 7 25 NA 8 25 NA 9 25 18 10 25 NA 11 25 15 12 26 NA 13 25 17 14 25 NA 15 25 11 16 25 NA 17 25 NA 18 25 14 19 25 17 20 25 13 21 25 18 22 25 NA 23 25 NA 24 25 14 25 25 NA 26 25 12 27 25 NA 28 25 10 29 25 16 30 25 NA 31 25 NA 32 25 NA 33 25 NA Project No. T-335-5 • 0 TABLE A (Continued) Augercast Piles Summary Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Pile Number Approximate Drilled Depth (feet) Estimated Depth to Dense Soil (where available) 34 24.5 10 35 25 9 36 25 NA 37 25 NA 38 25 9 39 25 16 40 25 10 41 25 11 42 24 NA 43 25 15 44 25 NA 45 25 NA 46 25 10 47 25 NA 48 24 12 49 25 NA 50 25 14 51 25 16 52 25 12 53 25 NA 54 25 11 55 25 16 Project No. T-335-5 • • TABLE B Field Density Test Data Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Test Depth No. Location* (feet) -3.5 1 Front patio slab fill 2'N 10'W SWC Building 2 Front patio slab fill 25'N -4.0 22'W SWC Building 3 Front patio slab fill 15'S 35'W -4.5 NWC Building 4 Front patio slab fill 8' S 7,w -3.5 NWC Building 5 Front patio slab fill 17'N SG 12'W SWC Building 6 Front patio slab fill 16'S 15'W SG NWC Building 7 Front patio slab fill 7'S 12'W SG NWC Building 8 Front patio slab fill 23'S TW SG NWC Building Soil Moisture Dry Relative Cype Content Density Compaction Notes (%) (Pcf) (%) A 11.5 108.6 99 A 10.1 109.8 99 4pA 11.5 107.7 98 9.9 107.7 98 A 7.3 108.9 99 A 6.7 107.9 99 A 7.4 105.2 97 A 6.8 103.8 95 *Reference Location. Example: SWC = southwest corner Project No. T-335-5 TABLE C Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Data Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Soil Type Description Optimum Moisture Content (percent) Maximum Dry Density (pcfl A Gray, clean SAND 11 109 Note: Maximum Dry Density Test was conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor) Project No. T-335-5 MAY-21-SS 12:03 FROM:TERRA ASSOCIATES 113z2068214334 t-/ALir. Daily Field Memo ct TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. PmeNo. 335 5 ILA A A Geotechnical Consultants aw s21-7777 Memo No. — IL Kirkland, Washington Date 5]g I f V Subject, ex C,4\j Project; UE Aim OAJ Location; w A Contractor Weather: Present At Site: t-res ir-O�L PAT Lav� MCD6wit co wexp— 0 () s -t VC M0?4a,1A `Zo 1,2 1 156 J �i ( I Ida-" 't to -ni 16 co rn 0 6-1 IS Ila Loe>rk L.J jn W-vi at acco aq.Ace 0 0r rcc-o-mn C— r a \kl -k"" �- &a- X wmfke-r owia -- Copies To: BY Z. C. 1�x V v Ulm-1J-=b vJt3 U rIKUM= I=Mnm M.OMUL, 1 MLC.0 aL%GIVl7oG a-sJJ-s a-�vc. ci c Daily Field Memo TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc Project No. i Geotechnical Consultants (n6i s21-7777 Memo No. I --- Kirkland, Washington 9 Date 6 Project: Sutiect: �- Location: i Contractor. Weather. C�� Present At Site: Copies TO: Daily Field Memo TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Project No. A b o Geotechnicai Consultants t2o6i s2i-7777 Memo No_ L---`- -� Kirkland, Washington Date V7 Project: S -7 ZE Location: &� W .- Contractor. I/i�% Weather. �$1` Present At Site: ey ��- Copies i0: 09/12/1996 21:00 360-6524005 JP LAND iNU ;� • { ' TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. ;1; a J A t Geotechnical Consultants 42061 Ref •7"' p81ly Field Memo awe Project No -s Memo No. � Date Project: Subject: '0`L' Location: EZ&VAAGC S6Contractor, A47-44±Q Weather: C& Jwry..,/lr�u` � rl Present At Situ Field Density Test Data 8y: /� � Copes 7o: Pr 4O� - 09/12/1996 21:09 360-6524995 JP LAND INC PAGE 06 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. 6^ A A A 4 :►, . • r Geotechnical Consultants 12051 821.777' Daily Field Memo Project No. J�-> Memo No. gate t QG"9 Project: NI 44' sWect: '404r LOCatlOfl: 4l4 - Contractorr ��� ► - Weather: 9K:C& Present At Sit.' Field Density Test Data JIt r Me , u I ♦ MINIIIIIINN M •� � �■�rl�lrr�s� Copies To: Aq-r Y,Ag a ERRA ASSOOATES, Deco " Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology _.,.. and Environmental Earth Sciences Ms. Dolores Dean c!o Mr. Michael George 1024 First Street Snohomish, Washington 98290 Subject: Final Report Geotechnical Observations Dean Residence 16315 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington r1r.�. a?R A 6FrAGN 1gg7 April 15, 1997 Project No. T-335-5 References: 1. Geotechnical Report, Scully Short Subdivision, Project No. T-335, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated August 19, 1987 2. Letter, Plan Review, Project No. T-335-4, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated November 6, 1995 3. Letter, Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation, Project No. T-335-4, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 12, 1996 4. Daily Field Memos, Project No. T-335-5, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated May 21 through October 18, 1996 Dear Ms. Dean: As requested, we have intermittently observed the geotechnical aspects of construction of the Dean residence. We observed the installation of augercast piles for support of the proposed residence. We also intermittently visited the site to observe site conditions and test patio fill placement. Our geotechnical recommendations for the residence were previously provided in the referenced geotechnical report and letters. AUGERCAST PILES McDowell Northwest Pile Driving Company installed 55 augercast piles for the house and garage on May 20 and 21, 1996. The locations of the piles were established by the general contractor and surveyor. The piles were drilled with a 14-inch diameter auger and extended to depths varying between 24 and 26 feet below existing crawl space grade. All piles were embedded a minimum of seven feet in dense and hard soils consisting of native clayey silt. Reinforcing steel was inserted in each pile under the direction of the general contractor. The pile locations and numbers are shown on Figure 1. Table A lists the drilled depths (measured from the excavation ground surface) for each pile and the approximate depth to competent native soil at selected piles. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 a Phone (425) 821-7777 • Ms. Dolores Dean April 15, 1997 GRADING AND FILL PLACEMENT Before placing import fill for the patio, the existing clayey silts were densified using a jumping jack. The soils were probed and found to be tight and unyielding. Clean import sand was then placed in layers and compacted. We performed eight field density tests in these patio fills at the approximate locations listed on Table B. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-2922 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of the compaction tests are listed on Table B. A representative fill soil sample was obtained and taken to our laboratory. Maximum density tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 698 (Standard Proctor). The Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Data is listed on Table C. The west slope was constructed to the south and west of the house at a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination. Due to construction activity and winter rainfall, some areas of these slopes were loose and needed to be consolidated. Subsequently, the general contractor hoe -packed the face of the fill slope to a dense state. SUMMARY Based on our observations, it is our opinion that the augercast piles were installed in general accordance with the approved project plans and specifications. Our field density testing and site observations indicate that the structural fill placed for the southwest and west patio was adequately compacted and prepared in accordance with the recommendations in our referenced geotechnical report. We have also reviewed the landscape contractor sprinkler plan for the yard. At our, recommendation, an automatic shutoff will be provided in case one of the main water lines breaks due to slope creep. We trust this info information, pWA Sincerely TERRA TES 10;4 Anil Butail, P.E. President CP/AB:ef for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional Encl: Figure 1 - Foundation Plan/Pile Layout Table A - Augercast Piles Summary Table B - Field Density Test Data Table C - Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Data cc: Mr. Lyle Chrisman, City of Edmonds Engineering Department Project No. T-335-5 Page No. 2 TABLE A Augercast Piles Summary Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Pile Number Approximate Drilled Depth (feet) Estimated Depth to Dense Soil (where available) 1 25 NA 2 26 NA 3 26 NA 4 25 NA 5 25 NA 6 25 14 7 25 NA 8 25 NA 9 25 18 10 25 NA 11 25 15 12 26 NA 13 25 17 14 25 NA 15 25 11 16 25 NA 17 25 NA 18 25 14 19 25 17 20 25 13 21 25 18 22 25 NA 23 25 NA 24 25 14 25 25 NA 26 25 12 27 25 NA 28 25 10 29 25 16 30 25 NA 31 25 NA 32 25 NA 33 25 NA Project No. T-335-5 TABLE A (Continued) Augercast Piles Summary Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Pile Number Approximate Drilled Depth (feet) Estimated Depth to Dense Soil (where available) 34 24.5 10 35 25 9 36 25 NA 37 25 NA 38 25 9 39 25 16 40 25 10 41 25 11 42 24 NA 43 25 15 44 25 NA 45 25 NA 46 25 10 47 25 NA 48 24 12 49 25 NA 50 25 14 51 25 16 52 25 12 53 25 NA 54 25 11 55 25 16 Project No. T-335-5 • r: TABLE B Field Density Test Data Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Test Depth Soil Moisture Dry Relative No. Location* (feet) Type Content Density Compaction Notes (%) (pco (%) 1 Front patio slab fill 2'N 10'W -3.5 A 11.5 108.6 99 SWC Building 2 Front patio slab fill 25'N -4.0 A 10.1 109.8 99 22'W SWC Building 3 Front patio slab fill 15'S 35'W -4.5 A 11.5 107.7 98 NWC Building 4 Front patio slab fill 8'S 71W -3.5 A 9.9 107.7 98 NWC Building 5 Front patio slab fill ITN SG A 7.3 108.9 99 12'W SWC Building 6 Front patio slab fill 16'S 15'W SG A 6.7 107.9 99 NWC Building 7 Front patio slab fill TS 12'W SG A 7.4 105.2 97 NWC Building 8 Front patio slab fill 23'S 7'W SG A 6.8 103.8 95 NWC Building *Reference Location. Example: SWC = southwest corner Project No. T-335-5 TABLE C Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Test Data Dean Residence Edmonds, Washington Soil Type Description Optimum Moisture Content (percent) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) A I I Gray, clean SAND T11 109 Note: Maximum Dry Density Test was conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor) Project No. T-335-5 .4tihTERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences R F E 8 2 7 E9,- �r, ;,j Ms. Dolores Dean c/o Mr. Michael George, Architect 1024 First Street, Suite 307 Snohomish, Washington 98290 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Dean Residence 16315 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 1996 Project No. T-335-4 References: 1. Geotechnical Review Letter by Landau Associates, Inc. dated January 24, 1996 2. Plan Review Letter by Terra Associates, Inc. dated December 1995 3. Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc. dated August 19, 1987 Dear Ms. Dean: As requested, we are providing supplemental geotechnical consultation for the Dean residence in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. We are responding to several geotechnical items noted on the City of Edmonds Plan Review Correction Notice and in the referenced Landau Associates, Inc. letter. In the referenced plan review letter, we discussed geotechnical items relating to the project plans prepared in 1995. Landau Associates, Inc. Letter Item No. 3 The primary issue in Item No. 3 is construction of a rockery along the west side of the house above 75th Avenue and placement of new structural fills. Based on our review of the project plans, it appears that a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) fill slope will be constructed from near the west property line up to the edge of the western patio. This new fill and other shallow fills placed around the residence should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). Although some of the native silts and clays can be used as structural fill, we do not believe significant amounts of this material can be used. These soils will need to be aerated extensively and dried to within two percent of their optimum moisture content prior to their use as structural fill. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777 Ms. Dolores Dean • • February 12, 1996 For the five-foot deep structural fill proposed west of the patio, we recommend using an imported granular pit -run soil with less than five percent fines. These granular fills should be placed in layers no more than one foot thick and each layer should be compacted. If new fills are placed on a sloping surface, they should be placed over horizontal benches cut into the existing slope. Any old stockpiled debris fills on this lot should be removed or placed in non-structural flatlying areas. Based on review of a supplemental site plan dated January 31, 1996, the architect has removed the small rockery planned adjacent the top of the slope just below the western patio. All new concrete flat work subgrades around the residence such as walkways and planters should be compacted to a stable non -yielding condition. Any soft or loose areas should be overexcavated and replaced with at least a one -foot thick layer of pit -run or railroad ballast rock to stabilize the subgrade. Native soils can be used only if they can be dried or aerated to within two percent of their optimum moisture. Other than during the driest summer months, this means that most of the native silty soils will not be usable as compacted structural fill. Item No. 8 Much of the concrete flat work around the pile -supported house will be placed on ancient landslide colluvial soils. These soils are very moisture -sensitive and can easily be disturbed or disrupted due to their silty nature. Their use for supporting the concrete flat work is questionable and cannot be properly established until construction. All subgrades for concrete work should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their maximum dry density. Soils that cannot be adequately compacted and stabilized should be replaced with at least a one foot layer of pit -run gravel or railroad ballast rock. There is an inherent risk of minor long-term subgrade subsidence due to the depth of the landslide soils. Some cosmetic damage may occur to slabs supported above these soils regardless of the use of high quality construction techniques. The owner should be aware that this risk may occur over many years. The long-term risk of cosmetic damage to concrete work depends on the level of care the construction contractor uses to prepare the grades around the residence. Cracking can be reduced by creating many joints in the concrete surface. New asphalt driveways should be supported on a firm, dense, unyielding subgrade. To establish a stable subgrade, it may be necessary to overexcavate some of the clayey soils and replace them with a layer of quarry rock, railroad ballast, or other material. Based on our recent review of the project plans and previous reports, it is our opinion that the residence may be constructed as planned. A pre -construction meeting with City of Edmonds personnel should be held at the site prior to construction. At that time, a scope of work can be developed to provide construction observation services for the owner and to provide the City of Edmonds with field reports covering the site grading. Project No. T-335-4 Page No. 2 Ms. Dolores Dean February 12, 1996 Citv of Edmonds Plan Review: Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk It is our opinion that the plans and specifications prepared by the structural engineer conform to the general recommendations provided in the referenced report. The risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in our previous geotechnical reports. It is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Our previous opinions relating to the risk of movement remain valid. Previous installation of the common deep interceptor drain across the back property line and use of the 50-foot toe setback will limit the risk of soil movement to less than 30 percent within 25 years. These statistical risks were outlined in the referenced report and during recent review efforts. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, Paul K. Bonifaci;;,1M. Engineering Geoldgist Anil Butail;-P.E PKB/AB:eb Project No. T-335-4 Page No. 3 • CITY COPS TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc —; Ma Geotechnical Consultants in. A_ August 19, 1987 Project No: T-335 Mr. Steve Anderson Group Four, Inc. 19502 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washingto^ ' 90836 Subject: Geotechnical Ent ineering Study Scully Short S-b.-J-ivision (S-8-87) Edmonds, WGsh._;,gton Dear Mr. Anderson: We have completed the P.eotechnical study you requested for the Scully property on the east side of 75th Place � I -.st in Meadowdale Beach. The site is located approximately as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. It includes Lots 62 and 63 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach (513-.). We understand that the owner intends to subdivide the property into three lots for single-family residential construction. Each of the three lots would have about 93 feet of frontage along 75th Place West. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the landslide hazard on the property and provide recommendations for site preparation and foundations for wood -framed residential construction. The work performed was described in our proposal dated May 20, 1987. It included standard penetration test borings, test pits, laboratory tests, and geotechnical engineering analyses. This report describes our explorations, reports our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 153t)1 N.E. 90th Street - Redmond, Washington 9805' - Phone: 881-5570 Mailing Address: P.U. Ro\ 33.A 0 RL'drnond, Washinuton 98073 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 • SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The existing topography on the Scully property is illustrated on Figure 2. About forty percent of the site at the southeast corner is steeply sloped and virtually inaccessible. Tile remainder of the 2.5-acre site is relatively flat, accessible from 75th Place West, and buildable. The buildable portion of the site is part of an ancient landslide that has remained active into recent times and possibly is still active. The original landslides are believed to have occurred several thousand years ago. Recent landslides that included this property occurred during the winter of 1946-47 and again during the 1960's. The extent of the downslope movements that occurred in these latest events is not known. The landslide hazards and risks in the Meadowdale Beach area were studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates Inc. A map was produced that classified the various landslide hazards in the entire region and estimated occurrence probabilities. The buildable area • on the Scully property was classified as previously failed material (slump) susceptible to additional movement. The possible occurrence of additional landslides within 25 years was estimated to have a probability of 90 percent. • The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as likely the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, beginning in 1980, sanitary sewers, storm sewers for surface water control, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed at many locations within and on the margins of the Meadowdale landslide complex. Since that time, a lowering of the groundwater table has been documented. In 1985, • GeoEngineers,Incorporated evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in those areas believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the Scully property, the probability that the old slump material might move again within the 25-year period is now estimated at 30 percent. Project No. T-335 Page No. 2 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 In 1983, as part of the LID No. 210 work, Interceptor Drain No. 3 was installed on the north margins of the Scully property. In 1986, an interceptor drain system was installed in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way at the south side of the property. This latter installation collects some surface water that originates on the Scully property, but does not adequately intercept hillside seepage that now percolates into the old slump material at the toe of the slope. We recommend installing a new interceptor drain along the toe of the slope on the Scully property. This drain will remove additional groundwater and increase the stability of the slump material on the buildable part of the site. The risk of landslide on the Scully property, in our opinion, will be reduced, but not eliminated. After this additional reduction in landslide risk is achieved, in our opinion, the buildable area on the Scully property west of the steep hillside will be suitable for residential construction, provided the present owners and all future lot owners are properly informed of the landslide risk that exists and accept full responsibility for it. Our explorations described below confirm that the buildable areas of the property are •underlain by landslide debris and recent uncontrolled fill. The upper ten to 20 feet of this material consists of loose to medium dense silty sands and soft to stiff clayey silts with wood debris. The soils below•these materials are more compact silty fine sands and laminated clayey silts. These latter materials probably are part of the Whidbey Formation, as defined in the 1979 Lowe report. Our test borings do not confirm whether or not these Whidbey soils on the Scully property are landslide materials. The laminations we observed are nearly horizontal but the soil is wetter and not as hard as typical undisturbed glacially compacted soils. The material may be part of a large slide block that moved with little rotation or distortion. However, we believe the recent movements on the Scully property most likely were confined to the upper slump material, which is much looser and wetter. • In our opinion, wood -framed single-family residential construction on this property may be supported on conventional spread foundations, provided a compacted gravel pad at least two feet thick is constructed to provide suitable bearing for the footings. However, better foundation performance likely would be obtained from pile foundations driven into the firmer soils at depths 15 to 20 feet. We recommend treated timber piles. Other deep foundations, such as augercast piles, may also be considered. Project No. T-335 Page No. 3 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 The use of deep foundations on this site will reduce the risk that unsuitable bearing materials that may be present at shallow depths might cause excessive settlements. The deep foundations recommended likely would not much reduce property damage if a future landslide occurred on the site. Consequently, deep foundations should not be viewed by property owners as a measure to reduce their landslide risk. As an added safety measure, we recommend establishing a building setback line about 50 feet from the toe of the bluff. This SO -foot buffer zone will provide a catchment area for debris that may from time to time slide from the -steep slopes east of the building areas. .To maintain the full 50-foot width of the buffer zone, the debris should be cleared periodically. The following sections of this report discuss our findings and present our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is intended -for the exclusive use of the property owners and their representatives. Our work has used methods and procedures consistent with local foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We • do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. • SITE SURFACE CONDITIONS The Scully property in Meadowdale Beach is on the east side of 75th Place West immediately north of the unimproved 164th Street S.W. right-of-way. It includes Parcels 62 and 63 of the Meadowdale Beach Plat (5131). The present surface conditions on the property are a result of both natural processes and modification by man. Existing grades vary from Elev. 80 feet adjacent 75th Place West to Elev. 250 at the east property line. The southeast 40 percent of the site is steeply sloped. The northwest portion is a gently sloping terrace with average ground surface gradients in the range of 15 percent. A gravel road enters the property along the north boundary. The two parcels contain about 2.5 acres and measure roughly 270 feet north to south and 440 feet east to west. Single-family residences occupy land north and south of the property. A residence east of the property is sited well behind the crest of the bluff. Project No. T-335 Page No. 4 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 — Vegetation on the west end of the site is dominated by 20-year old alders. Trees on the steep slope are mostly alders and maples. Blackberry and salmonberry bushes abound on the site and horsetails are numerous in areas wet with seepage. At the time of our field exploration in July, the western portion of the site was firm and free of seepage up to the base of the bluff. Water could be seen seeping from the bluff, mostly from coarser sand seams. The seepage accumulates in a low area of the base of the bluff and drains southward in a shallow swale that terminates at a riprapped catchment area in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way. The talus at the base of the bluff and the surrounding area is saturated and soft. Neighbors in the area indicated that a previous owner had regraded the property. Trees in the western area were removed and the hummocky terrain was flattened to provide space for a proposed mobile home park. Evidence can be seen that a sizeable cut was made into the central portion of the bluff face. A fill pad was constructed on the east side . of Parcel 62. • An extensive system of surface and subsurface drains has been constructed on and in the vicinity of the property. In the early to mid-1980's, the City of Edmonds implemented the Local Improvement District (LID) No. 210. Sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and interceptor drains were installed in an effort to reduce the excessive water in the Meadowdale landslide complex. Part of this work was a combination storm/interceptor system installed on the Scully property close to the north boundary. • A few years later, another storm -interceptor drain system was constructed within the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way from 75th Place West to the base of the bluff. From there, it climbs the bluff southward. Thus, this drain is entirely south of the Scully property. However, as described above, surface drainage from the Scully property near the toe of the bluff is collected at one of the manholes in the system. Project No. T-335 Page No. 5 • Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 _FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING -Our field exploration of the three proposed subdivision lots was performed on july 1, 1987. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two standard enetration test borings to depths of 26 and 37 feet below the existing grade. The borings were performed by Drilling Unlimited, Inc. of Olympia, Washington using a skid -mounted drill rig. Hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes. In addition, seven test pits were excavated with a Case backhoe operated by Dave Biddle of Lynnwood, Washington. The test pits were completed at depths that varied from seven to 14 feet. The locations of tho borings and pits were estimated by rough measurements from features shown on the property survey plan provided to us. The approximate locations are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2, Ground surface elevations at the boring and the test pit locations were interpolated from contours shown on the site plan provided to • us. • The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm. He classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test boring and pit, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. In each boring, the consistency of the soils penetrated was sampled using standard penetration tests (SPT) performed at intervals not greater than five feet. The test procedures used were in general. accordance with ASTM D-1586. The results of these tests are the N- values reported on the boring logs. All samples recovered were visually classified in accordance with the system described on Figure 3. The boring logs are included in this report as Figures 4 and 5. These logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The soils encountered in the test pits were examined and described using the system described on Figure 3. Logs of the test pits are presented on Figures 4 through 9. The bare slope exposures on the eastern part of the site permitted the soil types, continuity of units, hydrologic conditions and relative stability of the hillside in this area to be observed. Project No. T-335 Page No. 6 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 • Representative soil samples obtained from the test borings and pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for additional examination and testing. The moisture content of all samples was measured. In addition, sieve analyses and an Atterberg limit test were run to aid in properly classifying the soils. The results of these tests are reported on the boring and test pit logs. Groundwater observation wells were installed in both test borings and in three of the seven test pits. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Both test borings encountered fill and slide debris to depths of ten to 15 feet. The fill and the debris are virtually indistinguishable. This material is relatively loose and becomes very moist to wet a few feet below the surface. It consists of intermixed tan and blue -gray silty sand and clayey silt, often containing angular blocks of clayey silt, minor gravel and occasional buried trees and brush. Similar material was encountered in all the test pits. In most of the pits, it extended below the pit bottom. • The fill and debris is underlain by gray stiff to very stiff laminated silts and clays with interbedded sand seams. These fine-grained soils probably belong to the interglacial Whidbey Formation, as defined by the 1979 Lowe report. The bedding in the sediments we drilled is roughly horizontal, implying that the borings either were made in a coherent slide block that has undergone negligible rotation or that the sediments have not moved appreciably since they were deposited. • The Whidbey material encountered in our test borings has relatively low SPT N-values and high water content. Similar soils were classified "landslide material' in the 1979 Lowe report. Several Lowe borings that reached deep enough encountered sediments with refusal N-values. This very hard materials reported to be the undisturbed Whidbey Formation. We conclude that the Whidbey soils at shallow depth on the Scully property may be remnant blocks from ancient landslides. Project No. T-335 Page No: 7 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 GROUNDWATER Groundwater on this site flows generally westward toward Browns Bay. In July when our field work was completed, groundwater was seeping from sand seams exposed on the bare bluff at the east side of the property. Soils near the toe of the bluff were saturated nearly to the ground surface. The wet soils encountered in the test borings suggest that surface water that infiltrates the debris probably flows westward downslope in the debris above the Whidbey soils. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The Scully property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Three categories of possible landslides were identified on — the Scully property: 1) avalanches of slope debris from the steep slope at the east side of the site; 2) landslides in steep slope materials that have never before failed; and 3) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first two categories were considered to have relatively low risk, only a two to five percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. The possibility that a failure in the third category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent. The high -risk area on the site included all the relatively flat ground west of the steep slope. As described above, the depth of old landslide material on that part of the site is at least 10 _ to 20 feet and may extend much deeper into the Whidbey Formation. • Project No. T-335 Page No. 8 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater from the Meadowdale landslide complex. In 1985, GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrenc.-: probabilities of 90 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent in 25 years. In our opinion, if the Scully property is developed, the landslide hazard should be reduced even further. To accomplsh this, we recommend that the following two measures be taken: 1) installation of a dc:er interceptor drain near the base of the bluff; and 2) establishment of *a b::ilding setback line about 50 feet from the toe of the slope. These two measures will reduce the landslide hazard on the Scully property considerably, • but they will not entirely eliminate the hazard. After this additional reduction in landslide hazard is achieved, in ou: opinion, the relatively flat area west of the 50-foot setback line will be suitable for single-family residential construction, provided the present owners and all future lot owners. are properly informed of the landslide risk that exists and accept full responsibility for it. • The following sections of this report present more detailed geotechnical recommendations for developing this property. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Project No. T-335 Page No. 9 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 Interceptor Drain At the present time, surface runoff, rainfall and seepage from the bluff percolate into the ground near the base of the bluff. Some of this water may be collected by the- existing interceptor drain systems in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way and on the north margins of the property. However, because the pervious slope debris on the site is deeper than the existing drains, much of the water undoubtedly passes under the drains and continues on downslope. This water contributes to the potential instability of the existing landslide debris and increases the landslide hazard on the Scully property. In order to remove the groundwater that now passes under the existing drains, we recommend installing a deep interceptor drain east of the proposed 50-foot building setback line near the toe of the slope. The interceptor drain should extend into the Whidbey Formation, a depth likely to be in the range of twelve to 15 feet. We recommend using slotted or perforated ABS drainpipe eight inches in diameter. The pipe should be bedded in washed gravel and wrapped with • filter cloth, approximately as shown on Figure 10. The drain should discharge to the existing storm sewer system. Since the drain invert elevations likely will be deeper than any- of the manholes in the existing interceptor system, the new drain may have to be extended to the storm sewer along 75th Place West. All sections of the drain west of the 50-foot setback line should be tightlined. Several cleanouts should be provided. is Conventional Spread Foundations As indicated above, the near -surface soils on the buildable portion of the Scully property are uncontrolled fills and debris from old landslides. This material contains wood debris and has a significant component of wet plastic clay. In our opinion, the performance of conventional spread foundations bearing on this material is unpredictable. Settlements in the range of a few inches may occur. Consequently, spread foundations should be used for single-family wood -framed construction only if the risk that settlements of this magnitude may occur is acceptable. Project No. T-335 Page No. 10 Mr. Steve Anderson is August 19, 1987 If spread foundations are used, we recommend stripping the site and placing a building pad of imported gravel. The pad should be at least two feet thick below foundations and twelve inches thick beneath slab -on -grade floors. The subgrade under the gravel pad should be proofrolled before any gravel is placed. Any soft places located should be excavated to firm ground and stabilized with gravel or rock spalls. The gravel pad should be placed in layers about eight inches thick and compacted to dry densities at least 90 percent of its ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The compacted gravel pad recommended will reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation performance, but it will not eliminate the risk. Deep Foundations Because the near -surface soils on this site will not, in our opinion, provide dependable support for conventional spread foundations, we recommend using deep foundations • bearing in the firm Whidbey soils at depths of approximately 15 to 20 feet. Suitable deep foundations for the soil conditions on this site include timber piles and augercast piles. • With the residences supported on deep foundations, the ground floors, in our opinion, should be framed over crawl spaces. Garage floors, however, may be slab -on -grade. We recommend isolating all slab -on -grade floors from the building foundations and from all other structures. Timber piles should be treated with preservative and should have a minimum tip circumference of 22 inches. They should be driven into the firm Whidbey soils that underlie the near -surface compressible materials. We estimate that pile capacities in the range of ten to 15 tons can be obtained with the pile tips in the range of 20 to 25 feet below the present ground surface. The necessary pile driving resistances, blows per foot, may be estimated using the Engineering News formula. Augercast piles, if used, should be at least twelve inches in diameter. We estimate that augercast piles embedded at least seven feet into the firm Whidbey soils can be designed for loads of 20 tons. Project No. T-335 Page No. 11 • Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 Roof and Area Drains Rainwater from roofs and any surface water collected on this site should be conveyed in tight lines and discharged directly to the storm sewer system. Impact on Neighboring Property In our,opinion, the presence of single-family wood -framed residential construction on this property will have no adverse impact on the landslide hazards that affect this property and the neighboring property. The interceptor drain recommended should lower the groundwater table and reduce the current risk of landslide on the Scully property and on the property downslope from the site. Construction on the Scully property will not affect the stability of the bluff and thus will not adversely affect neighboring property to the east. •The present vegetation on the steep slopes at the east side of the property should be maintained. Trees that might topple onto the buildings may be trimmed back but should not be removed. Catch basins and storm drain lines should be kept clear of debris and free -flowing. During construction, barren soils should be covered with straw and hydroseeded to reduce erosion. Lawns should be sodded as soon as possible after construction is completed. U Additional Services As development plans proceed, we recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be requested to review earthwork and foundation plans so that our recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. In order to verify compliance with the project plans, specifications, and the recommendations presented herein, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions are encountered that differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Project No. T-335 Page No. 12 Mr. Steve Anderson • August 19, 1987 • • LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the present site- conditions and the assumption that the subsurface conditions throughout the site are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, Terra Associates, Inc. should be advised at once so that we can review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If a substantial lapse of time occurs between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions change due to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent the site, this report should be reviewed in order to evaluate whether or not its conclusions and recommendations are applicable, considering the changed conditions or the time lapse. Project No. T-335 Page No. 13 • C. • o. o m w 0 K co sn O c d OZ r D 0 °V = m Z :E) T Li .i o` —1 'C c 0 N Z N 9Z W 2' � y p O Y Z D 2 D y •• p C V C 9 p r 3a 3D p rn < m co Q,o o w ro L. x P to O ° a' m rnn `— m O O n 0 0 > > w w > > _ 75fh p�gCE W n n • Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 LO RE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Soil Classification System Figures 4 and 5 Boring Logs Figure 6 through 9 Test Pit Logs Figure 10 Typical Interceptor Drain Design Detail We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please contact us whenever we may be able to assist you, and please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,,.�•..,�, till Q`o� w Zp a cc Anil Butail, P.E. President R� �� T z s'oNAL tits JJ/A.B:mf Project No. T-335 Page No. 14 A- o" C. Z .. It j I I • • Group PRIMARY DIVISIONS Symbol SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS Clean GW well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures more than half Gravels little or no fines. of coarse (less than GP poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand fraction is 5% fines) mixtures little or no fines. a larger than Gravel GM silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, No. 4 sieve with non- lastic fines. GC clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures mc fines Nplastic fines. v o c SANDS Clean SW well graded sands, gravelly sands, little w c more than half Sands or no fines. SP poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, 2 of coarse (less than S d fraction is 5% fines little or no fines. Sands SM allty sands, Band -silt mixtures, non- smaller than o c° S No. 4 sieve with ___plastic fines. s " cq fines SC clavey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. N SILTS AND CLAYS ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock - flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey a�i a liquid limit is silts with slight plasticity. o less than 50% CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity A c w gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, z N lean clays. OL silts and organic clays of low jorganic plastic! SILTS AND CLAYS liquid ME inorganic silts, micaceous or diatom- G Cd s s limits is ceous fine sandyor all soils elastic. greater than 50� CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U. S. Standard Series eve Clear Square Sieve Openings 200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12" SAND GRAVEL SILTS &CLAYS fine medium coarse I fine I coarse I COBBLE BOULDER GRAIN SIZES SANDS, GRAVELS, STANDARD AND NON -PLASTIC PENETRATION SILTS very loose 0- 4 loose 4-10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30-50 very dense over 50 RELATIVE DENSITY _:M TERRA •• - ASSOCIATES • Geotechnical Consultants PLASTIC SILTS Unconfined STANDARD AND CLAYS Compressive -Strepgth PENETRATIOX very soft 0-1/4 0 - 2 soft 1/4-1/2 2 - 4 firm 1/2-1 4-8 stiff 1-2 8-16 very stiff 2 - 4 16-32 hard over 4 over 32 CONSISTENCY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 Date JUIv'87 �;,,,,,,,11 Logged By BORING NO. Date 7/1/87 E LEV. Graph us Soil Description Depth (N) W CS (ft.) Sample Blow$ ;:* IM I -ML—Brown, sandy SILT with roots, damp. ML Blue -gray, clayey SILT intermixed with brown silty SAND with wood debris, very SM moist, soft and loose. 5 25.3 (Fill/Slide Debris) 5 6 23.1 With silt clasts, wet. 10 6 35.3 ML Gray, horizontally laminated, clayey silt, moist, very stiff. • Mfl 15 22 29. 20 28 27.j 2511 1 31 I11-1 Test'Boring completed at 2621 feet; Groundwater observation well installed to 261 feet, slotted to 621 feet; Groundwater measured at 9 feet 2 inches July 6, 1987. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. NO. 335 1 Date July'87-179ure 4 • • • BORING NO. 2 Logged By JJ Date _ 7/1/87 Graph �S Soil Description ML Brown sandl SILT with roots, damp. ML Brown and gray, sandy SILT with clay, trace gravel, some iron -staining, very moist, soft to firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) Olive gray, intermixed SAND, sandy SILT and clayey SILT, trace gravel with some organics, wet., firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) ELEV. Depth I Sample I Blows (ft.) s Ft IM I 5 10 ML Gray, sandy SILT' horizontally bedded, 15 / clayey SILT and silty SAND interbeds, MH wet, medium deuse. SMI r 20 25 7 .7 5 .5 6 .4 11 12 14 V .7 ML Gray, clayey SILT with minor horizontal 30 15 .1 sand interbeds,.very moist, very stiff. Test Boring completed at 36 feet. groundwater observation well set at 36 eet. Groundwater measured at 231 feet-7/6/87 35 20 1.7 6- TERRA BORING LOG SCULLY PROPERTY ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Ceotechnical Consultants Prof. No. 335 1 Date July'87 Fioure Logged By JJ Date 7/1/87 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 5 10 15 TEST PIT NO. Soil Description E lev. W M ML Brown, sandy SILT, with roots and organics, damp. no ML Brown and gray, iron stained, clayey SILT and / intermixed sand, silt clasts and wood, moist to water SM very moist, firm. 7/6/87 Wood debris at 61 feet. (Fill/Slide Debris) Wood debris and large blocks of lammated silt at 10 feet. Test Pit completed at 12 feet; No visible seepage or caving. Logged By JJ - Date 7/1/87 TEST PIT NO.._2__ 0 5 10 15 Elev. rown, san y with roo s an organic materials, W 30.9 � 7 7/6/87 ML / SM Gray, clayey SILT with intermixed sand, wood debris, and silt clasts, wet, firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) Test Pit completed at 13 feet 8 inches. No visible seepage or caving. TERRA • ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Pro]. No. 335 Date July`87 Figure 6 • 7 • ul Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 0 �i 10 15 TEST PIT NO. = Logged By JJ Date 7/1/87 USCS Soil Description Elev. W IWI ML Brown, sandy SILT with -roots and organic mate ial, ML Brown, sandy SILT with clay some wood debris and silt clasts, moist, firm to stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML Gray, cayey and sandy SILT, moist, firm to stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) Stump or log at 7 feet. Test Pit terminated at 71 feet on log or stump; No seepage or caving noted. (Fill/ Slide Debris) Logged By ii ' Date 7/1/s7 `VEST PIT NO. = Elev. ML Brown, sandy SILT with roots, damp, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML Brown, sandy SILT and silty SAND, some wood debris, / damp, medium dense. SM Fill Slide Debris ML Gray, iron —stained, sandy SILT with clay and silt clasts and organics, moist to very moist. Test Pit completed at 101 feet. TERRA • ASSOCIATES • Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 1 Date July'87 Fiaure 7 i 1 7_� Depth (ft.) 0 A 10 1 15 - R 5 10 - 15 - Logged By JJ Date __ 711187 LISCS 41 0 -1 TEST PIT No. 5 Soil Description Elev. W 190 Brown, sandy SILT with roots, very moist. SM ML Gray and brown, iron stained silty SAND and sandy SILT, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) 01- Gray, laminated SILT, medium dense, wet. Ter Pit terminated in undisturbed soil at 12 feet. Logged By — ii Date 7/1/87 TEST PIT No. 6 Elev. M Brown, silty SAND with roots, ML Cray and brown, clayey, sandy SILT and intermixed SM silty SAND, very moist, firm to medium stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML Organic rich, sandySILTwith wood. ML SM Gray and brown, iron -stained, sandy, clayey SILT and silty SAND, very moist to wet, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) FTest Pit completed at 13 feet 3 inches. R o5 TERRA ASSOCIATES .- p Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ProJ. No. 335 Date July'87 Figure 8 • • Depth (ft.) 0 E [Le7 15 TEST PIT NO. = LoQQed By JJ Date 7/1/87 USCS Soil bescriation Elev. W ►mot ML Brown, sandy SILT with roots, damp, medium dense. ML Brown and gray, sandy SILT, damp to very moist, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) no water 7/6/87 Wood debris at 7 feet. Test: Pik completed at 9 feet. go TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS*, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 Date July'87 Figure 9 • • • • Is FILL AND OLD LANDSLIDE DEBRIS GRADE TO DRAIN TO SEWER. 12"min. depth varies WHIDBEY FORMATLON SOILS 12' min. width COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL FREE —DRAINING BACKFILL COMPOSED OF WASHED GRAVEL, PEA GRAVEL, ETC. FILTER FABRIC 8 INCH PERFORATED OR SLOTTED PIPE. SLOPE 0.6% MINIMUM -TO STORM DRAIN. Typical. Interceptor Drain NOT —TO —SCALE NOTE; METHOD OF DRAIN_ INSTALLATION AND THE TRENCH SIDEWALL STABILITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF' THE CONTRACTOR. TERRA ASSOCIATES TYPICAL INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DETAIL SCULLY -PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 335 j Date July'87 I Figure 10 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology C'r and Environmental Earth Sciences RECEIVED tVED FEB 2 7 lo96 Ms. Dolores Dean c/o Mr. Michael George, Architect 1024 First Street, Suite 307. Snohomish, Washington 98290 Subject: 'Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Dean Residence 16315 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 1996 Project No. T-335-4 References: 1. Geotechnical Review Letter by Landau Associates, Inc. dated January 24, 1996 2. Plan Review Letter by Terra Associates, Inc. dated December 1995 3. Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc. dated August 19, 1987 Dear Ms. Dean: As requested, we are providing supplemental geotechnical consultation for the Dean residence in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. We are responding to several geotechnical items noted on the City of Edmonds Plan Review Correction Notice and in the referenced Landau Associates, Inc. letter. In the referenced plan review letter, we discussed geotechnical items relating to the project plans prepared in 1995. Landau Associates, Inc. Letter Item No. 3 The primary issue in Item No. 3 is construction of a rockery along the west side of the house above 75th Avenue and placement of new structural fills. Based on our review of the project plans, it appears that a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) fill slope will be constructed from near the west property line up to the edge of the western patio. This new fill and other shallow fills placed around the residence should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). Although some of the native silts and clays can be used as structural fill, we do not believe significant amounts of this material can be used. These soils will need to be aerated extensively and dried to within two percent of their optimum moisture content prior to their use as structural fill. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 9 Phone (206) 821-7777 Ms. Dolores Dean February I2, 1996 • For the five-foot deep structural fill proposed west of. the patio, we recommend using an imported granular pit -run soil with less than five percent fines. These granular fills should be placed in layers no more than one foot thick and each layer should be compacted. if new fills are placed on a sloping surface, they should be placed over horizontal benches cut into the existing slope. Any old stockpiled debris fills on this lot should be removed or placed in non-structural flatlying areas. Based on review of a supplemental site plan dated January 31, 1996, the architect has removed the small rockery planned adjacent the top of the slope just below the western patio. All new concrete flat work subgrades around the residence such as walkways and planters should be compacted to a stable non -yielding condition. Any soft or loose areas should be overexcavated and replaced with at least a one -foot thick layer of pit -run or railroad ballast rock to stabilize the subgrade. Native soils can be used only if they can be dried or aerated to within two percent of their optimum moisture. Other than during the driest summer months, this means that most of the native silty soils will not be usable as compacted structural fill. Item No. 8 Much of the concrete flat work around the pile -supported house will be placed on ancient landslide colluvial soils. These soils are.very moisture -sensitive and can easily be disturbed or disrupted due to • their silty nature. Their use for supporting the concrete flat work is questionable and cannot be properly established until construction. All subgrades for concrete work should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their maximum dry density. Soils that cannot be adequately compacted and stabilized should be replaced with at least a one foot layer of pit -run gravel or railroad ballast rock. • There is an inherent risk of minor long-term subgrade, subsidence due to the depth of the landslide soils. Some cosmetic damage may occur to slabs supported above these. soils regardless of the use of high quality construction techniques. The owner should be aware that this risk may occur over many years. The long-term risk of cosmetic damage to concrete work depends on the level of care the construction contractor uses to prepare the grades around the residence. Cracking can be reduced by creating many joints in the concrete surface. New asphalt driveways should be supported on a firm, dense, unyielding subgrade. To establish a stable subgrade, it may be necessary to overexcavate some of the clayey soils and replace them with a layer of quarry rock, railroad ballast, or other material. Based on our recent review of the project plans and previous reports, -it is our opinion that the residence may be constructed as planned. A pre -construction meeting with City of Edmonds personnel should be held at the site prior to construction. At that time, a scope of work can be developed to provide construction observation services for the owner and to provide the City of Edmonds with field reports covering the site grading. Project No. T-335-4 Page No. 2 Ms. Dolores Dean February 12, 1996 • City of Edmonds Plan Review: Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk It is our opinion that the plans and specifications prepared by the structural engineer conform to the general recommendations provided in the referenced report. The risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties from soil- instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in our previous geotechnical reports. It is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Our previous opinions relating to the risk of movement remain valid. Previous installation of the common deep interceptor drain across the back property line and use of the 50-foot toe setback will limit the risk of soil movement to less than 30 percent within 25 years. These statistical risks were outlined in the referenced report and during recent review efforts. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA C. i Paul I.l onifaG� j Engineering I f PKB/AB:eb u 12/9/ �2-/a - 96 Project No. T-335-4 Page No. 3 �.. -7s-7H lj2. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Geotechnical Consultants August 19, 1987 Project No: T-335 Mr. Steve Anderson Group Four, Inc. 19502 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washingto^ ' 90836 Subject: Geotechnical Ent,ineering Study Scully Short S-2b J..ivision (S-8-87) Edmonds, WGsh.::igton Dear Mr. Anderson: We have completed the veotechnical study you requested for the Scully property on the east side of 75th Place 'G 1:st in Meadowdale Beach. The site is located approximately as shown on the Vicinity M,!p, Figure 1, It includes Lots 62 and 63 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach '(513.). We understand that the owner intends to subdivide the property into three lots for single-family residential construction. Each of the three lots would have about 93 feet of frontage along 75th Place West. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the landslide hazard on the property and provide recommendations for site preparation and foundations for wood -framed residential construction. The work performed was described in our proposal dated May 20, 1987. It included standard penetration test borings, test pits, laboratory tests, and geotechnical engineering analyses. This report describes our explorations, reports our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 15301 N.E. 90th Street - Redmond, Washing(on 98U52 - Phone: 881-5570 Mailing Address: P.U. Bo\ 33:)8 - RL'dmond, W,t;hinraon 911073 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 SUMMARY OF FINDING The existing topography on the Scully property is illustrated on Figure 2. About forty percent of the site at the southeast corner is steeply sloped and virtually inaccessible. The remainder of the 2.5-acre site is relatively flat, accessible from 75th Place Westand buildable. , The buildable portion of the site is part of an ancient landslide that has remained active into .recent times and possibly is still active. The original landslides are believed to have occurred several thousand years ago. Recent landslides that included this property occurred during the winter of 1946-47 and again during the 1960's. The extent of the downslope movements that occurred in these latest events is not known. The landslide hazards and risks in the Meadowdale Beach area were studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates Inc. A map was produced that classified the various landslide hazards in the entire region and estimated occurrence probabilities. The buildable area on the Scully property was classified as previously failed material (slump) susceptible to additional movement. The possible occurrence of additional landslides within 25 years was estimated to have a probability of 90 percent. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as likely the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, beginning in 1980, sanitary sewers, storm sewers for surface water control, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed at many locations within and on the margins of the Meadowdale landslide complex. Since that time, a lowering of the groundwater table has been documented. In 1985, GeoEngineers, Incorporated evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in those areas believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the Scully property, the probability that the old slump material might move again within the 25-year period is now estimated at 30 percent. Project No. T-335 Page No. 2 • -Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 In 1983, as part of the LID No. 210 work, Interceptor Drain No. 3 was installed on the north margins of the Scully property. In 1986, an interceptor drain system was installed in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way at the south side of the property. This latter installation collects some surface water that originates on the Scully property, but does not adequately intercept hillside seepage that now percolates into the old slump material at the toe of the slope. We recommend installing a new interceptor drain along the toe of the slope on the Scully property. This drain will remove additional groundwater and increase the stability of the slump material on the buildable part of the site. The risk of landslide on the Scully property, in our opinion, will be reduced, but not eliminated. After this additional reduction in landslide risk is achieved, in our opinion, the buildable area on the Scully property west of the steep hillside will be suitable for residential construction, provided the present owners and all future lot owners are properly informed of the landslide risk that exists and accept full responsibility for it. Our explorations described below confirm that the buildable areas of the property are underlain by landslide debris and recent uncontrolled fill. The upper ten to 20 feet of this material consists of loose to medium dense silty sands and soft to stiff clayey silts with wood debris. The soils below -these materials are more compact silty fine sands and laminated clayey silts. These latter materials probably are part of the Whidbey Formation, as defined in the 1979 Lowe report. Our test borings do not confirm whether or not these Whidbey soils on the Scully property are landslide materials. The laminations we observed are nearly horizontal but the soil is wetter and not as hard as typical undisturbed glacially compacted soils. The material may be part of a large slide block that moved with little rotation or distortion. However, we believe the recent movements on the Scully property most likely were confined to the upper slump material, which is much looser and wetter. In our opinion, wood -framed single-family residential construction on this property may be supported on conventional spread foundations, provided a compacted gravel pad at least two feet thick is constructed to provide suitable bearing for the footings. However, better foundation performance likely would be obtained from pile foundations driven into the firmer soils at depths 15 to 20 feet. We recommend treated timber piles. Other deep foundations, such as augercast piles, may also be considered. Project No. T-335 Page No. 3 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 The use of deep foundations on this site will reduce the risk that unsuitable bearing materials that may be present at shallow depths might cause excessive settlements. The deep foundations recommended likely would not much reduce property damage if a future landslide occurred on the site. Consequently, deep foundations should not be viewed by property owners as a measure_ to reduce their landslide risk. As an added safety measure, we recommend establishing a building setback line about 50 feet from the toe of the bluff. This SO -foot buffer zone will provide a catchment area for debris that may from time to time slide from the -steep slopes east of the building areas. .To maintain the full 50-foot width of the buffer zone, the debris should be cleared periodically. The following sections of this report discuss our findings and present our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is intended -for the exclusive use of the property owners and their representatives. Our work has used methods and procedures consistent with local foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. _. SITE SURFACE ONDITIONS The Scully property in Meadowdale Beach is on the east side of 75th Place West immediately north of the unimproved 164th Street S.W. right-of-way. It includes Parcels 62 and 63 of the Meadowdale Beach Plat (5131). The present surface- conditions on the property are a result of both natural processes and modification by man. Existing grades vary from Elev. 80 feet adjacent 75th Place West to Elev. 250 at the east property line. The southeast 40 percent of the site is steeply sloped. The northwest portion is a gently sloping terrace with average ground surface gradients in the range of 15 percent. A gravel road enters the property, along the north boundary. The two parcels contain about 2.5 acres and measure roughly 270 feet north to south and 440 feet east to west. Single-family residences occupy land north and south of the property. A residence east of the property is sited well behind the crest of the bluff. Project No, T-335 Page No. 4 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Vegetation on the west end of the site is dominated by 20-year old alders. Trees on the steep slope are mostly alders and maples. Blackberry and salmonberry bushes abound on the site and horsetails are numerous in areas wet with seepage. At the time of our field exploration in July, the western portion of the site was firm and free of seepage up to the base of the bluff. Water could be seen seeping from the bluff, mostly from coarser sand seams. The seepage accumulates in a low area of the base of the bluff and drains southward in a shallow swale that terminates at a riprapped catchment area in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way. The talus at the base of the bluff and the surrounding area is saturated and soft. Neighbors in the area indicated that a previous owner had regraded the property. Trees in the western area were removed and the hummocky terrain was flattened to provide space for a proposed mobile home park. Evidence can be seen that a sizeable cut was made into the central portion of the bluff face. A fill pad was constructed on the east side . of Parcel 62. An extensive system of surface and subsurface drains has been constructed on and in the vicinity of the property. In the early to mid-1980's, the City of Edmonds implemented the Local Improvement District (LID) No. 210. Sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and interceptor drains were installed in an effort to reduce the excessive water in the _ Meadowdale landslide complex. Part of this work was a combination storm/interceptor system installed on the Scully property close to the north boundary. A few years later, another storm -interceptor drain system was constructed within the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way from 75th Place West to the base of the bluff. From there, it climbs the bluff southward. Thus, this drain is entirely south of the Scully property. However, as described above, surface drainage from the Scully property near the toe of the bluff is collected at one of the manholes in the system. Project No. T-335 Page No. 5 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 'Our field exploration of the three proposed subdivision lots was performed on july 1, 1987. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two standard enetration test borings to depths of 26 and 37 feet below the existing grade. The borings were performed by Drilling Unlimited, Inc. of Olympia, Washington using a skid -mounted drill rig. Hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes. In addition, seven test pits were excavated with a Case backhoe operated by Dave Biddle of Lynnwood, Washington. The test pits were completed at depths that varied from seven to 14 feet. The locations of the borings and pits were estimated by rough measurements from features shown on the property survey plan provided to us. The approximate locations are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Ground surface elevations at the boring and the test pit locations were interpolated from contours shown on the site plan provided to US. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm. He classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test boring and pit, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. In each boring, the consistency of the soils penetrated was sampled using standard penetration tests (SPT) performed at intervals not greater than five feet. The test procedures used were in general. accordance with ASTM D-1586. The results of these tests are the N- values reported on the boring logs. All samples recovered were visually classified in accordance with the system described on Figure 3. The boring logs are included in this report .as Figures 4 and 5. These logs represent -our interpretation of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The soils encountered in the test pits were examined and described using the system described on Figure 3. Logs of the test pits are presented on Figures 4 through 9. The bare slope exposures on the eastern part of the site permitted the soil types, continuity of units, hydrologic conditions and relative stability of the hillside in this area to be observed. Project No. T-335 Page No. 6 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Representative soil samples obtained from the test borings and pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for additional examination and testing. The moisture content of all samples was measured. In addition, sieve analyses and an Atterberg limit test were run to aid in properly classifying the soils. The results of these tests are reported on the boring and test pit logs. Groundwater observation wells were installed in both test borings and in three of the seven test pits. SUBSURFACE ONDITIONS Both test borings encountered fill and slide debris to depths of ten to 15 feet. The fill and the debris are virtually indistinguishable. This material is relatively loose and becomes very moist to wet a few feet below the surface. It consists of intermixed tan and blue -gray silty sand and clayey silt, often containing angular blocks of clayey silt, minor gravel and occasional buried trees and brush. Similar material was encountered in all the test pits. In most of the pits, it extended below the pit bottom. The fill and debris is underlain by gray stiff to very stiff laminated silts and clays with interbedded sand seams. These fine-grained soils probably belong to the interglacial Whidbey Formation, as defined by the 1979 Lowe report. The bedding in the sediments we drilled is roughly horizontal, implying that the borings either were made in a coherent slide block that has undergone negligible rotation or that the sediments have not moved appreciably since they were deposited. The Whidbey material encountered in our test borings has relatively low SPT N-values and high water content. Similar soils were classified "landslide material" in the 1979 Lowe report. Several Lowe borings that reached deep enough encountered sediments with refusal N-values. This very hard materials reported to be the undisturbed Whidbey Formation. We conclude that the Whidbey soils at shallow depth on the Scully property may be remnant blocks from ancient landslides. Project No. T-335 Page No, 7 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 GROUNDWATER Groundwater on this site flows generally westward toward Browns Bay. In July when our field work was completed, groundwater was seeping from sand seams exposed on the bare bluff at the east side of the property. Soils near the toe of the bluff were saturated nearly to the ground surface. The wet soils encountered in the test borings suggest that surface water that infiltrates the debris probably flows westward downslope in the debris above the Whidbey soils. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The Scully property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Three categories of possible landslides were identified on the Scully property: 1) avalanches of slope debris from the steep slope at the east side of the site; 2) landslides in steep slope materials that have never before failed; and 3) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first two categories were considered to have relatively low risk, only a two to five percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. The possibility that a failure in the third category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent. The high -risk area on the site included all the relatively flat ground west of the steep slope. As described above, the depth of old landslide material on that part of the site is at least 10 to 20 feet and may extend much deeper into the Whidbey Formation. Project No. T-335 Page No. 8 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater from the Meadowdale landslide complex. In 1985, GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrent;; probabilities of 90 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent in 25 years. In our opinion, if the Scull.f property is developed, the landslide hazard should be reduced even further. To accompLsh this, we recommend that the following two measures be taken: 1) installation of a deer+ interceptor drain near the base of the bluff, and 2) establishment of a b' ilding setback line about 50 feet from the toe of the slope. These two measures will reduce the landslide hazard on the Scully property considerably, but they will not entirely eliminate the hazard. After this additional reduction in landslide hazard is achieved, in oui opinion, the relatively flat area west of the 50-foot setback line will be suitable for single-family residential construction, provided the present owners and all future lot owners. are properly informed of the landslide risk that exists and accept full responsibility for it. The following sections of this report present more detailed geotechnical recommendations for developing this property. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Project No. T-335 Page No. 9 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Interceptor Drain At the present time, surface runoff, rainfall and seepage from the bluff percolate into the ground near the base of the bluff. Some of this water may be collected by the existing interceptor drain systems in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way and on the north margins of the property. However, because the pervious slope debris on the site is deeper than the existing drains, much of the water undoubtedly passes under the drains and continues on downslope. This water contributes to the potential instability of the existing landslide debris and increases the landslide hazard on the Scully property. In order to remove the groundwater that now passes under the existing drains, we recommend installing a deep interceptor drain east of the proposed 50-foot building setback line near the toe of the slope. The interceptor drain should extend into the Whidbey Formation, a depth likely to be in the range of twelve to 15 feet. We recommend using slotted or perforated ABS drainpipe eight inches in diameter. The pipe should be bedded in washed gravel and wrapped with filter cloth, approximately as shown on Figure 10. The drain should discharge to the existing storm sewer system. Since the drain invert elevations likely will be deeper than any. of the manholes in the existing interceptor system, the new drain may have to be extended to the storm sewer along 75th Place West. All sections of the drain west of the 50-foot setback line should be tightlined. Several cleanouts should be provided. Conventional Spread Foundations As indicated above, the near -surface soils on the buildable portion of the Scully property are uncontrolled fills and debris from old landslides. This material contains wood debris and has a significant component of wet plastic clay. In our opinion, the performance of conventional spread foundations bearing on this material is unpredictable. Settlements in the range of a few inches may occur. Consequently, spread foundations should be used for single-family wood -framed construction only if the risk that settlements of this magnitude may occur is acceptable. Project No. T-335 Page No. 10 1 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 If spread foundations are used, we recommend stripping the site and placing a building pad of imported gravel. The pad should be at least two feet thick below foundations and twelve inches thick beneath slab -on -grade floors. The subgrade under the gravel pad should be proofrolled before any gravel is placed. Any soft places located should be excavated to firm ground and stabilized with gravel or rock spalls. The gravel pad should be placed in layers about eight inches thick and compacted to dry densities at least 90 percent of its ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The compacted gravel pad recommended will reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation performance, but it will not eliminate the risk. Deep Foundations Because the near -surface soils on this site will not, in our opinion, provide dependable support for conventional spread foundations, we recommend using deep foundations bearing in the firm Whidbey soils at depths of approximately 15 to 20 feet. Suitable deep foundations for the soil conditions on this site include timber piles and augercast piles. With the residences supported on deep foundations, the ground floors, in our opinion, should be framed over crawl spaces. Garage floors, however, may be slab -on -grade. We recommend isolating all slab -on -grade floors from the building foundations and from all other structures. Timber piles should be treated with preservative and should have a minimum tip circumference of 22 inches. They should be driven into the firm Whidbey soils that underlie the near -surface compressible materials. We estimate that pile capacities in the range of ten to 15 tons can be obtained with the pile tips in the range of 20 to 25 feet below the present ground surface. The necessary pile driving resistances, blows per foot, may be estimated using the Engineering News formula. Augercast piles, if used, should be at least twelve inches in diameter. We estimate that augercast piles embedded at least seven feet into the firm Whidbey soils can be designed for loads of 20 tons. Project No. T-335 Page No. 11 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Roof and Area Drains Rainwater -from roofs and any surface water collected on this site should be conveyed in tight lines and discharged directly to the storm sewer system. Impact on Neighboring Prope In our opinion, the presence of single-family wood -framed residential construction on this property will have no adverse impact on the landslide hazards that affect this property and the neighboring property. The interceptor drain recommended should lower the groundwater table and reduce the current risk of landslide on the Scully property and on the property downslope from the site. Construction* on the Scully property will not affect the stability of the bluff and thus will not adversely affect neighboring property to the east. The present vegetation on the steep slopes at the east side of the property should be maintained. Trees that might topple onto the buildings may be trimmed back but should not be removed. Catch basins and storm drain lines should be kept clear of debris and free -flowing. During construction, barren soils should be covered with straw and hydroseeded to reduce erosion. Lawns should be sodded as soon as possible after construction is completed. Additional Services As development plans proceed, we recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be requested to review earthwork and foundation plans so that our recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. In order to verify compliance with the project plans, specifications, and the recommendations presented herein, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions are encountered that differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Project No. T-335 Page No. 12 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on . the present site conditions and the assumption that the subsurface conditions throughout the site are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, Terra Associates, Inc. should be advised at once so that we can review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If a substantial lapse of time occurs between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions change due to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent the site, this report should be reviewed in order to evaluate whether or not its conclusions and recommendations are applicable, considering the changed conditions or the time lapse. Project No. T-335 Page No. 13 c >' -i to m LA m i Oz o f!J O D Z D Z D y m 3 3 °rn fi rn oL A o ° 0 ^ �- O ^ ° � A 0 0 w w �Slh PLACE vv n n Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 LC OSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Soil Classification System Figures 4 and 5 Boring Logs Figure 6 through 9 Test Pit Lags Figure 10 Typical Interceptor Drain Design Detail We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please contact us whenever we may be able to assist you, and please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,,.�•..,,�, %fit Anil Butail, P.E. President R� �� r NA JJ/AB:mf 1 Project No. T-335 Page No. 14 r•• •�I��a Imp } •>:;►1 ;., ► ::r.^U ' LIME- , �V•�"�!:.i:'«�!1 Tub- ,[.�r��r�'f'i::.� � �•-Jf"' `"•1 1,•�• .yd i .uf lt. {ytis��.�.;'CRim=1 Ill' . +���... .r� rl ,:■ 7at trf- irl(l•)_(:it4i.•',?.'�.�ili��r�l ••._ll�f•��•`,� �,,iF'�ii �i�",•' a:"i.� �(_ j� „!' "� � �Yri h� 5;G J'"'1 ". i., L,I��:i:�t'a'�':."�.V'' ',1:::;:!••. r �111::�i^ r , rCas 7��'i'r7a�. ti �_>�:'�����,'c��:G' it =iJS�,. - !r:�7• ]'/'j \f•.• �1•�';i iJ;7 C-'! +; : •��. . �', t'.,p .. t ..i% J. ;• • 17 c-�i;.i, �� • ; �''•�'-" � :=i� ,� f �jlli !.•.�,1'r r';r ►.<•Yc•. t1:lftr�•.v t.�,.:.:'r.; 1. '" :T. -�•.,;. � 'I�•�1� Irt.,L�... '�,. 1�' J ,� i � V V / �.(�i�,r }+!'.:t - ('F;. + q. y:,i,• J:.:• ' 7 1.1+• 41L% �,., ��.••�� ►cy4a /fir ` J� -�i ':(• �L.IS:w I:Ua'.', ." , .:� ' 7�1��'�:._ �tl•�.. I lj 1: 1!:� �r'+i'. ►v:��'' irk tl, 1'4j n }'. !•...'.• . fY'I �r1�•� '^' `:"!!'-! 111' '' i='.; -." •�� r : �. Xj '...L..{{;; � Ij'D(r v. c,;'+ Y.�. ,'',fit: ,: `� •`"?. • - ��_ ,r.: i�,:;.i:w.,,.�} 't.''' .:'�' �c:S:i •• •, :-•'!'n.:�:Y,;ti'lr;.:�1�`f���.i�k�,:�4`: .i :.� :n:}.i.it�, r+_• � :o�y .•.: ar 'n.r• •u .:if•iG4a .:�'.: ,_. �� �i+_• t."• , I�o (' • L , G y�6i.�ftjP.� �. •� ��rt���:�rtl, oi�?:1"'� ;i.C.r;:4^Z1•{•.'vC)4u11�?�`. ;v Jtj�',t`jt! : 1��'�'t li!IiI:,J ': G`_ ,f-•.•Y?,', y,: rl :,:,pi, o.. �' + ;i: tli.� %31`• ` L;,;, •• .r:; _i t,`•: 3 'G� la. f:!'•1��•1 � �`Y'. � L•f:::ir (F.1.. l:' .•{.'•/� �"".�.( tr; _' , '_�•..~' "jj177f.1i'-�'':• �•, • •!r_.:.• - .... r�_ ; �::rr �, rsJl ,:,•,� .1 '!>S•�•1" •��, ,� flLi.�eJ11S' �':• i• u;;•; ��.;,.;`,.Jl,•:oi':1•:•f�t�. �; ,Gai: ' ":' �� /.r ;'1',�r.fa!:�.=. + l:S'i:�..1�Lq'y:.�l;, E.:�j}�l:;r�(�1.1 •„�• •�, ��� � �. _ :: �" i:•n.ltl !•ii.• al• '' .• .i :l•'+,J '• • ':i ? .�.,.,,.. ,�' !•r:�;.,• i �`�1 :�: � %' •:i' ( i= ��' ;�r.,�.' 1, �.�-�•:�� %'� fl iir�.,: �.Vrt� '+�i ` - - [ j' :'` + r � I'�,�, Group PRIMARY DIVISIONS Symbol SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS Clean GW well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures more than half Gravels little or no fines. of coarse (less than GP poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand o -`9 fraction is 5% fines) mixtures little or no fines. Gravel GM silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, c7� C larger than No. 4 sieve with non- lastic fines. GC clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, HC3 c fines M, cV lactic fines. SANDS Clean SW well graded sands, gravelly sands, little ° d Ww .� a more than half Sands or no fines. SP poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, 0 of coarse (less Chan fraction is 5% fines) little or no fines. Sands SM allty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- ° smaller than gCd No. 4 sieve with plastic fines. fines SC clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. N SILTS AND CLAYS ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey Line sands or clayey o liquid limlt is silts with slight plasticity. CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity less than 50% w m c gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays, OL organic silts and organic clays of low o � n ilaatici . SILTS AND CLAYS MH inorganic silts, micaceous or diatom- o m A s liquid limits is ceous fine sandyor ail soils elastic. greater than 50� CH Inorganic clays of hi hplasticity-,fat clays. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS r PT peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. Standard Series eve Clear Square Sieve Openings 200 40 10 4 3/41I il► 1011 SILTS & CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLE BOULDER fine medium coarse fine coarse t71L.C]11`1 01Zir.0 SANDS, GRAVELS, STANDARD AND NON -PLASTIC PENETRATION SILTS very loose 0- 4 loose 4-10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30-50 very dense over 50 RELATIVE DENSITY ;:,...T E R R A . ASS®CIATES a • Geotechnical Consultants PLASTIC SILTS nconfined Compressive STANDARD AND CLAYS .Stre th PENETRATIOX very soft 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 soft 1/4 - 1/2 2-4 firm 1/2-1 4 - g stiff 1 - 2 8-16 very stiff 2 - 4 16-32 hard I over 4 1 over 32 wiv�l�"1'1rNCY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS$ WASHINGTON Proi. No_ qa�rnntA .1111v'R7 BORING NO. 1 Logged By JJ Date 7/1/87 ELEV. Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows W (ft.) Ft - MT (°�) Brown sand SILT with roots dam . ML Blue -gray, clayey SILT intermixed with / brown silty SAND with wood debris, very SM moist, soft and loose. (Fill/Slide Debris) With silt clasts, wet. ML Gray, horizontally laminated, clayey / silt, moist, very stiff. MH 5 25.3 5 6 23.1 10 6 35.3 1511 1 22 129. 2511 1 36 128. Test'Boring completed at 261 feet; Groundwater observation well installed to 261 feet, slotted to 61 feet; Groundwater measured at 9 feet 2 inches July 6, 1987. TERRA Y •• - ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 Date July'87 FicJure 4 BORING NO. 2 Logged By JJ Date _ 7/1/87 Graph �S Soil Description ML Brown sand SILT with roots, dam p. ML Brown and gray, sandy SILT with clay, trace gravel, some iron -staining, very moist, soft to firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) Olive gray, intermixed SAND, sandy SILT and clayey FILT, trace gravel with some organics, wet.., firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) ELEV. Depth I Sample I B ow)s IM I (ft.) R 10 ML Gray, sandy SILT, horizontally bedded, 15 / clayey SILT and silty SAND interbeds, MH wet, medium der:se. SM 20 25 7 .7 5 .5 6 .4 11 P8.4 ®I 4 14 L.7 P1L Gray, clayey SILT with minor horizontal sand interbeds,.very 30 15 .1 moist, very stiff. Test Boring completed at 36 feet. groundwater observation well set at 36 eet, Groundwater measured at 231 feet-7/6/87 35 20 1.7 '^`7•v` TERRA BORING LOG SCULLY PROPERTY •1 ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants — Prol. No. 335 1 Date .iiiivIA7 c�„,,., 1 TEST PIT NO. - Loqged By JJ Date 7/1/87 Elev. -- Depth yy (ft.) LISCS Soil Description M 0 5 10 15 ML Brown, sandy SILT, with roots and organics, damp. no ML Brown and gray, iron stained, clayey SILT and / SM intermixed sand, silt clasts and wood, moist to very moist, firm. • grater 7/6/t37 Wood debris at 61 feet. (Fill/Slide Debris) Wood debris and large blocks of lammated silt at 10 feet. Test Pit completed at 12 feet; No visible seepage or caving. _ Logged By JJ E lev. Date 7/1/87 TEST PIT N0. = 0 5 10 15 brown, sandy win roo s ana or8an3.c ma eria s, W ML / SM Gray, clayey SILT with intermixed sand, wood debris, and silt clasts, wet, firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) 30.9 7/6/87 Test Pit completed at 13 feet 8 inches. No visible seepage or caving. ::• �; TERRA TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY �.:..>..r. •• ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 335 I I � Date July'87 Figure 6 Depth TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged By ii Date - 7/1/87 Elev. — Soil Description W (96) Brown, sandy SILT with roots an—d organic mate ial, Brown, sandy SILT with clay some wood debris and silt clasts, moist, firm to stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) Gray, cayey and sandy SILT, moist, firm to stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) Stump or log at 7 feet. Test Pit, terminated at 71 feet on log or -stump; No seepage or caving noted. 10 (Fill/ Slide Debris) 15 0 A 10 15 Logged By i Date 7/1/87 `VEST PIT NO. �4 Elev. ML Brown, sandy SILT with roots, damp, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML Brown, sandy SILT and silty SAND, some wood debris, / damp, medium dense. SM Fill 31ide Debris) ML lGray, iron —stained, sandy SILT with clay and silt clasts and organics, moist to very moist. Test Pit completed at 101 feet. TERRA .•• - ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 1 rrol. No. 335 1 Date JUIv'87 I Fim.rn -, Depth fft-) 0 5 10 - 15 - Logged By JJ Date — 7/1/87 USCS - 0 TEST PIT NO. 5 Soil Description Elev. W 041 pill Brown, sandy SILT with roots, very moist. SM ML Gray and brown, iron staine4 silty SAND and sandy SILT, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) Gray, laminated SILT, medium dense, wet. Tnt Pit terminated in undisturbed soil at 12 feet.. Logged By ii Date_7/1/87 TEST PIT NO. 6 Elev. 0 h rown, silty SAND with roots, damp. ML Gray and brown, clayey, sandy SILT and intermixed silty SAND, very moist, firm to medium stiff. SM (Fill/Slide Debris) 5 ML Organic rich, sandy SILT with wood. 10 ML Gray and brown, iron —stained, sandy, clayey SILT and silty SAND, very moist to wet, medium dense. S (Fill/Slide Debris) Test Pit completed at 13 feet 3 inches'. 15 - --- I TERRA TEST PIT LOGS ASSOCIATES SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants I Prof. No. 335 Date July'87 I Figure 8 TEST PIT NO. = LoQged By JJ Date 7/1/87 Elev. Depth (ft.) USCS Soil Description W 0 M ML Brown, sandy SILT with roots, damp, medium dense. ML Brown and gray, sandy SILT, damp to very moist, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) 5 :food debris at 7 feet. 10 Test Pit: completed at 9 feet. 15 go TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants no water 7/6/87 TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS'$ WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 Date July'87 I Figure q FILL AND OLD LANDSLIDE DEBRIS GRADE TO DRAIN TO SEWER. 12"min. _t depth varies WHIDBEY FORMATLON SOILS rli lilt .;. IIII � 11= COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL ' BACKFILL u; • Via. .o• :o• •�. .� 'O 'per � • FREE —DRAINING BACKFILL COMPOSED OF WASHED GRAVEL, PEA GRAVEL, ETC. FILTER FABRIC 8 INCH PERFORATED OR `•' SLOTTED PIPE. SLOPE 0.6% MINIMUM -TO 12" STORM DRAIN. min. width Typical. Interceptor Drain NOT —TO —SCALE NOTE: METHOD OF DRAIN. INSTALLATION AND THE TRENCH SIDEWALL STABILITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF' THE CONTRACTOR. ASSOCIATES TYPICAL INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DETAIL SCULLY . PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotochnlcal Consultants Proj. No. 335 1 Date July'87 I Ftoure 1,) LE f TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. • Geotechnical Consultants n - • � IIc �i �n n�, •_. Mr. Steve Anderson Group Four, Inc. 19502 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washington 9t�836 Subject: Geotechnical Ent,ineering Study Scully Short S-..b•:t.ivision (S-8-87) Edmonds, Wzsh::tgton Dear Mr. Anderson: L; August 19, 1987 Project No. T-335 We have completed the Geotechnical study you requested for the Scully property on the east side of 75th Place V .st in Meadowdale Beach. The site is located approximately as shown on the Vicinity Mt.p, Figure 1. It includes Lots 62 and 63 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach '(513:). We understand that the owner intends to subdivide the property into three lots for single-family residential construction. Each of the three lots would have about 93 feet of frontage along 75th Place West. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the landslide hazard on the property and provide recommendations for site preparation and foundations for wood -framed residential construction. The work performed was described in our proposal dated May 20, 1987. It included standard penetration test borings, test pits, laboratory tests, and geotechnical engineering analyses. This report describes our explorations, reports our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 153o1 N.E. 90th Street • Redmond, Washington 98052 • Phone: 881-5570 Mailing Address: P.U. 13o\ 33:i9 o Redmond, Washinttton 91307.3 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 SUMMARY OF FINDTNC The existing topography on the Scully property is illustrated on Figure 2. About forty percent of the site at the southeast corner is steeply sloped and virtually inaccessible. Tile remainder of the 2.5-acre site is relatively flat, accessible from 75th Place West, and buildable. The buildable portion of the site is part of an ancient landslide that has remained active into recent times and possibly is still active. The original landslides are believed to have occurred several thousand years ago. Recent landslides that included this property occurred during the winter of 1946-47 and again during the 1960's. The extent of the downslope movements that occurred in these latest events is not known. The landslide hazards and risks in the Meadowdale Beach area were studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates Inc. A map was produced that classified the various landslide hazards in the entire region and estimated occurrence probabilities. The buildable area on the Scully property was classified as previously failed material (slump) susceptible to additional movement. The possible occurrence of additional landslides within 25 years was estimated to have a probability of 90 percent. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as likely the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, beginning in 1980, sanitary sewers, storm sewers for surface water control, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed at many locations within and on the margins of the Meadowdale landslide complex. Since that time, a lowering of the groundwater table has been documented. In 1985, • GeoEngineers,Incorporated evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in those areas believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the Scully property, the probability that the old slump material might move again within the 25 year period is now estimated at 30 percent. Project No. T-335 Page No. 2 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 In 1983, as part of the LID No. 210 work, Interceptor Drain No. 3 was installed on the north margins of the Scully property. In 1986, an interceptor drain system was installed in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way at the south side of the property. This latter installation collects some surface water that originates on the Scully property, but does not adequately intercept hillside seepage that now percolates into the old slump material at the toe of the slope. We recommend installing a new interceptor drain along the toe of the slope on the Scully property. This drain will remove additional groundwater and increase the stability of the slump material on the buildable part of the site. The risk of landslide on the Scully property, in our opinion, will be reduced, but not eliminated. After this additional reduction in landslide risk is achieved, in our opinion, the buildable area on the Scully property west of the steep hillside will be suitable for residential construction, provided the present owners and all future lot owners are properly informed of the landslide risk that exists and accept full responsibility for it. Our explorations described below confirm that the buildable areas of the property are underlain by landslide debris and recent uncontrolled fill. The upper ten to 20 feet of this material consists of loose to medium dense silty sands and soft to stiff clayey silts with wood debris. The soils below•these materials are more compact silty fine sands and laminated clayey silts. These latter materials probably are part of the Whidbey Formation, as defined in the 1979 Lowe report. Our test borings do not confirm whether or not these Whidbey soils on the Scully property are landslide materials. The laminations we observed are nearly horizontal but the soil is wetter and not as hard as typical undisturbed glacially compacted soils. The material may be part of a large slide block that moved with little rotation or distortion. However, we believe the recent movements on the Scully property most likely were confined to the upper slump material, which is much looser and wetter. In our opinion, wood -framed single-family residential construction on this property may be supported on conventional spread foundations, provided a compacted gravel pad at least two feet thick is constructed to provide suitable bearing for the footings. However, better foundation performance likely would be obtained from pile foundations driven into the firmer soils at depths 15 to 20 feet. We recommend treated timber piles. Other deep foundations, such as augercast piles, may also be considered. Project No. T-335 Page No. 3 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 The use of deep foundations on this site will reduce the risk that unsuitable bearing materials that may be present at shallow depths might cause excessive settlements. The deep foundations recommended likely would not much reduce property damage if a future landslide occurred on the site. Consequently, deep foundations should not be viewed by property owners as a measure. to reduce their landslide risk. As an added safety measure, we recommend establishing a building setback line about 50 feet from the toe of the bluff. This 50-foot buffer zone will provide a catchment area for debris that may from time to time slide from the steep slopes east of the building areas. .To maintain the full 50-foot width of the buffer zone, the debris should be cleared periodically. The following sections of this report discuss our findings and present our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is intended -for the exclusive use of the property owners and their representatives. Our work has used methods and procedures consistent with local foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. ,SITE SURFACE CONDMONS The Scully property in Meadowdale Beach is on the east side of 75th Place West immediately north of the unimproved 164th Street S.W. right-of-way. It includes Parcels 62 and 63 of the Meadowdale Beach Plat (5131). The present surface conditions on the property are a result of both natural processes and modification by man. Exisdng grades vary from Elev. 80 feet adjacent 75th Place West to Elev. 250 at the east property line. The southeast 40 percent of the site is steeply sloped. The northwest portion is a gently sloping terrace with average ground surface gradients in the range of 15 percent. A gravel road enters the property. along the north boundary. The two parcels contain about 2.5 acres and measure roughly 270 feet north to south and 440 feet east to west. Single-family residences occupy land north and south of the property. A residence east of the property- is sited well behind the crest of the bluff. Project No. T-335 Page No. 4 0 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 -- Vegetation on the west end of the site is dominated by 20-year old alders. Trees on the steep slope are mostly alders and maples. Blackberry and salmonberry bushes abound on the site and horsetails are numerous in areas wet with seepage. At the time of our field exploration in July, the western portion of the site was firm and free of seepage up to the base of the bluff. Water could be seen seeping from the bluff, mostly from coarser sand seams. The seepage accumulates in a low area of the base of the bluff and drains southward in a shallow swale that terminates at a riprapped catchment area in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way. The talus at the base of the bluff and the surrounding area is saturated and soft. Neighbors in the area indicated that a previous owner had regraded the property. Trees in the western area were removed and the hummocky terrain was flattened to provide space for a proposed mobile home park. Evidence can be seen that a sizeable cut was made into the central portion of the bluff face. A fill pad was constructed on the east side of Parcel 62. An extensive system of surface and subsurface drains has been constructed on and in the vicinity of the property. In the early to mid-1980's, the City of Edmonds implemented the Local Improvement District (LID) No. 210. Sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and interceptor drains were installed in an effort to reduce the excessive water in the Meadowdale landslide complex. Part of this work was a combination storm/interceptor system installed on the Scully property close to the north boundary. A few years later, another storm -interceptor drain system was constructed within the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way from 75th Place West to the base of the bluff. From there, it climbs the bluff southward. Thus, this drain is entirely south of the Scully property. However, as described above, surface drainage from the Scully property near the toe of the bluff is collected at one of the manholes in the system. Project No. T-335 Page No. 5 - Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration of the three proposed subdivision lots was performed on july 1, 1987. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two standard enetration test _ borings to depths of 26 and 37 feet below the existing grade. The borings were performed by Drilling Unlimited, Inc. of Olympia, Washington using a skid -mounted drill rig. Hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes. In addition, seven test pits were excavated with a Case backhoe operated by Dave Biddle of Lynnwood, Washington. The test pits were completed at depths that varied from seven to 14 feet. The locations of the borings and pits were estimated by rough measurements from features shown on the property survey plan provided to us. The approximate locations are shown on the Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Ground surface elevations at the boring and the test pit locations were interpolated from contours shown on the site plan provided to US. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm. He classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test boring and pit, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. In each boring, the consistency of the soils penetrated was sampled using standard penetration tests (SPT) performed at intervals not greater than five feet. The test procedures used were in general. accordance with ASTM D-1586. The results of these tests are the N- values reported on the boring logs. All samples recovered were visually classified in accordance with the system described on Figure 3. The boring logs are included in this report as Figures 4 and 5. These logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The soils encountered in the test pits were examined and described using the system described on Figure 3. Logs of the test pits are presented on Figures 4 through 9. The bare slope exposures on the eastern part of the site permitted the soil types, continuity of units, hydrologic conditions and relative stability of the hillside in this area to be observed. Project No. T-335 Page No. 6 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Representative soil samples obtained from the test borings and pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for additional examination and testing. The moisture content of all samples was measured. In addition, sieve analyses and an Atterberg limit test were run to aid in properly classifying the soils. The results -of these tests are reported on the boring and test pit logs. - . Groundwater observation wells were installed in both test borings and in three of the seven test pits. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Both test borings encountered fill and slide debris to depths of ten to 15 feet. The fill and the debris are virtually indistinguishable. This material is relatively loose and becomes very moist to wet a few feet below the surface. It consists of intermixed tan and blue -gray silty sand and clayey silt, often containing angular blocks of clayey silt, minor gravel and occasional buried trees and brush. Similar material was encountered in all the test pits. In most of the pits, it extended below the pit bottom. The fill and debris is underlain by gray stiff to very stiff laminated silts and clays with interbedded sand seams. These fine-grained soils probably belong to the interglacial Whidbey Formation, as defined by the 1979 Lowe report. The bedding in the sediments we drilled is roughly horizontal, implying that the borings either were made in a coherent slide block that has undergone negligible rotation or that the sediments have not moved appreciably since they were deposited. The Whidbey material encountered in our test borings has relatively low SPT N-values and high water content. Similar soils were classified "landslide material' in the 1979 Lowe report. Several Lowe borings that reached deep enough encountered sediments with refusal N-values. This very hard materials reported to be the undisturbed Whidbey Formation. We conclude that the Whidbey soils at shallow depth on the Scully property may be remnant blocks from ancient landslides. Project No. T-335 Page No, 7 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 GROUNDWATER Groundwater on this site flows generally westward toward Browns Bay. In July when our field work was completed,. groundwater was seeping from sand seams exposed on the bare bluff at the east side of the property. Soils near the toe of the bluff were saturated nearly to the ground surface. The wet soils encountered in the test borings suggest that surface water that infiltrates the debris probably flows westward downslope in the debris above the Whidbey soils. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The Scully property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied _ in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Three categories of possible landslides were identified on the Scully property: 1) avalanches of slope debris from the steep slope at the east side of the site; 2) landslides in steep slope materials that have never before failed; and 3) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first two categories were considered to have relatively low risk, only a two to five percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. The possibility that a failure in the thud category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent. The high -risk area on the site included all the relatively flat ground west of the steep slope. As described above, the depth of old landslide material on that part of the site is at least 10 to 20 feet and may extend much deeper into the Whidbey Formation. Project No. T-335 Page No. 8 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater from the Meadowdale landslide complex. In 1985, GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrence probabilities of 90 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent in 25 years. In our opinion, if the Scully property is developed, the landslide hazard should be reduced even further. To accomplish this, we recommend that the following two measures be taken: 1) installation of a deep interceptor drain near the base of the bluff, and 2) establishment of a b;:ilding setback line about 50 feet from the toe of the slope. These two measures will reduce the landslide hazard on the Scully property considerably, but they will not entirely eliminate the hazard. After this additional reduction in landslide hazard is achieved, in oui opinion, the relatively flat area west of the 50-foot setback line will be suitable for single-family residential construction, provided the present owners and all future lot owners. are properly informed of the landslide risk that exists and accept full responsibility for it. The following sections of this report present more detailed geotechnical recommendations for developing this property. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Project No. T-335 Page No. 9 • 0 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Interceptor Drain At the present time, surface runoff, rainfall and seepage from the bluff percolate into the ground near the base of the bluff. Some of this water may be collected by the existing interceptor drain systems in the 164th Street S.W. right-of-way and on the north margins of the property. However, because the pervious slope debris on the site is deeper than the existing drains, much of the water undoubtedly passes under the drains and continues on downslope. This water contributes to the potential instability of the existing landslide debris and increases the landslide hazard on the Scully property. In order to remove the groundwater that now passes under the existing drains, we recommend installing a deep interceptor drain east of the proposed 50-foot building setback line near the toe of the slope. The interceptor drain should extend into the Whidbey Formation, a depth likely to be in the range of twelve to 15 feet. We recommend using slotted or perforated ABS drainpipe eight inches in diameter. The pipe should be bedded in washed gravel and wrapped with filter cloth, approximately as shown on Figure 10. The drain should discharge to the existing storm sewer system. Since the drain invert elevations likely will be deeper than any -of the manholes in the existing interceptor system, the new drain may have to be extended to the storm sewer along 75th Place West. All sections of the drain west of the 50-foot setback line should be tightlined. Several cleanouts should be provided. Conventional Spread Foundations As indicated above, the near -surface soils on the buildable portion of the Scully property are uncontrolled fills and debris from old landslides. This material contains wood debris and has a significant component of wet plastic clay. In our opinion, the performance of conventional spread foundations bearing on this material is unpredictable. Settlements in the range of a few inches may occur. Consequently, spread foundations should be used for single-family wood -framed construction only if the risk that settlements of this magnitude may occur is acceptable. Project No. T-335 Page No. 10 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 If spread foundations are used, we recommend stripping the site and placing a building pad of imported gravel. The pad should be at least two feet thick below foundations and twelve inches thick beneath slab -on -grade floors. The subgrade under the gravel pad should be proofrolled before any gravel is placed. Any soft places located should be excavated to firm ground and stabilized with gravel or rock spalls. The gravel pad should be placed in layers about eight inches thick and compacted to dry densities at least 90 percent of its ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The compacted gravel pad recommended will reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation performance, but it will not eliminate the risk. Deep Foundations Because the near -surface soils on this site will not, in our opinion, provide dependable support for conventional spread foundations, we recommend using deep foundations bearing in the firm Whidbey soils at depths of approximately 15 to 20 feet. Suitable deep foundations for the soil conditions on this site include timber piles and augercast piles. With the residences supported on deep foundations, the ground floors, in our opinion, should be framed over crawl spaces. Garage floors, however, may be slab -on -grade. We _ recommend isolating all slab -on -grade floors from the building foundations and from all other structures. Timber piles should be treated with preservative and should have a minimum tip circumference of 22 inches. They should be driven into the firm Whidbey soils that underlie the near -surface compressible materials. We estimate that pile capacities in the range of ten to 15 tons can be obtained with the pile tips in the range of 20 to 25 feet below the present ground surface. The necessary pile driving resistances, blows per foot, may be estimated using the Engineering News formula. Augercast piles, if used, should be at least twelve inches in diameter. We estimate that augercast piles embedded at least seven feet into the firm Whidbey soils can be designed for loads of 20 tons. Project No. T-335 Page No. 11 Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 Roof and Area Drains Rainwater from roofs and any surface water collected on this site should be conveyed in tight lines and discharged directly 'to the storm sewer system. Impact on Neighboring Property In our -opinion, the presence of single-family wood -framed residential construction on this property will have no adverse impact on the landslide hazards that affect this property and the neighboring property. The interceptor drain recommended should lower the groundwater table and reduce the current risk of landslide on the Scully property and on the property downslope from the site. Construction on the Scully property will not affect the stability of the bluff and thus will not adversely affect neighboring property to the east. The present vegetation on the steep slopes at the east side of the property should be maintained. Trees that might topple onto the buildings may be trimmed back but should not be removed. Catch basins and storm drain lines should be kept clear of debris and free -flowing. During construction, barren soils should be covered with straw and hydroseeded to reduce erosion. Lawns should be sodded as soon as possible after construction is completed. Additional Services As development plans proceed, we recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be requested to review earthwork and foundation plans so that our recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. In order to verify compliance with the project plans, specifications, and the recommendations presented herein, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions are encountered that differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Project No. T-335 Page No. 12 • Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the present site conditions and the assumption that the subsurface conditions throughout the site are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, Terra Associates, Inc. should be advised at once so that we can review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If a substantial lapse of time occurs between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions change due to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent the site, this report should be reviewed in order to evaluate whether or not its conclusions and recommendations are applicable, considering the changed conditions or the time lapse. Project No. T-335 Page No. 13 0 w w N m C- c 4 M b E m O 3n Z Oc r 0r cCn .< G (,)O _ 'D m 0 Z 0 C 1 N O Y 2 D Z D w cn o r o m 3� 3a rn w N � X° c � Xo O 03. o3 rn cn G 0 o o v a 1° a_ 0 0 w w a n 7St4 �PL4CS I Mr. Steve Anderson August 19, 1987 LC OSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Soil Classification System Figures 4 and 5 Boring Logs Figure 6 through 9 Test Pit Logs Figure 10 Typical Interceptor Drain Design Detail We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please contact us whenever we may be able to assist you, and please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. mow,, �� yc H cc Anil Butail, P.E. 0 President z s/0WAL �N JJ/AB:mf Project No. T-335 Page No. 14 F 171 rt V" k; KA4 -0$3 il J. In U: ZL. Al Slug-, Fir 1Xz i!o 44 i r4 hilP L L LL lJ • Group PRIMARY DIVISIONS Symbol SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS Clean GW well graded gravelso gravel -sand mixtures more than half Gravels little or no fines. of coarse (less than GP poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand fraction is 5% fines) mixtures little or no fines. Gravel GM silty gravels, gravel -Band -silt mixtures, w d larger than , No. 4 sieve with non -plastic fines. GC clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures a. c fines N plastic fines. v C c SANDS Clean SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little w a more than half Sands or no fines. SP poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, of coarse (less than fraction Is 5% fines little or no fines. Sands SM allty sands, Band -silt mixtures, non- d smaller than o No. 4 sieve with plastic fines. 0 '" fines SC clavey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. N SILTS AND CLAYS ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock -� flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey liquid limit is silts with alight plasticity. o less than 50% CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity c gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, M N lean clays. OL organic silts and organic clays of low c7 c plasdci . SILTS AND CLAYS ME inorganic silts, micaceous or diatom- 9 a k, ceous fine sandy or silty soils elastic. greater than 50% CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays., HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U. S. S 2t200 rd Series eve 10 4 Clear Square Sieve O" 311pe12 ngs SILTS & CLAYS SAND GRAVE LCOBBLE BOULDER fine medium coarse fine I coarse GRAIN SIZES SANDS, GRAVELS, STANDARD AND NON -PLASTIC PENETRATION SILTS very loose 0- 4 loose 4-10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30-50 very dense over 50 RELATIVE DENSITY TERRA •• ASSOCIATES •. Geotechnical Consultants PLASTIC SILTS Unconfined Compressive STANDARD AND CLAYS -Sire th PENETRAT70Y very soft 0-1/4 0 - 2 soft 1/4-1/2 2-4 firm 1/2-1 4. 8 stiff 1-2 8-16 very stiff 2-4 16-32 hard over 4 over 32 CONSISTENCY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proi. No. 335 Date JUIy'87 I Finiira o 0 0 BORING NO, 1 Logged By ii Date 7/1/87 ELEV. Graph C3 Soil Description D` fpth Sample Bloom (W Ft. Brow sand SILT with t d roo s am . ML Blue -gray, clayey SILT intermixed with / brown silty SAND with wood debris, very '? SM moist, soft and loose. (Fill/Slide Debris) 5 With silt clasts, wet. ML Gray, horizontally laminated, clayey / silt, moist, very stiff. MH 10 15 20 25 5 25.3 6 23.1 C� 22 28 127. 36 128. Test'Boring completed at 261 feet; Groundwater observation well installed to 261 feet, slotted to 6; feet; Groundwater measured at 9 feet 2 inches July 6, 1987. TERRA mASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 1. Date July'87 Figure 4 BORING NO. 2 Logged By ii Date - 7/1 /87 ELEV. Graph C3 Soil Description I Depth Sample Blows W (ft.) Ft. (9'') — ML Brown sandy SILT with roots, damp. ML Brown and gray, sandy SILT with clay, — trace gravel, some iron —staining, very 7 23.7 moist, soft to firm. ' (Fill/Slide Debris) 5 5 .5 Olive gray, intermixed SAND, sandy SILT and clayey TILT, trace gravel with some — organics, wet.., firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) . 10 6 .4 ML Gray, sandy SILT, horizontally bedded, 15 11 .4 / clayey SILT and silty SAND interbeds, MH wet, medium det:se. / SM 20 25 14 r.7 ML Gray, clayey SILT with minor horizontal 30 15 .1 sand interbeds,.very moist, very stiff. Test Boring completed at 36 feet. groundwater observation well set at 36 eet. Groundwater measured at 231 feet-7/6/87 35 20 1.7 BORING LOG TERRA SCULLY PROPERTY • ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Prof. No. 335 Date July'87 Figure Logged By JJ Data 7/1/87 Depth (ft.) USCS m 5 10 15 TEST PIT NO. - Soil Description Elev. W M ML Brown, sandy SILT, with roots and organics, damp. no ML Brown and gray, iron stained, clayey SILT and / SM intermixed sand, silt clasts and wood, moist to very moist, firm. water 7/6/87 Wood debris at 61 feet. (Fill/Slide Debris) Wood debris and large blocks of lammated silt at 10 feet. Test Pit completed at 12 feet; No visible seepage or caving. JJ Date 7/ TEST PIT NOG Date _ 7/1/87 0 5 10 15 E lev. rown, sandy wi roo s an organic materials, wet. 30.9 7 7/6/87 ML / SM Gray, clayey SILT with intermixed sand, wood debris, and silt clasts, wet, firm. (Fill/Slide Debris) Test Pit completed at 13 feet 8 inches. No visible seepage or caving. -TY-•'{. TERRA • ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 Date July'87 Figure 6 M r Logged By JJ Date 7/1/87 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 5 10 15 iL; 15 TEST PIT No. - Soil Description Elev. w fez I ML rown, sandy SILT with roots and organic mate ial, Amn- ML Brown, sandy SILT with clay some wood debris and silt clasts, moist, firm to stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML Gray, cayey and sandy SILT, moist, firm to stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) Stump or log at 7 feet. Test Pit terminated at 71 feet on log or -stump; No seepage or caving noted. (Fill/ Slide Debris) Logged By ii Date 7/1/87 `VEST P i T N0. 4 Elev. - ML Brown, sandy SILT with roots, damp, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML / SM Brown, sandy SILT and silty SAND, some wood debris, damp, medium dense. Fill Slide Debris ML Gray, iron -stained, sandy SILT with clay and silt clasts and organics, moist to very moist. Test Pit completed at 101 feet. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 335 Date July'87 Figure 7 Depth (ft.) 0 51 10 15 - A 5 10 - 15 0 TEST PIT No. = Logged By JJ Date --7/1/87 USCS Soil Description Elev. W M tj SM ML Brown, sandy SILT with roots, very moist. Gray and brown, iron staine4 silty SAND and sandy SILT, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) Gray, laminated SILT, medium dense, wet. Te t Pit terminated in undisturbed soil at IN feet. Logged By ii Date 7/1/87 'TEST PIT NO., 6 Elev. M Brown, silty SAND with roots, damp. ML SM Gray and brown, clayey, sandy SILT and intermixed silty SAND, very moist, firm to medium stiff. (Fill/Slide Debris) ML Organic rich, sandy SILT with wood. ML S1 Gray and brown, iron -stained, sandy, clayey SILT and silty SAND, very moist to wet, medium dense. (Fill/Slide Debris) Test Pit completed at 13 feet 3 inches. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS SCULLY PROPERTY EDIVIONDSO WASHINGTON Pro). No. 335 1 Date July'87 I Figure 8 0 0 • FILL AND OLD LANDSLIDE DEBRIS GRADE TO DRAIN TO SEWER. 12'min. °'• :�..,t. depth varies WHIDBEY FORMATION SOILS COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL FREE -DRAINING BACKFILL COMPOSED OF WASHED GRAVEL, PEA GRAVEL, ETC. FILTER FABRIC 8 INCH PERFORATED OR SLOTTED PIPE. SLOPE 0.6% MINIMUM -TO STORM DRAIN. Typical. Interceptor Drain NOT -TO -SCALE NOTE: METHOD OF DRAIN INSTALLATION AND THE TRENCH SIDEWALL STABILITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF' THE CONTRACTOR. TYPICAL INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DETAIL SCULLY . PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 335 I Date July'87 I Figure S • • PLANNING DATA SITE ADDRESS: l(0 /lam -761e4-f_, 0, DATE: ZONING:_ A - PLAN CHK#: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SETBACKS: 35`o Required Setbacks: Front:101� Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 5a ffWM 70e 07-- Actual Setbacks: ep Lz3i� Front: 1��Left Side:10 Right Side:V5 Rear: � -ram S �v� CORNER LOT f (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED Ap (YIN) LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed:634Actual: BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: Actual Height:��, Datum Point:_55, M11 JW JQDTW 0� Datum Elevation: SUBDIVISION: RQM�e�, I — �, - 2�+ CRITICAL AREAS #: SEPA DETERMINATION: LOT AREA: OTHER: O 07 - (DG Z - O(pn (� Plan Review By: GROUP FOUR, Inc. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way N.E. Bothell, Washington 98011 FAX (206) 362-3819 (206) 775.4581 • (206) 362-4244 HYDROLOGY REPORT IV AND CALCULATIONS CARL PEARSON Edmonds, Washington Group Four Job No. 90-4506 PREPARED FOR: CARL P'EARSON F.O. Box 70525 20y N.W. 36th Street Seattle, DNA 98107 PREPARED BY: U-1-DUrs FOUR, INC. 1603G Juanitri-Woodinvilie kfV::: 61-4.11-F. Bothell, VITA 980-11 i-1lay 15, 1!'90 0--'Ok h� C1 Zt 0 a `$�GOadV� SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT CARL PEARSON Page 1 of 1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 90-4506 5/15/90 The subject property, consisting of 2.6 acres, is located northeast of the 75th Place West and unopened right-of-way of 164th Street S.W. intersection. The site slopes generally to the west, having an average grade of 14.7 percent in the western portion, and 60 percent in the eastern portion. The site is vegetated with woods, having moderate ground coverage. EXISTING DRAINAGE Runoff is currently overland to the west, where flow is intercepted by the drainage system under 75th Place West. A drainage system currently exists along the north property line which intercepts off -site flow from the north and east, before conveying this flow westerly to the drainage system under 75th Place. PROPOSED DRAINAGE The existing drainage system along the north property line will continue to intercept off - site flow from the north and east, although the location of this system will be moved to five feet south of the north property line. An interceptor trench will be utilized along the toe of slope, which will collect ground water from the east. Flow will be conveyed westerly from this trench, under the proposed access road, to the drainage system under 75th Place West. The proposed conveyance system will be sized for a 25-year storm event using the Rational Method. Runoff from developed . areas will be conveyed to a detention pipe v located near the southwest property corner. This detention system has been sized for a 10-year design storm for release, and a 25-year design storm for storage. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Discharge from the detention system will be conveyed to an existing catch -basin on the east side of 75th Place West. Here, flow is conveyed southerly for approximately 138 feet in a 12 inch CMP, before entering a catch -basin near the southwestern property corner. Flow leaving this catch -basin is conveyed roughly 295 feet westerly in 18-inch CMP, crossing under 75th Place before entering a catch -basin on the east side of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. At this point, flow is conveyed westerly under the railroad tracks before entering the Puget Sound. Inspection of the downstream system revealed no evidence of scouring, erosion, or sedimentation. > 141ST ST SW < > F-ta2N0 PL sW a 3 l.h� goo <' x .< 1d2ND ci la3Ao,ST rs : x 3 �3 o ST SW CL I 3 ., 143AD 3 3 ST SW N .< s yr r 3 >� > 144TH PL SW 1447H $T < lsh > 7i sw _ sw 3 S W ZS< z 14 Q t • i :l i 145TH PL SW =;x= sw 2� x3 1151 PUGET (i ��r`1 L S{ syo> =146T PL Sw--. LL r 1 Z. ����. C(tigGtN `1:��W 3 �z 1,.�sr1HxsTsw > ��P13 NORMA 8£ACti lalttt ' '� Y �� 1a,fN r "' W aid;. _ Ssw148T - m ST ` —.z s�(Jlv� 1 FISHERI><IR =�1 - % s ► �' 1P.er SW s NORMA T 14 151ST `pTH PL $I < Q�' SW -u < tv, a vt 3w ". ._ .- 150TH-' -PL: sT ' S!1 j : 150TH / r 3 3 .X: ' stsl 0--� 152ND ST o SW . "L s „� 52NO3 1 31 R I N. 3153RD ST71 sw -- .e - 1::TH - > 3 �y PL 5'.Y < >- yt��sl« O ¢ - pL 5 .' N m 146TH Pt SWsw R D 49TH PL Sw > > 2 . ara v 1- L JP WL- _-. .: - :::.,.t `-. •R/i. ': _ I156TH TFi l._...... 56TH t ! :" `. n j, -- > _ SW I x CL ... > <S t -i..... ,... �7 1._..,...MEAOQtNO �EiS.;,' 3 3 Q r=10 IS7TH ST :3 158TH ••• 7 W r .' "� :- : QI_PARK - =A57 PL SW a H Pt sw Stti vPL SVJ3 I }-: $I a a a 1 TH PL SW99 LAfBUGTO/V t Q t -a a..-- I_ _ 1N _ ST _ -SW- __.. x x = -- z 60TH$; �+ aWHARF o 3 s= KKE 3 _ - r -- - - -- i 01 iy PL sL� •Isw Ln 3 3O`1 - [L,n.�a ...,, _ o �f ¢ ''CL W \�/, 162N0 FIPL SW- 1 si ;ISW 1 1 1 = a 161ST PL-SW163R0 163RD PL SV� . A /j TN 1 ST �t .ia^ W3 < 3164TH 1 1 _1 i -- ST sw , > SFIft ►vw000 n I QINT 1 Q `LZ �i1ii i . • ^J�3e't�o,wiciF 1 0.0 3 '^ �, M.�,sdei'�•� ; s (Ze � sw 30 V RLY =--. to i TH i:.'f, SW " 2 a +1 UTH S7 ❑ SW F VICINITY MAP NO SCALE •is d: OCAPAC-I-,-k;" _ �,40J zxo 0. 97,--- �zs � z -/ 0 � F-, � -- -7 77114-7- A�4L-1,47E-- C�f)QVC--V =-L-J 7-7--jfcEL • 0 t e--:-> — /-Y r C-15 �t5 7 7 ji CO, 7 L-7W(:�DLj �/A 7- 1-( Ll) bjA AN A L—Y y ~ a 0 b�db Opp J � 4/,fib LU a by1d�v o� doffs � 010 r.� I Nib N%b sath4�� byN/yb j (�f N 00 �: yo��/� �b �b f 1N�,/J/yyo J OJ yyo v W W I \Lu � J 0 N �y :¢ 04 4V a FEAF_ STORM ORAIN STORAGE REQUIREMENTS f SQL Iz���sss- �� \t2_. 'A = J. `-- I acres Area of Basin �;E� - D7/,LF� '�•�Li U -` Jv�. C = Existing coefficient of imperviousness of e �' l7 8asin. ground _ Cd = Developed coefficient of imperviousness of REr, Basi n as pi anned =6cZ' _ - ,zZ L = 170 feet Lenoth (maximum) of overland. ta rvel s. Vr O. �Sft/sec. Tc I S CS minutes :I �, �� iri/hr.• .. to • * Qe . _ '0, 0& cfs ? - mi nutes V _ 7!)S fd sZ Slope (average) from Basin high point to low point (on watercourse). Runoff rateJ--- Time of concentration from forMuIa: 10 (L _ Vr•(CO),)' Tc Rainfall inte-nsity. from rai-nfal-1 curve • (10-year storm) Existing- outflow from site using equation: e 10 e - - -Maximum--outflow permi_'L'ted. per- acre imperviousness from:formula: Q C o e d L_-: , Storage _time (to- capacity) from -formula: o, / Required volume of storage per acre in .Basin from -equation. '_ V = y?�z� 1_ Vt = S (lscubi c feet Required volume of s'tbra'ge ••for this Basin fron -equation: Vt = VsACdc� k- n LT_ F,�os,.s�,: 'K n� - z / � G C�,/, IOL r E_v IT--> caJ) H L:VA, c-2'71 Vo/ RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS (Values of "C" in n = CIA) SN0 HOI\-(i S 14 COUNTY FLAT ROLLING 0-5% 5� UNDEVELOPED LAND Wood & Forest......... -Sparse Trees & Ground Cover ............••• 0.10 0.15 ••-•..• ..0.15 0.20 J,iyht Grass to Bare Ground .................... 0.20 0.25 DEVELOPED AREA Pavement & Roofs. 0.90 0.90 Gravel Roads & Parking Lots .................:. 0.75 0.80 City Business.. • 0.85 0.90 Apartment Dwelling Areas .................. 0.80 0.85 Industrial Areas (heavy) ................... 0.70 0.80 Industrial Areas (Light)... 0-60 0.70 )earth Shoulder ....................... 0.50 0.50 ;playground.... .............................. 0.25 0.30 Lawns, Meadows & Pastures .................. 0.20 0.25 Parks & Cemeteries ............................ 0./- - 0.20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre) 1.0 - 1.5 DU/GA 1.5 - 3-0 ............. ................. DU/GA O.iO 3.0 - 3.5 ................................. DU/GA 0.35 3.S - 4.0 ................................. DU/GA 0.40 ................. 0 45 0. 6.0 - 9.0 ................ DU/GA......... 60 9.0. - 15.0 .....:- . •• DU/GA................................. 0.60 0.70 18 �.v II I_� I I�Lj I �_II L-11 _1 w -LU M. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 vl 7 0 ,-I ON 00 1- IN:10 213d wi 3d0lls 3s2If10aNalvM CHART I ?5 _ } O ,`; W J U_ lL_ > O �z w cn J ow �J W > C t rY r > Lu O u, d CY 0 Q: p Uza lL --1 U 7_ owq LW V) ►- F-- J W Q F- C z Q U) w O LL U w I- U O J w w Co d w YEAR DESIGN STORM YEAR DE IGN STOR YEE TIMEPEAxSTORAGE �ftiIMUTES) STAG YOLUMEM(FTS)AC* ,.,REp STORAG €€ TYPE OF OUTLET TIMEPEAK�TIINUTES)SORAGE YOLUMEMAXIMUM(FT V ACJ USC FOR 1255 ORIFICE WITH HEAD * T - - 2 5 �0 Yz - 36o7T -T7 5- - 40 QoT 2706 T--25+ -�— yi 4329 T -T+m - 40 QoT �1 ;II CUU'lly CONSTANT FLOW 1501 1 � T--25+ Qo 3601 T Tt25 60 QoT T--25+ 1Tlo 4)�2 T 60 T Qo 48 _ , crr y CLERK IVO`�M , ,F 3 CITY OF EDM l 505 BELL ST . EDMONDS, WA 98020 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City. of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant-, stipulate and promise as follows: .o ,1• eS.r. i.1 ..iCu C.. ..=, aa.. prpperty. .L a.ib iw oCl'iAiit ot notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract °.� of land at the street. address. of I1,3/3" - 7`S �l ''�/� (insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: -'�' �W;l3a,g0:2 ";7-0 a w 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site '(hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area. which has lieen identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide' hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been -evaluated by, technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a -building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of WSS52079A/0006.040.0,34 -1- WSS/kit 02/08/90 yaL.1,159w[2558 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or: prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance. with the recommendations of the" consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, .lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest.in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at. the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 505 Bell Street, Edmonds, w'ashington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned' OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with - development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and dog therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of. action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agent§ and employees WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/kit 02/08/90 :®5u�®O" von. 315 9 PAGE 2 5 5 9 arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, -their successors in interest, heirs and .assignees, do hereby promise. to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability .or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or. off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any 'permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate 'information provided by the OWNERS; their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4.. Insurance Requirement., In addition to any bonding which may be required during the. course of development, the Community Services Director has/.J* Vt (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy .-for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in -order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification. and hold harmless agreement above: /� ogre aril/icz✓ �o/%��t�,6/�c �.�il� � ��� •�.���s�// �e,®osr�c� 74� ex Le ed 7 ,✓ ye otxs. (insert insurance requirements and time.period, WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3- wss/klt 96o2 �08,90 - vol. 315 9 PACE 2 5 6 Q 15gA 38 w �r S. Covenant to*•Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touClies and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or.inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person - or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall .not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor -to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. DONE this day of 199s--. OWNERS) By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) .,`.ss: COUNTY I certify �that -I know or have satisfactory evidence that �1(�Q.�-� signed this instrument and acknowledged' WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/klt 02/08/90 05080337 -4- VOL. 315 9 PQGE 2 5 61 Ej it to be (his er) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument_ DATED th.is., S day of O Y UBLIC w Mycommission expires:. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss _ COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evid!eAYice that .signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free • and mentioned in this instrument_ DATED this day of STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) that voluntary act for the purposes o = � r� O1 199__ .� I CA NOTARY PUBLIC r My commission expires:_ J - Y =o I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence signed this instrument, on oath stated that. (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the (title) of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument was executed)- to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes' mentioned in this instrument_ DATED this day of ,.199_. WSS52079A/0006_040.034 WSS/klt 02/0&/90 60 508Oy287 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: -5- VOL..3159QhGE2.562 C� O C lhc.18o)v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Dolores Dean 16315 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, 6�ow%:Jr Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Sri► =a N— Date: Too:: 49m: Subject: MEMORANDUM June 3, 1997 Jeannine Graf, Building Official Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Specialist Construction delays at 16315 - 75th Pl. W. due to mud slides (ref: Dean's letter dated May 29, 1997) I have reviewed my inspection logs regarding the clean up of slide debris on 75th Pl. W. in front of the subject address and of the plat road. Due to the slide, the contractor did not have use of the plat road from January 1 through January 15. Our contractor completed his cleanup operations on that day and on January 16th, I noticed vehicles could easily make it up the plat road. I believe the contractor for the subject address had drywall material delivered that day. On January 18th, however, additional mud made its way to the City right-of-way that blocked the entrance to the plat road. We had a contractor come out and remove the mud. I believe a few days later Carl had his contractor place rock on his road for access. As far as the slide in March goes, I had no involvement with that. I do know the shops went out and removed more mud from the City right-of-way at the plat entrance, but I believe they completed that work in one day. ALC/sf City of Edmonds DEANMEMO.DOC Inc 18913 February 26, 1997 Dolores Dean P.O. Box 998 Edmonds, Wa 98020 so 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR Re: Response to request to bond for plat road improvements (S-8-87) at 16315 - 75th Pl. W. Dear Ms Dean, This letter is in response to your telephone request last week to bond for the required plat road improvements so your house can be finaled in March. As you know, since the building permit was issued, a slide occurred temporarily blocking a portion of the plat road. With the remaining slide material located at the base of the slope, our geotechnical consultant's recommendation is to not disturb the debris until drier weather. Based on their recommendation, we will grant your request with the following stipulations: 1. The performance bond or a frozen fund account (your choice) shall cover all remaining work required to construct the plat road and entrance widening per the approved plat civil plan date stamped May 5, 1990. 2. The bond shall not cover any other property owner in the subject plat (S-8-87) and shall have a time limit of six (6) months. The effective date of the bond shall be prior to the engineering final on your house. Based on our geotech's recommendation, work should not begin until the soil has dried out more, which may be late April or early May. 3. A right-of-way permit must be obtained prior to any work in the City right-of-way. When your geotechnical consultant says that work can begin on the plat road, call us and we will have the City crew remove the concrete ecology blocks currently on site. Removal of slide debris in the road area shall be your responsibility or your assigned designee. If you have any questions, please contact Lyle Chrisman at 771-0220, extension 324. Sincerely, James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer ALC/JC W/sf c: Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jeannine Graf, Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan APPLICANT/OVWR'S LIABILITY LANDSLIDE DECLARATION a) That the accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by the applicant/owner in a form which relieves the City and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While an application of the applicant/owner and her/his design professionals (ECDC 19.05.030) and, b) That the applicant/owner understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that they will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures on the site, of the slide potential of the area. (ECDC 19.05.040C) Signature of applicant or applicant's representative (Dolores Stimac Dean) Subscribed and sworn -to before me this q�h� day of Febw 1996 Notary public in and for Kual a Lumpur, Mal aysi a Residing at 102 Jal an Bangsar, 59200 Kuala Lumpur rN /1 < TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology -� and Environmental Earth Sciences February 12, 1996 Project No. T-335-4 Ms. Dolores Dean '�1n p=7 c/o Mr. Michael George, Architect First Street, Suite FILE Snohomish, 9homish, Washington 8290 • Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Dean Residence 16315 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Geotechnical Review Letter by Landau Associates, Inc. dated January 24, 1996 2. Plan Review Letter by Terra Associates, Inc. dated December 1995 3. Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc. dated August 19, 1987 Dear Ms. Dean: As requested, we are providing supplemental geotechnical consultation for the Dean residence in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. We are responding to several geotechnical items noted on the City of Edmonds Plan Review Correction Notice and in the referenced Landau Associates, Inc. letter. In the referenced plan review letter, we discussed geotechnical items relating to the project plans prepared in 1995. Landau Associates, Inc. Letter Item No. 3 The primary issue in Item No. 3 is construction of a rockery along the west side of the house above 75th Avenue and placement of new structural fills. Based on our review of the project plans, it appears that a 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) fill slope will be constructed from near the west property line up to the edge of the western patio. This new fill and other shallow fills placed around the residence should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). Although some of the native silts and clays can be used as structural fill, we do not believe significant amounts of this material can be used. These soils will need to be aerated extensively and dried to within two percent of their optimum moisture content prior to their use as structural fill. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 9 Phone (206) 821-7777 Ms. Dolores Dean February 12, 1996 For the five-foot deep structural fill proposed west of the patio, we recommend using an imported granular pit -run soil with less than five percent fines. These granular fills should be placed in layers no more than one foot thick and each layer should be compacted. If new fills are placed on a sloping surface, they should be placed over horizontal benches cut into the existing slope. Any old stockpiled debris fills on this lot should be removed or placed in non-structural flatlying areas. Based on review of a supplemental site plan dated January 31, 1996, the architect has removed the small rockery planned adjacent the top of the slope just below the western patio. All new concrete flat work subgrades around the residence such as walkways and planters should be compacted to a stable non -yielding condition. Any soft or loose areas should be overexcavated and replaced with at least a one -foot thick layer of pit -run or railroad ballast rock to stabilize the subgrade. Native soils can be used only if they can be dried or aerated to within two percent of their optimum moisture. Other than during the driest summer months, this means that most of the native silty soils will not be usable as compacted structural fill. Item No. 8 Much of the concrete flat work around the pile -supported house will be placed on ancient landslide colluvial soils. These soils are very moisture -sensitive and can easily be disturbed or disrupted due to their silty nature. Their use for supporting the concrete flat work is questionable and cannot be properly established until construction. All subgrades for concrete work should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their maximum dry density. Soils that cannot be adequately compacted and stabilized should be replaced with at least a one foot layer of pit -run gravel or railroad ballast rock. There is an inherent risk of minor long-term subgrade subsidence due to the depth of the landslide soils. Some cosmetic damage may occur to slabs supported above these soils regardless of the use of high quality construction techniques. The owner should be aware that this risk may occur over many years. The long-term risk of cosmetic damage to concrete work depends on the level of care the construction contractor uses to prepare the grades around the residence. Cracking can be reduced by creating many joints in the concrete surface. New asphalt driveways should be supported on a firm, dense, unyielding subgrade. To establish a stable subgrade, it may be necessary to overexcavate some of the clayey soils and replace them with a layer of quarry rock, railroad ballast, or other material. Based on our recent review of the project plans and previous reports, it is our opinion that the residence may be constructed as planned. A pre -construction meeting with City of Edmonds personnel should be held at. the site prior to construction. At that time, a scope of work can be developed to provide construction observation services for the owner and to provide the City of Edmonds with field reports covering the site grading. Project No. T-335-4 Page No. 2 Ms. Dolores Dean February 12, 1996 • City of Edmonds Plan Review: Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk It is our opinion that the plans and specifications prepared by the structural engineer conform to the general recommendations provided in the referenced report. The risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in our previous geotechnical reports. It is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Our previous opinions relating to the risk of movement remain valid. Previous installation of the common deep interceptor drain across the back property line and use of the 50-foot toe setback will limit the risk of soil movement to less than 30 percent within 25 years. These statistical risks were outlined in the referenced report and during recent review efforts. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA A SCI�311I C. Paul K. BonifacirCi� I' EngineeringGe ist Anil Butail ga✓.�—_ --- Presi�deht PKB/AB:eb Project No. T-335-4 Page No. 3 LANDAU ASSOCEAT ES, Environmental and Geotechnical Services r7� January 24, 1996 Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW p PROPOSED DEAN RESIDENCE LOT 2, EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-8-87 16315 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of plans and other submitted documents concerning construction of the proposed Dean residence. Our review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). A list of the documents we reviewed is included as Attachment 1. Landau Associates previously conducted reviews of documents related to the construction of common improvements for the Carl Pearson plat (of which Lot 2 is part) and of the proposed Pearson residence (Lot 3). The results of these previous reviews are contained in our letters dated September 7, October 18, and November 13, 1990, and July 2, 1991. The document package we received appears to substantially fulfill the requirements of the application checklist for building permit submittals. However, we have identified some issues that may require additional attention or clarification. These are summarized as follows: 1. The Site/Grading Plan (on Sheet A-1) and the Drainage Plan (sheet C-1) are apparently based on a Grading and Drainage Plan developed by Group Four, Inc. in 1990 (and last revised in 1991) in support of permitting for and construction of both the overall common improvements for the Carl Pearson plat and the proposed Pearson residence. We assume either the Site/Grading Plan or the Drainage Plan serves as the site topographic map required by the Ordinance; however, neither of these plans has been stamped by a Licensed Land Surveyor. In addition, these plans reflect undated revisions to Group Four's 1990 Grading and Drainage Plan; there is no indication on the current plans that the revisions have been made or approved by a Licensed Engineer. We suggest that the current plans be revised to clearly document revisions and to identify the surveyor and WORLD TRADE CENTER - 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD o SUITE 209 o TACOMA, WA 98424 o (206) 926-2493 o FAX (206) 926-2531 EDMONDS: (206) 778-0907 - FAX (206) 778-6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 o FAX (509) 327-9691 engineer of record, and be resubmitted. Since the site, grading, and drainage plans apparently were developed from the topographic map, we further suggest that the lead design professional have any revisions to the topographic map incorporated on those plans prior to resubmittal. 2. Detail 15 on Sheet S-2 for typical augercast pile reinforcement refers to the "geotechnical report" for minimum pile installation depths. Since Terra's 1995 review letter modifies the recommendations for augercast piles provided in their 1987 report, we suggest that the lead design professional review the above detail, and others, and have them revised as appropriate to clearly identify the applicable geotechnical design reference. 3. Based on the Site/Grading Plan, a rockery (and up to 7 ft of new fill), will be placed to the west of the house to support a level patio. The rockery will apparently be founded on the new fill. The new fill in front of the rockery will slope downward toward 75th at about a 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) inclination. In their 1987 report, Terra described the site soil to a depth of 10 ft or more as pre-existing fill and native slide debris of variable and generally poor consistency. Based on Terra's description, these existing site soils would be expected to be relatively weak and compressible. The project plans do not provide specifications regarding site preparation, or the selection and placement of new fill. Low existing soil strength and density could lead to potential instability of the new fill and rockery, and uneven consolidation of the existing site soil and new fill. This in turn could result in differential settlement, leading to possible cracking of the proposed concrete patio surface and potential destabilization of the rockery. The Site/Grading Plan also indicates that the new fill would be placed onto the existing sloping grade without keying into the slope. Since Terra does not discuss subgrade preparation, fill placement and compaction, or related stability issues in either their 1987 report or their 1995 letter, we suggest that they review the Site/Grading Plan and comment on the feasibility of the proposed fill and rockery with respect to these issues. If needed, the lead design professional should have the Site/Grading Plan revised accordingly. 4. The plans indicate that the garage slab will be soil -supported. Three different slab/subgrade sections are called out on the plans. On sheet A-2, the slab is supported by 4 inches of sand over 2 inches of crushed rock base. On sheet A-9, the slab is underlain by only 4 inches of unspecified compacted granular fill. On sheet S-1, the slab is supported by 2 inches of sand over 4 inches of free -draining and clean pea -gravel. Sheets A-9 and S-1 include 6- and 8-mil vapor barriers, respectively; a vapor barrier is not included on sheet A-2. All three sections are contrary to Terra's 1987 recommendation for a minimum of 12 inches of imported granular fill beneath the garage slab. The lead design professional should identify which slab/subgrade section (including Terra's recommended fill section) is to be constructed and modify the plans accordingly. 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. of 0 5. Foundation drains are shown for the retaining walls on the north and east sides of the garage/shop (detail 11 on sheet S-2), and for the concrete masonry unit retaining walls along the east side of the courtyard (west side of the driveway)(detail 13 of sheet S-2). However, details of other exterior foundation walls that could intercept groundwater (north side of the house and the west side of the courtyard) do not include foundation drains. In addition, the foundation and retaining wall details that do show a drain do not show a continuous drainage backfill along the wall, as recommended by Terra in their 1995 letter. We recommend that the plans be modified to include an appropriate foundation/retaining wall drainage detail and to clarify where foundation drainage is to be installed. 6. It is not clear from the Drainage Plan how roof and foundation drainage is to be collected and channeled to the storm water collection system. This is particularly true for the proposed rockeries. Since the patio rockery foundation drain is also intended to intercept patio drainage, removal of water from behind that rockery could be critical in order to avoid saturation of the underlying soil and potential destabilization of the fill and rockery. We recommend that the lead design professional review the drainage plan and have that plan revised as appropriate to clearly identify planned drainage collection and distribution systems. 7. The rockery detail on Sheet C-1 refers to a geotechnical report dated May 31, 1990. To our knowledge, the only geotechnical information related to the Dean residence is contained in Terra's 1987 report and their 1995 letter. The lead design professional should have the detail revised to indicate the correct reference. 8. In addition to the patio, the plans show other areas of concrete flat work and pavement that will apparently be supported directly by the existing fill and slide debris. These areas include the entry courtyard and the driveway. The courtyard includes reinforced concrete masonry retaining walls, a stairway, and ornamental planters, features which will also be founded on, or be expected to retain, the existing fill and slide debris. As stated above, these soils are of variable and generally poor consistency, and are expected to be relatively weak and compressible. We are concerned that the absence of specifications or other guidance regarding site preparation and the selection and placement of new fill could result in insufficient attention or effort during subgrade preparation and the uncontrolled use of poor onsite material. Poor subgrade preparation and reuse of onsite material as fill could subsequently lead to long-term differential settlement of slabs, pavement, and retaining walls supported on shallow foundations. While such settlement may have a limited effect on the overall function of these elements of the project, it could result in recurring, generally cosmetic damage requiring significant maintenance or repair over time. Since the performance of these elements will be a visual indicator of the quality of construction of the planned residence, and could result in future cost to the Owner, we suggest that the design professionals 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 C carefully consider the earthwork requirements of the project, particularly quality control, prior to resubmittal. In their 1987 geotechnical report, Terra concurred with GeoEngineer's 1985 assessment of the site landslide risk and added that the probability of a landslide occurring at the site (Lots 1 through 3) over a 25-year period should be less than 30 percent, provided the common improvements recommended in their 1987 report were accomplished. Although not specific to Lot 2 and the proposed project, as required by the Ordinance, Terra's 1987 risk assessment for the Carl Pearson plat is probably adequate, in general, since conditions across the overall plat appear to be relatively uniform. However, reduction in future site risk will be largely contingent on the performance of the common interceptor drain. Based on telephone conversations with Ms. Jeannine Graf and Mr. Lyle Chrisman of the City of Edmonds, we understand that the common improvements, with the exception of the road pavement, have been constructed. We also contacted Mr. Paul Bonifaci of Terra Associates and Mr. Carl Pearson regarding the installation of the common interceptor drain. According to Mr. Bonifaci, the interceptor drain was installed in late summer -early fall of 1995. Terra provided field geotechnical monitoring during installation of the drain, and copies of their field reports were submitted to Carl Pearson and the City. Mr. Bonifaci noted that the work was performed according to the project specifications, but that a formal written report stating such was not submitted. Although shown on sheet C-1, there is no indication that the drain is currently in place. We suggest that the drain and all other existing common improvements be clearly identified as such on the drawings. We recommend that the plans be returned to the applicant for further action. The Geotechnical Engineer and the Structural Engineer should evaluate and comment on specific issues raised herein. In addition, the lead design professional should review the plans and other documents and make whatever appropriate changes are necessary. Please note that Landau Associates' review of the submitted documents was limited to geotechnical issues and did not include a review of design calculations. 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. so • Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74057.10 01/24/96 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\MISC\DEANI.LTR Attachments: 1. List of Documents Reviewed 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: 7& n William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager and ,v" Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. • E� ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED • Sheets A-1 through A-11, Dean Residence, Edmonds, Washington, Michael A. George Architect, October 30, 1995. • Sheets S-1 and S-2, Dean Residence, Edmonds, Washington, Codispoti Company Consulting, stamped September 1, 1995. • Sheet C-1, Drainage Plan, Dean Residence, Group Four, Inc., issued October 30, 1995. • Permit Submittal Checklist, Dean, Plan Review No. 95-193. • Critical Areas Checklist, Lot 2, 75th Place W., Edmonds, WA, CA File No. 95- 171, August 7, 1995. • Environmental Checklist, Dean Residence, Michael A. George, A.I.A., October 23, 1995. • Geotechnical Engineering Study, Scully Short Subdivision (S-8-87), Edmonds, Washington, Terra Associates, Inc., August 19, 1987. • Review of Plans, Dean Residence, Lot 2, Pearson Short Plat, 164000 Block 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, Terra Associates, Inc., November 6, 1995. • Affidavit of Meadowdale Landslide Posting, Dean, November 8, 1995. • Applicant/owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgment, Michael A. George (representative), October 26, 1995. • Notification of Covenant, Indemnification & Hold Harmless, Dolores S. Dean, August 25, 1995. R LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. `4 Y CITY OF EDMONDS ,.� 250 AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206)7�0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Construct a new single-family residence approximately 5,900 sq.ft., including grading approximately 1000 cubic yards. (Building Permit Plan Check 95-193). Proponent: Dolores Dean Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16315 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by .1995. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, E , 98020 Date: I a(`IJ`fS Signature:------ _XX You may appeal this determination to Robert C ave, Planning Manager, at 250 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than i _ �i %2 by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on 1 �19 . 1995, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Michael A George, (Agent) 1024 First Street, Suite 307 Snohomish, WA 98290 Attachments: Critical Areas Determination # CA-95-171 Environmental Checklist PC: SEPA Notebook Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 1 of 2 -k 6*41T APPLICAtION REQUIREMENTO To: Applicant , From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Iinspector Owner. Plan Check No.• 3 Address: L631* WTH—A W Date: V5,;W �( G After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 1. Construction hours are. WEEKDAYS — 7:00 A.M,40:00 PALWEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS—10,:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M. 2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 1&60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit' 4. Buildedowner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 1830.030d) NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 1830.50G) FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 1830) INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORK DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGiTTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 1830) Repair or replace all defective existing curb. gutter and sidewalk adjacad to the property. If an Intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may be required Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staffto determine the extant of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 1&90) Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 140%. Waiver granted to °/a (ECDC 18.80.060D) . 0. Driveways must be paved from properly line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) I. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 1830) 2. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 3. Connection to City water system is required. Thee is a separate charge for the water mew. (ECDC 7.20) 4. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole.. (ECDC 7.20) 5. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 1&10) 6. �'opto-the Citysanitary system is required. A separate permit required �G C� Fees paid: Yes No Charge_ J2(ECDC 1&10} i 7. Underground wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 1&90) 8. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 1890) UM7XQR= STET HL NOV 0 8 1995 PERMITCOUNTER r File No Applicant Vt---AN AFFIDAVIT OF MEADOWDALE LANDSLIDE PERMIT POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says: That on the _ day of �oUe v� ' 1941t5 the site located at (o'7j i 4;- -754x t 1- • kkt • was posted as prescribed by Ordinance No. 2661 on the subject property. This posting begins on the day the City accepts the permit application for review and shall remain until building occupancy is gra d Signed �.%� L Signed Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of��'-- 19 (?� . ,n Notary Public in and fJ the State of Washington. Residing at "T EET RLE 890 -199- City of Edmond RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number. 91"/1-.dl Issue Date: l A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 1401,15115 17S''" f2L lUe 'ST B. Type of Work (be specific): u -AkD ,..Ra iD J fA7i'3,�C-t -`.(.— C. Contractor: C .--1 . AJ \ tsJ Contact: c_ J&� G-Z. ;Z i Mailing Address: Phone: YA A CLLl P l 2L) Co -�? I� - ��� Lo State License #: p,u V'l1 �- Liability Insure Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family Q Single Family El Other -Z�_ 6?661G`� ACC 2423 1O INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes 8No G. Size of Cut'. tea, x H. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCE$TANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be avails le�on site at a i es for inspection purposes. Sid nature./ " a IRE6 Date: (C ntractor or A ' ent) i CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 • 0 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES Comments Diagram.: (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: ❑ NO UNQI-RGROUNDING TEL FACILITIES ATW THE REOUEST OF DELORES DEAN AND DONALD HANSEN. / CHAMBER CABLE TY.TO PROV TRENCH �VD PUSH Y. W THIS PORTION OF THE P ENGR WILL SCHEDULE THIS CONST. / I IN ECT. WITH / 3 0� G\ ' / 3 O Rq,E Q ' / a- � o �O O / G7E TO RW.POLE y k DEL. 16315 75T DI a ' ON / / O M TO MACE /OOU'N .11 MID 4YChGi W PL. W. GTE TO REMOVE AERIAL CABLE 41 / PUSH ALL ASPHALT DRNE WAYS '7AY \ / D ALD HANSEN % 16411 75TH PL. W. EDM. OE TO MACE /IXMN GN' AND AKJNJO �/ / i / 04125197 GTE WORK ORDER ' 2850-8POOICS ACCOUNT CODE-2423JO ENGR.ED NELSON TWP 27N RG.4 SEC.5.0 n. 1 890.19q- City of Edmond RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ft it Nmber: Issue Date: ! yv A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: _ �(�$ t04 B. Type of Work (be specific): G o R 1 N C Jo a PS (75 'r2, �) i -'Kk 6W CI-1 12 -7-0 JQr7ALL 041MAMY VC., 1�9Duir%, csragc A/tt) uPOM ramPL, r. h+ C. Contractor: _ hi p. (f p. P U JC> Contact: 9 b b WAK,A 1. 5 Mailing Address: t .l 016 U 5k 1A ua y q 9 Phone: 3 2 14 State License #: 7- t k M ow! b s• vA t o Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: 1nJ H 1 TGU11 F Pavement or Concrete Cut: - ❑ Yes No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charee S khldtAPPLICANT TO READ AIGNINDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agreestCity of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any lval proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. 1., Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. 1 have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all times for inspection purpose . Signature: K A V-A, LE 1 Date: (Contractor or ent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY ;USE ONLY NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 .4 • . FIELD INSPECTION NOTES Comments Diagram (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: _I- I —+mma' 90 _ 19ci City of Edmond RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number. Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: W (9618203 B. Type of Work (be specific): Install Service C. Contractor: WQs_h_ington Natural Gas Mailing Address: 1122 75 At SW Everitt State License #: 98203 D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Contact: Peggy Floyd Phone: _ 356-7500 ext 7596 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ® Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : LJ Yes L$No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ _ % APPLICANT TO READ Al GN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, ag;"ed old the City of Edmonds harmless fr(; r 4njuries�, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by rei'tson of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTAIV f `P�F THE WOR f. ES`TIA"I "Y'RESTORATION FEES WILL BE KLhDF UNTIFTHIV� FINAL STREET PATCH , IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIRE fl. DEgl T O l CREDIT-T�L *$E I(fi( E.5S,�D W iS"NCE TQ_ TI1E APPLICANT. Construction drawinglof proposed work req6ii�d with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I ha.ue read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on s'te at all 'mes for inspection purposes. Signature: �A Date: 8-6-96 ontractor or Agent CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: I_AIL,A - TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER -- COL-1 3 b DAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 17u��ci L 1 COMMENTS: 10IV# 3, RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT DISRUPTION FEE/FUND III: RESTORATION FEE: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE EnKtg. Nv. 1991 QYTVMV J Addendum to: Cit of Edmonds Bight of ., ay . Permit Application' , �.Lr LD f Submitted by: Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 1356-7500 X7596 lb • I / 1 I 9.203 75 P[.IJ PoKJ �e • -W- Water Watermain depth 1 O-r6cc.as.-G-- Gas -SS- Sever 'I .Water hydrant " gas main O Water valve r Washington Natural Gas Cobipany -3331 1122 75ii:Street S.W., Everett, Washington 98203, (206) 355 . VA3sh-- HattrM AN�sfiglooCMWCMUIV — — — — — — — — — - — Watermain depth Oor6cca5 gas main Addendum to: ciq of Edmonds Right of .fty Permit Application' Submitted by: 6Pi�mme It Engineering Aide Washington Natural'Gas S- 1356-7500 X7596 . 03 75 Pl- PO Key:,.4-- -W- , Water -G- Gas -SS- Sever 4. Vater hydrant 0 Water -valve Washington Natural Gas Company .1122 75t itStreet S.W., -.Evemtt, Washington 98203, (206) 355t333I AWMhhQg EnergvQ"V&►y Addendum to: Cit of Edmonds r„ Right of -. ay 1 Permit Application' Submitted by: Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 1356-7500 X7596 All • i ' AY Till ` lu / [ a iA ow;?, 03 %S PC. IJ JV.O C U7�5 A. 7" SKJ Ke • -W- Water Watermain depth �Q�.�SSI.��i -G- Gas -SS- Sever r r ' Water hydrant .�, gat; main O Water `valve 'r Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75fflt' treet S.W., Everett, Washington 98203, (206) 355-3331 0 • • ox w 7 0 Qe V1 —Z It s 11 O PUG 17 �p N oUNo z L A •V Z _C A E. W. LA Tit -T\ ➢L7.� ... ti A\ Pcw��� -.. � .ram• ^ �- '� -� rn A O) CO)�O TTI OD JD 9 I" • ..w ` S , a I'm T -'� �'0 .� ,• _ -• •,� {►?�. -tile. S� �'��c�2�f- ��. Ul wi �V= T� .Q p'. ILA LbLD _ a >iR _ f •p . 1 . USE PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE NUMBER 9G0267 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB sUITE.APTa OWNER AME NAME OF VSIINESS ADDRESS 1 I, 75 b„{ \ / �` Q � LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION/NO. LID NO.. ZMAILING, ADDRESS 1 Cal: CIYtj'L x'4. ��6. 407- � 5 - .ei 'ZI .. + O I. � J41s•i' 1 . 1 �' o s`+�� V m: �te�' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY..PER OFFICIAL STRE T MA TESCP Approved ❑ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE MBER RW Permit Required ❑ EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION Street Use Permit Req'd ❑ 1_43'�j 17(e� vA1� Inspection Required X PROPOSED NAM Sidewalk Required ❑ U�f I1ti {i',�. ME IZE LINESIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV R OUIRED O l P f VE NO ADDRESS ❑ 3 A, ,/ / . {f� • �•, ,% 0_7 REMARKS Z a CIyY ZIP. TELEPHONE NUMBER �. CIE. 1 f, C �vl " r f Q(-r`j� Z 4. NAME i++IN��'`•Ti�tF✓�f� (�ZI�1� Id/ r�l"[-•C. Il..�.,,, W �. la C.r ltJSr� �f'K817 ADDRESS O „ ENGINEERING MEMO DATED ,GREVIEWED BY U ` �L_V It CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER t- FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY W Z O O STATE -LICENSE NUMBER' EXPIRATION DATE SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW A NO. ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT Legal Description of Property - include all easements EXP SH R LINE a 2-®f .5-~ AA- VARIANCEff�R CU �P�AI �t�{ EVIEW BY DAYS, Tax Account rI �7 I �(� „ �t r 00 ,�i HtMAHKJ 1 0 Parcel No. � Tl (f I NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING i r ADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL • APT. BLDG. El SIGN At "� dl S/ Wo REMODEL Gam""'� REPAIR ❑ FENCE S. ( FT) CHWCKED TYPE F CONSTRUCTION Al / 6' CODE OCCUPANT GROUP WOODSTOVE SWIM POOL DEMOLISH a INSERT 1:1 HOT TUB/SPA SPECIAL INSPECTOR F�Qy1R D T YES AR OCCUPANT LOAD GARAGE / ROCKERY � RENEWAL REMARKS Z PER UBCA305 PROGRESS IN/SP��ErCTION�So 0 (TYPE OF USE BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: to zmmer 14. C ' cc rn O NUMBER I NUMBER OF OF DWELLING CRITICAL AREAS sl NUMBER /r� - tf>f ' f��y C m STORIES UNITS „may 4� ,140d DESCRIBE vy�ORK TO ?ONE (ATTAC ,PLOT PLAN) 8ie . v'j'i+A;jwt ok Z4 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED ' µ r �✓ VALUATION FEE � ® 9 90, PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING % PLUMBING ,rA Plan Check No. 6? MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days f;n, . STORM DRAINAGE FEE Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days . "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE �Jc! Ln successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold �, w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, !�" law► s employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of a whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance = of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT .. D modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance 5' ° nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE .m.� ° provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL Information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES THE signed by the Building Official or his/her''" ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor Cod of the,Sta a of Was ington relating to Workmen's Compensa• ONLY WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion nsurance d RCW .27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGN U,RE IOWNEFTPR AGENT' DATE SIGNED I r DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS 4,WCIALS GNATURE DATE ATTENTION CALL FOR INSPECTIO N RELEA DATE —� IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR r. 1 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector 771 Ow20 A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 'F Y. _ , Ti*; '�I,' J 'r •, it YmY ,t:. •i+'a'•Y y't - ,+. y At Y€ i' ,i i.� r ,16 Yq t ri r, 7' + i I ,. t-"" rrl'A.I. �C Ott 4 ih? Y . r i`' 1 , .. . Eive'ra,#r Y." r1 A. ?'.+§'j! ..tCir'(,4, - y 'jJ 4 +. -Y ,:^ ,,. .,'r rt 9.' .i.t i "` ..•i C .'c ei c t i' f, t S 7. gr, yf � :fi+. F' 7. 1. I )' �, •, m d !'r 4 r ' Y J t� ,rye I 'F'w.'. 4 f. jf., , 5 a • ff" '{ 7.e .'fe v r'.!t [[T .- 4' Y., •i • ,r f( r � r �,. - r. v,r. 6. 1. R m t U r„ } 's"• r . Er•;. r t :.a. Y•' F '� 1 g 1 fi3y y b -1 a` 3R ,7 •r a: !'SY� fit X s i k'fya : r 7 1,1 .. ' "- A,ri r *3Yx r va } r f r t /A 2,6- ��� 1 t r i trl,,� 1,4 4J b. - ', Q rr*.f x a r C ._ f i I,_�?�.�i,,, 160TH ST. SW �rQF 4 I4s" , r 1 . i• , Ll,4 Y 2 rv; {t p 't r y : C 31 d ( f I. ra 1, '. y e 41 r I `t�` 16 i TH S T SIN E t , t wp vk . ;+ I } 3s1, i �,S r'�,4?t jt"+r tJ1 o �'' ` � NO SCALE `1 Y /lY VTI,`�o"Vq ytt t #a b 1 t h,4F V"Y_'-f r J _ - y'iKizr ,tn , I -.11 6 ' V;x,t) r t °a 7 / #. {�t,. ,tf xY�3 # , 1 r3Z t'ld 4 I .% '` 1 4- t Y t + t c o t 1 n .,,`w ,i k. s. t .. `r 1 . . ,• r I t �, Q / "", t . tiYw r { i is , 4 . . a .. , , . -' ,.. ," ,,7;m­4%,,o�V)�,­,, r;.�.�'.,.,1"-1,%1,1::!i1'-;v" (,.!-11'�,,1..��,',';I1" v_�­t:;,,. 1. ­11t-i'":,.tl,I,'":,I�, �, ,_.�,' c�T`1,` 4,,�,,I4,.�.t­��I'­*,...,. �,.:'..,.�­,.`,��,,�­­ V�,�,1­.'��,��_" �,.,,,,.j­.`,r t1,'1.1.,; , � II:,,�" " .I:i,"�T,L'�",. %% 1i"'- ,�. ,. _� .., I�,v.� I,.�.:L ' -,, :* I,. � . ­ z i'i tII , ''��:It f\114.`:1 � � . `t,`, a '. _Y t s i f �IrE �,'UOF F'l /�U Fc�F'-- r r'f- O „, ­ ., , 1. , .� DDW►J�vr'Dilr Lac. 14111c. ` "i if 5 #: - - �..._...__�_....—�_._ _'-- —._ • , / ` ' „ // • ' � y`! G,A1MGuT tit6AT E�41� / _w i 1.P'N i-V hat" - MATCH -ro % / +'; `; s NEW t`I/t�AT WIPG,-jING--..--- . /, ,� If ! � f f b. � � `; . / r } ;, `, / / rJ , ' / �t � J A x ( �. (J y / , i h 11,,,,, t A V LI .,. I'10 � L%. I . W %O —.. J • f 1\ � M / C t 7 - \-. ` - — i �q li �` a+ x 7 i t''d t b /fir I V' ` %/r � 1"�bi r r � r t ' ,� n°' -;,4. gy15r G'B t=err f ''""�_ ,< =E� , + LpLA'ric" To t3� ' % �' 1A } ,t ,, N 11 S ' 'r r ,, Fi V.W:''Y�R r F I G-D T1c r- �T . �+ 0. i5 5 r01­1, , ((�ij/C//� W y- It, I d irk l l t' r � / ao. %5 7 / ° � IVG 14� �� ��hIC � i f , 41, 1i ,��r tls.'�' CIZ G ,�� �' .4 n<' �x' w sr1 1r IQ r ,� t j i � SS ti . r t t Y- I', ,'Y,° CaFi'ADE -TO DiAI tii -` � ,,�4 t • f ,i ,, � T2 - ' FV54, r,R�.l! I -k- „ c::+n, n' �a �0 TV";--,I'i0l,Z , " lS:L,F-12 SD - --- i tST 0.. _..1, -_ ti :'„ # ..�'�•� ljlf `iiS�,x ff ti'( +41�t r y i .� • ' , '. / r .1/q7,�( qr .ram/tea- -{/q� `• -d ;fg lip• ll h I `,''. �V.iY! ✓ �. 1 \r 6 L ✓/ �I ``•�~p h`� `~�' N A I, ;`K, ww4 'V.s�'7e):SC�' C� ��appll_ G27 F't~R� PVC n s s AV�11 a x,q+, , {4 1 .. .11 Atk" .%..its 1' N'� '• I M/w •��a ' D Y i� r 4Y+',t � ► iI 1N A•i' pVG,G� GREW x i 1,11_ 1­1 11 1t a rt I. , � :o- 4!,Y A,$ - a , . / Z' t ! ' fi l7• a'' ` w ,n r1.. �l.F I�" 'S�-------' --- 9w `firt c ' 'Jp'�,t _, , , I r' d r _. M 4 t t, Jy fi. r; ;, a t, t . 1, / ,! 1, - 1'; " v, x+ ward WA R mr-TM ' x i . 1,`' ` ' ; t! G7v L TO I� -- -- f--- I i / DCTir� 1 D �A1�t . / 0 . o> ii !i d 1, J .}+�� 5t t S t• J'' \ C.J 'i' r1,,• i3' 1 0I e :e i / 1 '1' {. / Ak. � 1�`t � Y' ° F i C®,4` C1YP� L) /r �' r: %$ I F l-t'r P 4$, o, i / i19 i h a I� `� .,, 7 , `, of Z•Z-7.19' RT i b ,,J i >, <, -, " G-tUTY)✓E2 i t5 C1V�I E I✓`it t" + t t Yip ` 1 LV '1 t, 1 k�`t 4, t I j ,:i.5 -1 -',,, } :. - / t§, rii E rl »,11 F1 g, Y ` I. 1 t` I J• . .. t�,• YItt +, t d rl ; �. II ,tt. i , rXz�; YI-'�' .+Y I. . .X 1 (J1 p4y�,1+q."-;.. "6''!r1'`II 1.t- �TC e�>o C I I �� k'J' 'l�T? .tan t.;i > .� FE- 7V./9,'tl'r` I . , .•�' d Ityi '�� } i , r6 M1010 Jj•w I 41.*t1.k-Ft-'',^j i,. x, ° , , ,L N it .'d •A, , I �.- . . f j t i t attI a;F1 `• 1'. h, f4 l K' fs r t ti plr, i t - N w tr,,4, td V, t 1 („a rti ;�' 1a a 3 i 9 ' +r y0 -' -- -+--.. — _ . -:: -.-r. :c f.3^trt,dr,»R,0.4„'EVMFrnm f..�^^„iwuwl?WoaeMTm*Y02oFVPit9iR °II'.]( M14�M,rM-A-Y'>r6^'.,"—;^„Yt•'P'+c•P',.--l'I^r':-rl'r"C'1,«,mh.te—,q,+!•...'^' —• —", 1,.w...1-.,mr,,,-,^tytp+-,+•r.+°r.t,-•-"-,,,,.._..-..,.,—..—,f ._._ ..-.,--...�mr_..._--., ...,,-,..,..r,.,....,.-... .,-_...•,,.�w ..,, . _r _.. , -. "' _ , . .,. .. , . , . wn, ar +,mnww,nm+unrm"-osrrr•suea*m ... t..,.. ... .. ._ ......... .. .. , . - .. . . . .. d . n ;.Yip 1, ia„i .1;,{r' r' si V , 1 t r I IIk t' ... t :� 1, 1 s ,) 4 f� t N °1 i S ^� yy ti , a y_r r t. ,:x , k _ r '1� - 1 ` v A-r „1 . - - - `,, SY `, "�"stat a +gym ,�i ed I . ti `'+tt y+7a ,"..°,? ., r , • i.1 fij3;1.tq g r,*,4j L. i. ` 2 a tt'�.1fiY FLAG r- F I LTF_FFAI?)R IG , A5 5HOWW. 5EM OF —TAIL � � . :,t r ,^l SHEET Z. , = 4 I f .a§ ', .i , 7 Yj :#J1. CBW9 t_--11-tL:-43») CB4>D mom. I) CB# I f rrr,�-L) _ - _ _ .— -- --_... _._..._ ._ ._.- ' -tt -r.'f ",4 W� F KAM E 3 c�KATIi, I t�l�fAL1 IN/ FR a1�1 F G-,RpeT�, w/G G,F?ATs� , .,, , O/G, 6,C 12" F'1FC"ice = ICE I . Oq I"1c:9 '�'7 —t Al L CN 1rrX �. Ply a y ` T1= 137.,Jo iV-• 9-7.90(I2"OUY) Te=• Ito.o[t) " 11;1, .. 81.3� c Ex 12") 10 = 'S•0A C 12• I N) I a - 105 23 C IGX 8° MX 115T ; " " 0� T .. I& = 104 'aD Lu�W 1z,�x Ur /1r-�;, h # 7 I:; t rtf rE= Ios.00(uEw 12" IN) �� _N�DATUM: CITY OF• IDS to d:l 1 Ili-' i 3 f+'+ 3 r pt_UG Al3AhJDOkJ nr�., jr r�El OCAT1r tbRi,,l hr✓wr Fx rST GULVEi2T BENCW AR TOi ' {4 ; r�{1 "' �� tanr N 38 L F ,i" sn SOUTH OF SO ► 1'i 'Y+C�Et 1.%, ., : 11:J fR! .. .5 ' i,S. 4 i HfLI. ON 76TN ACE.1�1, °.78' ° ,° S , y,� 7LF,V 4,•- I Z" G f' 016 > � .. k _ I�TIr A�tE#I®A e wg"li (rYpE r) c(.r=?S�Yt+1T ` �, � '", r` 9 U '�qME �'G�A76 T ItG.i�02 -1 ICY �, ,, `, IE 4_5=).�rC1$�a �� TOP 5(z) / tB gtm..40 t �r1"F. q � I I S. 'tj r $rw� _�.' Yct - - i _ I.�, 112.G ``� a 4 tI. ar <�' I17LF-12n Yip I4.1I �e ' f 140g�-�' _ u F����'•''•�/ __ r,,.t :3trs,;,: 'a .. t" t 1 MW+k i'A 1. Ex.6,- c GP Y S,40r► x 74 m",J_. .. JT�'TM �,,b^ qb _ - � r / .. . . ti' i- x1yt' Jtt;�i 1 r�. rs t . t a Jt or \� /i.� M ; J + �f�� 'L Y b/ c" &iiii,or ? E7CI�M la / / 3®LF IL" , s c?`t �{�, L q� y Y 1, , t i"; f'• i . . ,\, /�101 r 7I r C+pr 5 ®.�/O1 .1 r r ab H%1i+ ! ".,., I ',;I�t q, IQ b� - .. p5 ¢` p ��! f'OL1N�,T,oN �, / EASE:. , . rif L. L a / �pl ` t / Y' / a rt' 1 1 `fig r •` NU°CONSTRUCTION I''�J �2AIA,1 I� /1. '' �\ _tl ^lql ACTIVITY/PERMIT `✓�, , i_ I r ;: [�' \ t 3 ` - n D/S _ �02 D .® .. \ ON LOT 3 ,t ct, / ,k �, r FILTER FABRIC r' ity i °{'1 . 1 — , s$`'J WC p ` - / I \ ' � �2� W/ WIRE MESH � _�.2x4 DOUGLAS FIR ' �C' „ / t No I GRADE OR EQUAL I , t 3/4' MIN DIA WASHED ALT=STL FENCE` POST .. ,� LF~ �G �'7 �� i / / GRAVEL EA SIDE . ,� AREA t... I T� 5 AI.L AI�W 12 l7 Q�a J I & 101 .00 - I 1 °. cp iuTo En G� ® , �- �, --� ��� - 7 ---6 _1_=__ARGA JPKI&AW1 6 8 1AlV. EL. It5.22 - i /Yn//�fr�i�� ,� , U FOP( r ID �t7 /°/, C i i 1 G,p°% ` ' _ I D" �1 . w6PC)LAT' lYI \O� / / 05.0 -- �i/. 1 �5 c �!, - _ - - - - t �i� N �I f f`- ', LY 1 �f . �.® r �T 6" -<<- / KE ,fir' , i I ,.r.._._ _ - � E E ; ,� 4_4. Ad cli 5H'f. TA 14 SECTION s -a // T� a 115.00 _t , 1C"f`fP - � M r�� .�`�' r / IE g5,9Z / 1 - FILTER FABRIC-MIRAF1 14ON . , OR EQUAL ATTACH w/ �f �// ,'\ � �.� (', STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS , `• v > / q GS 2"x°L"x14GA'WtpE / 0 t / _ -• OR EQUAL o . OD ME5H .. , K. n, / A E,q CAI 11 I1 I •,I' L. 3;, 1� j1 r II �I Fib} / - - y J R - �` _ I l l.'s 1 I1 I / .l0l0.5 •5 / /0 % C.- Ot,ri I E. - I c7b - N I I I I I I , a ,rt f r- tr _ 1 1 /� F m 1 I I, OG� t tri I I 1 RTK, ( lkI r. 1 F 1 11 1 11 /}�. �c 9"S.�i9 _ I - 11 1 1 . i , Y° j # AIZ�A pRA a / / lJ I - .ii 11 c% ///�///S 1 /r!a///C11 // N/�./Y/� I F t ; '. Q / .I ' 1, ,,- N 1 11 . . ' 7 1 1 tY1 /Q�. ' ��� 2. 1 I i I ^ 1 1.%I BAY 1301• 10M OF FABRIC-- I DRIVE . q' O C IN ©°x 12N TRENCH i' IV / /a, + ,4, i k TYP �� Jyr I.{ /� ss e r' l o I, F 12 S [� �� -_ -- ---- -- - _... _..__ _ _ -- _�_ I x 1 ' .. _ `� /� l , . r 9,-1s- 6,.4I� t-r,U �> . _ -- , � i FILTER FENCE DETAIL.1. �'�,,"' io � .° �� �,-''� 2+14" 6,91A_1LT(STJ, : `ti �-( NO SCALE R / j 1=1L'12 F� awat.l.» ['�� .INOTAI.L�D~L1' ; kLf, / QI r IF (a�G ` - 0- Fit t 1 O Nt4%( C0W6TWCr°>I°'•I0W U�1 �.�.,.�t1�' I�gai '� , . ` Y H " %"tt�,'° `, O N I AN- MAINTA►ND UI,1'T'1t, P�i�.MAWoi" t,�lt i*r16 I 1 11 ��: rr� 11 2 ,,< IS ES17cl°aLISHEa1 ; t `,t -- "--- I IN i _tl Sew` ._.�— _ _ " Ip�r. �� I G+ 1.1 I [..:lr:, , i~ E B. 2 :7 °.1J96 ; , I I � , ' ' ' 11 N� •( �. �j F i �� r i f`ffV) I / r House-GOURT' 6eDrt$Dlc a IOSoo c.. .. t y�:, 4 • 7.19 Rr I )< c�,hRr4a,�- oalve . 4.O K. L rt -- a if G r ."I I� IC�HT f' �� \° 41 ' I �p ror�t_ cur I$�oacs ,?oc��,Y rk r� `i; / I I I 1 P WPv"IA3 any '75�-PL ,rr�S VJ. I � I �PPROX, FILI, t 19' I 1 , ,,. ^"approw a i`� d,e_A /__t�6T%II►.IED I I 1 I ��¢�itr�v,s (Z. r�� . Ctu�r,WINL�j r j PATIO i GbYr2-a,Y �z3+go,cl4x 9S�+ocP : 3�Oc.Y ::. / -iIC4c_'F_ �F v I � �z c_ '�z�,n- 1N,� ,nOrl I/J IGrp _u1 y�,;:.lug I ` r f Jc)FUH 51 pE . I _� u_ � ' i I � to �-e E.. � . I i ' �� o ;' d�I,V' SL4crpi� `r0 AjtI ,II-k4� -. J �i. ' t :.�' •. I ' " t� I I ' t`1, 1t .yF 1 ��r IT sr� I� I i?Is I-trnlJ, s-ror-mot "c+w .� f : I a'4- jr a+.r, l+..i i,..� rw.� /"'lra � frIKL y:>* 'Mr. �, .'M ;i , t , . 4. T - �' t / a 7 -r� / / ! , t + f 1 x5 lf�' - 7`r,F 4. . .i .li - * �{1 _ - -- \'1I7__ --____.. "�` f i _ , - Y y K ' j ."N�,�r"�,1.��,0.A��_w* _ , ­I t�1 ''Ill t' i. t•r 61,�'- f ' '--'�„- --i -- —_ ' . a 'i r y' 5 "' 44#'y� ' (I' '+ '' rT) () ,(I ,-s , a a -R: 1 RJ t. I�r- L.. �. .� ' i,, t ° ', +, +�' a ++j ,J zyjl, ' " MOt�.i-. - .Y! -4_ O✓iK/iliw 5f7fr.c /iwK fW `�" ' ` n ; - ;+ __7__—__rt______­__7 _l­r, ..--_4-_9.S. TR- ,EI EFIE.1�. SEE AYTT74,LN1riD 6 Q( �r - ,.' r , ."w, J. •', ,�+ • ` 11�'' l �• /� ,`l• I �I, K�i,�djv,•Y,G t, } J r + :; t a ' J' k!liY(pAdj;. T 1 i r �ki� . 'Y+. cc--n�/� IV5 VI �M 11 IJ1 ' + !.1 I�/ .}.i,+t1{.;&-;;," r. - . -- -. ...-_..-.__ \'R♦ L•, t ,,•. E !` V`-� `f',,lI"., 1 ------------- -- --- -- _ 1 1 ,� ( 0 Q 0' ASS.vG 1 R.c KK RY �©t.1`I't RcT 4 µ #'St_al Sri ''•.i _-______'_'_----- 'j♦� \_`\� ___.'-""•^'•_-�••- _--.....-__.._.� T� T 01 ^b+. r"t r�, I •� 11 Atl ENj 'Wt,­-.,� , ­, � 1�T i - �,,��.-��' �.,"_, ,- , ,�-, .t�:".I , ,,, _., .I�,� P T,, 1l I" .�_ &, - 4 ' ", Jl -':. ., 1 . T i" .. G �..'', .'�,-, �7I I Ii i:, ;, r�, �, . O,, -,:. ',,4 ,,t; � - ;� ,� ,_ ,, -,' , ,! ,," ' ` � .­ � : ", %W, ,7 , 1;. .!­, ,� ,� ,, I _ _ ` pLAGI PiLi'E12 FAt3PZIG AS SHOW". SEE• Vl�TAIL 9 h IS "I �, °Y,.4j, gat` .. SH1=f�T 2-. .,a„�„ jI��Y #rye ! t I ' . . Y f '. 6 R H Y b •� 7 fa-. .a .. 1.: 4 { ,.^ l� i S v4 i N 4 hS �t K h S i 2. I • r• t i_. 1. t t - t f� �1 r yy i 9 K' a tf + •a , a �.Y f ei 3 t , 4 i r 9 , �` .t S i.x t .'P rS' m � a 4 a } Y e a'� , 3 ,.,Ai t•' i* I E I ?t a•: \ V { #Y, 4d 6 t , 'i ,• ! 1 w T 1 , • r .4 t. t � ,r t 1 - + r ,r >It 't i>� '+ .. „ , :�� G.., ELEVA r ,. TON ) ' 1 tl T, 51�1, ANR I S PE�i CITY QF Ei�MON[ S, E4 � S II Y• i ` ; S , 7 a , ti 4. # � h t ti. . I } 4 I # • t t ,. ,,II T g Lt ,,.. 5t P , 0 NUWATER AS UI S h L W GR U C L •C•i"i fJ Y TEM 4J OL �. Ci S � , } 5� F. .I b, V , Y _ ry N Y ' 1 t' �T} �. d 1 t , n.f +aC+ Yrea"w Y n>+ wf,' # .#`. ., - t. dw � wtY'. , , — t ti� rW-- ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL _ ` )--� ----- 2 163/S—& 1F- `­v­.­ w � ..k. � t ,_ „ ? . - .. ,. - . �� � ­ .I . I. .0 4I1I AI,�)�I.I . I. ,- - _-0 � L,t­'_. �, -I ; _. V­. '�.� _9__I Ii . ,4'�.5 . ­ . I_�I I,1.2IV,6,­i. I ,.:. _, i � -;'I I.� .q ,. ..1,,,I� . (I, )�I . ,I � : m�,i,..�1 ,, � . ­.,1',._ II .. ,',. -�,I - ,.� �,I�.I, - ,�._), I .�� . �v I . ... II-I ;,.. t�..�.:I '.. �!, ­ . �­I��.�� ­ ,..1,., 1. .. , .I. ..i!, -,, ;;�.. ., .., . .I1 _ ,, . . . . . �.�. . ;� . . , I. 'WI 1.. *I­� R . ",,. . .aI"_..E,1 .­�. -i I� I a,,. .�... ;1­. �', ..�. ": . -.�:I.'. ,. , I.�: . ,I. ,.�. I �1, , S1 �: .I- I.,.a. m. M.m.�, �1..,�1 I: . ,.II-1,�I .. -..,I ,.I,I� , �. �,-�, . I. 1._. I C.�-,�L� .19.,I,. ._ . I, .-,'11,—:1. , .'­, ;1. "t m1I�1'I .m,, A..s�..g. i�,I�Ip-�., , �: � I'rI ,. . : ,1. I" I :.. ,",I, . . m"., .g. . I.gII t, 'i.lOl""ft_I". j... .dN_j. Ij,II � . .. I ,I, � .II. II- .1I 4, 11 aI11 l. l!*.I�� ..- ,� .- , ., II. -�-. � ;. ..,. �..., ."._ ":' , I�� 1 0!" i - 11I _,,. `. ­,. .I,I_ .G, �f-. . � .11 , ,I I .-1R-'".-.��. , O.� '_.� - ._".U:II f,'.S;I'. ­':d1.,I P _;,...-,�_'9�� ­-� - I�* j­�, .1I,''IF,. —�.),_..'� , .. I'll, I-. n .-,"I,i.t',��� .. .- l.,k.�wII w, w�- �� . . w.­w_.11­"�-,...I -. �,� 11,-,7 D�, I � 1 -E i- - - �--,f-- .%. , :­�- .- :_.-,.­- __-;_,.. I- " ­I �-" -"­��- -�1 v�., ,'- SCh 40 PVC�eti�t'�I� �r(.�����' ,` 1 ,<- Z. I,"NJ;I�, o�'.'�� SDR 35 (AST t (�r��l- J , , • .. , . 1996 • M D3034j ''` 1 , "t Iry . Z- ti - W s . ,� D AS NOTED Y m x r r _ ,� _ M1 L. A n :' r ,t ,. yr„ �, ;fir; 7 ' ,_ f sa k .f - Y^ i , } . •r; Y R r h r �• J- � I 'gym i • i:" ."kl a , r" ,'v # .a�i Y Irt� r n ! �W,Y{. JJ�fp �� 1yf0gy '1 V.+ Ii vim•'. ,� ' w v, t , } # t x. -I, Z f.r-, } y r '44tl,. 1. t F° a•.�, F_ f 'Y 1' iC •y, r / < h c a f r. ,,"t.° 3 ;.J. _r i°!' , j f -ia > Lu B 3 '� o vJlJ .41'ia " +n N� N f�' ;_ , i 'ti S 1 'fii 3 1 � Y r• { , 4a ii�� '' r - ,.yt. ^t C h t UC 111'% a i d °.i .arr• V�. y?. f•+ t ��. E,- t r / t l . ,,� , oth � �a. � } 7+ I 1' a t t M f 2 1 vY# h 3 � fI 5 �• , ,� / r i ,T t �y ° . } , a i'• Y, I .Y y } fy � ` •( t . .yY.. zd �' _4 �i, _ i +a� zv. as ,1 � � 6 cs � r9 , #A>t� i r 4. •t. Co, a �1. °i 4 aN x x r a . *r . � 7 , r� �. a _,h 'r�- i, t�: s.4 '.r • a, x� d �4, y� Y' J .t" 7tp" f t 'i t SY 'EH {l a' •Is ,,�a'si '� &i!J r�iEEi P-, t A„ , .. . t:' w t.; n. ' r} a L. r �r t j %. i` 7` '�} •tea �' ^''vi6 �t s 3 4 Yf� i L K r .,t Y f'' RS- .'v 7� 4 R- a.: n t AW t �, y��•+yy � � ,rX T i:til'-` t1A . C ' r •'E" Aiif'110VfL i , i r4 �f t S^ ,( 1 i k" i / F m !<. ua': f :F ,u '1.•I.: t :L r �.1 }0 ,' h' k 1 1 r. ,Y s;� h ;v t, :{' !' ht7 �., I i ,4 Yr ,X t,:.Y ,\' 7"r ,'. 4. t+ r t �l' t ,.1 ''.: .i i{ w }'. h• ;x 6 t,, .o' `k „'!+' ,.'l.M� fi i' .- I „y .• .,:..... � ., �` �r,:- .ts; ,1 .k,;. ._I 4„-,79. +< '.b •r. i#- ,,�. .s-.. 'i,. 'jth .J .'i•. ? :.,, .•",,"�iu}), .t; 's,','` iti r, 'i,+� .� ♦: ,L,' d r i i t. 1 J a » 4'qq 1 .i • 1 !r I-rl , ,,:. e '. I', ,.. � ,.4 ,. . ',,, ... d'd .. .._a',t .'ii*:A�i'LLn.•��, h�:a.lx�ri:A'�ra, - ,:.ti.. ,_ . CY'�,_„_ -., _ ,,,.zn s .-. __ .fir. v��v._1. ,.. ..- .,, , ... , w.n., f ,.. v-t....• lu ,,. ,,5: ,. hi� _ u rt .. .. . ... ....:.'<>• .. .-. ,. .a,,.1a� +r.. _ .. , e.l ,. , , ,.., ..`d:-. ..._. r'rti,.,.,.fii".L 'i� ., .�..) � �.'�f. as, ,"t ���%_ti�6� _, __. , , — t ti� rW-- ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL _ ` )--� ----- 2 163/S—& 1F- `­v­.­ w � ..k. � t ,_ „ ? . - .. ,. - . �� � ­ .I . I. .0 4I1I AI,�)�I.I . I. ,- - _-0 � L,t­'_. �, -I ; _. V­. '�.� _9__I Ii . ,4'�.5 . ­ . I_�I I,1.2IV,6,­i. I ,.:. _, i � -;'I I.� .q ,. ..1,,,I� . (I, )�I . ,I � : m�,i,..�1 ,, � . ­.,1',._ II .. ,',. -�,I - ,.� �,I�.I, - ,�._), I .�� . �v I . ... II-I ;,.. t�..�.:I '.. �!, ­ . �­I��.�� ­ ,..1,., 1. .. , .I. ..i!, -,, ;;�.. ., .., . .I1 _ ,, . . . . . �.�. . ;� . . , I. 'WI 1.. *I­� R . ",,. . .aI"_..E,1 .­�. -i I� I a,,. .�... ;1­. �', ..�. ": . -.�:I.'. ,. , I.�: . ,I. ,.�. I �1, , S1 �: .I- I.,.a. m. M.m.�, �1..,�1 I: . ,.II-1,�I .. -..,I ,.I,I� , �. �,-�, . I. 1._. I C.�-,�L� .19.,I,. ._ . I, .-,'11,—:1. , .'­, ;1. "t m1I�1'I .m,, A..s�..g. i�,I�Ip-�., , �: � I'rI ,. . : ,1. I" I :.. ,",I, . . m"., .g. . I.gII t, 'i.lOl""ft_I". j... .dN_j. Ij,II � . .. I ,I, � .II. II- .1I 4, 11 aI11 l. l!*.I�� ..- ,� .- , ., II. -�-. � ;. ..,. �..., ."._ ":' , I�� 1 0!" i - 11I _,,. `. ­,. .I,I_ .G, �f-. . � .11 , ,I I .-1R-'".-.��. , O.� '_.� - ._".U:II f,'.S;I'. ­':d1.,I P _;,...-,�_'9�� ­-� - I�* j­�, .1I,''IF,. —�.),_..'� , .. I'll, I-. n .-,"I,i.t',��� .. .- l.,k.�wII w, w�- �� . . w.­w_.11­"�-,...I -. �,� 11,-,7 D�, I � 1 -E i- - - �--,f-- .%. , :­�- .- :_.-,.­- __-;_,.. I- " ­I �-" -"­��- -�1 v�., ,'- SCh 40 PVC�eti�t'�I� �r(.�����' ,` 1 ,<- Z. I,"NJ;I�, o�'.'�� SDR 35 (AST t (�r��l- J , , • .. , . 1996 • M D3034j ''` 1 , "t Iry . Z- ti - W s . ,� D AS NOTED Y m x r r _ ,� _ M1 L. A n :' r ,t ,. yr„ �, ;fir; 7 ' ,_ f sa k .f - Y^ i , } . •r; Y R r h r �• J- � I 'gym i • i:" ."kl a , r" ,'v # .a�i Y Irt� r n ! �W,Y{. JJ�fp �� 1yf0gy '1 V.+ Ii vim•'. ,� ' w v, t , } # t x. -I, Z f.r-, } y r '44tl,. 1. t F° a•.�, F_ f 'Y 1' iC •y, r / < h c a f r. ,,"t.° 3 ;.J. _r i°!' , j f -ia > Lu B 3 '� o vJlJ .41'ia " +n N� N f�' ;_ , i 'ti S 1 'fii 3 1 � Y r• { , 4a ii�� '' r - ,.yt. ^t C h t UC 111'% a i d °.i .arr• V�. y?. f•+ t ��. E,- t r / t l . ,,� , oth � �a. � } 7+ I 1' a t t M f 2 1 vY# h 3 � fI 5 �• , ,� / r i ,T t �y ° . } , a i'• Y, I .Y y } fy � ` •( t . .yY.. zd �' _4 �i, _ i +a� zv. as ,1 � � 6 cs � r9 , #A>t� i r 4. •t. Co, a �1. °i 4 aN x x r a . *r . � 7 , r� �. a _,h 'r�- i, t�: s.4 '.r • a, x� d �4, y� Y' J .t" 7tp" f t 'i t SY 'EH {l a' •Is ,,�a'si '� &i!J r�iEEi P-, t A„ , .. . t:' w t.; n. ' r} a L. r �r t j %. i` 7` '�} •tea �' ^''vi6 �t s 3 4 Yf� i L K r .,t Y f'' RS- .'v 7� 4 R- a.: n t AW t �, y��•+yy � � ,rX T i:til'-` t1A . C ' r •'E" Aiif'110VfL i , i r4 �f t S^ ,( 1 i k" i / F m !<. ua': f :F ,u '1.•I.: t :L r �.1 }0 ,' h' k 1 1 r. ,Y s;� h ;v t, :{' !' ht7 �., I i ,4 Yr ,X t,:.Y ,\' 7"r ,'. 4. t+ r t �l' t ,.1 ''.: .i i{ w }'. h• ;x 6 t,, .o' `k „'!+' ,.'l.M� fi i' .- I „y .• .,:..... � ., �` �r,:- .ts; ,1 .k,;. ._I 4„-,79. +< '.b •r. i#- ,,�. .s-.. 'i,. 'jth .J .'i•. ? :.,, .•",,"�iu}), .t; 's,','` iti r, 'i,+� .� ♦: ,L,' d r i i t. 1 J a » 4'qq 1 .i • 1 !r I-rl , ,,:. e '. I', ,.. � ,.4 ,. . ',,, ... d'd .. .._a',t .'ii*:A�i'LLn.•��, h�:a.lx�ri:A'�ra, - ,:.ti.. ,_ . CY'�,_„_ -., _ ,,,.zn s .-. __ .fir. v��v._1. ,.. ..- .,, , ... , w.n., f ,.. v-t....• lu ,,. ,,5: ,. hi� _ u rt .. .. . ... ....:.'<>• .. .-. ,. .a,,.1a� +r.. _ .. , e.l ,. , , ,.., ..`d:-. ..._. r'rti,.,.,.fii".L 'i� ., .�..) � �.'�f. as, ,"t ���%_ti�6� _, __. 69228 J LJ-. IIII itIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIII?� Ald. III5HOWO*�;:-6ti�.:;.OtTAIL-,.i.?,...,,,:!, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIBO Ica 9 4.' IIIITIIIle ? IIIitII17 A5 ,F� H 0 IIIIIIIIIIDATUM:'CITY OF EDMONDS, A W, II7 �OFZSMHI" BENCHMARK: :,��TOP III%j IIII4 'SOUTH OF SOUTH.0 AT TOE OF,,' IIIW11 I ' r 7 T AWC 1XI "Irl a IIII4 - IIITY; -14A.P., IIN Ii-7 II 0 Ilip. tIII1EGAL R .'LOTS 62 AN6 63 IESC. IPTIOM t4 TH 'CH PLAT OF MEADOWDALE.BEA IIIIIIII, 1w II 'li ACCF-SS E-9 EJ-1 E-rk] IIIiiIIIItItIIt III-77i III7 -7 I7 III-K IIIr v IIIIIIDt' V MPTH t,W�Hcb z all IIIN No SCALE Iry IOAD`�'SEGTI II-7 1, IIItIiI-wert interctVildr drain jiir�fk rs approximate bidj and Shall be subjcct'td the �x `t' II!5,7 Imation. A geottCh Shall be.fetained to obse�l6,i: 101tibris'In: . . .... d '0(the,willabey lot IIdOring OnstrUction..'.- . tI",, rT 7II: I4" I-R IY. IIIIaXAMOU IIIIc I13-Prn LL IItTY, IF1 9U?, WR. I F r.P II7 so IItII:7,' IIIIIBalm. PrAj U I ji IIIS, V IIMA 412A�otL IfIIItRA II4- it F1 LIM r IIIca e, i Fetfv WC-' F`1 M rvc. IIIIV U 5W. Dim, -rALLATION A IL. �ETIjOD 6F DRAI ii7 STADlUTYjS,THE ri�pc,N�jdUTYICF THE-:�,CONTRACTO 7 1 till:F GlJ!QT9Cl4 A6�hT T-�3;$ DATtl) AUGUST io, 1 87 -,0Y.TEnnA.A§S0d7 INC Io ...... .... IT COUN11 4 Ij IIII-TREN %SEC ION,: (TYPIC L)" IIIIEP 08RO TOR iI-N AY; A! IIIItIIII.01 IIY, tIIIII7 U11 TY EA U'r IIc- II4i II-51 T; I-L r7F I tIItfIIIIIIIIItII77 3p 'H IIIItIII6 III�91 K- IIIIIIz :p 4 - p IIitiItITO IIIMil /A w aJ6 V 'r -TId HTLI "e, W/,-r r PIPE III4 10*54 IIX CQ MAW'. 6 III.0 IIIt& IIIIIi; L U I7, IIII-1 7-k 10Z 01 14C 9f;i, yo it IMM CAAP u II­77 IiIIIIW Ir ItPEN) 164th, NO I1E IIIA r-CESS,"ROADL SECTIO" I-rE: '?� IA IIIL I -77. LE, IIIIIt1996 FEB 2�7 PLACt rziLTEP- r-Anp, IIIAS SHOWW.' SEPS V r--TA I L I_T ? m !IT Run W-0 TITI Ifo"(,000�� 777= ER IIYDS FORME IEXAM f CUT_ ) I454G� I1:!,. Mvl mk IIIq6wle g on 9S01i -4;t4;,K A-p-tv'"V., "It Z:7 I-,E LA p, .+i� r�A, l,J role. 7t�4&1 lt�:,4 ELEVATIONS PER QTY OF EDMONDS, 164th ST 8W. AND 166jo Way N . I.. . i tlm� I I " : "tL � - � i .;. ;�L "L. , .." � , "! f [a In 'T ge H11 ELOPER: CARL PEARSON . . . . , 7 . . I �* L . . I , L I ;,+�. - , ; , ,' '�'LY L 1. 'Y � 61 V­ il CY D S FOR M 8 R LY,:�;, 2 5 0 iOWNER 0 . E V FOUR"Inco 'ARL PEARSON' P.O. BOX 70525 1 NW.L 3 IIf,. J"Shln 'I 6TH ST I 20 561 i, ;06d)362-42414-`­! .,4)?�206)36 �36'1 2 9 SEATTLE, WA. 98107 WATER COLLE GRADI"'G Al"IDDRAH"Ar 75th PL W. GROUND &ION §YSTEM AS' BUILT A 4", ImAwl . IIAA�iAdElii ENT FE8 6 '—/:-o Atill�40 ITY OF, EDMONDS WASHINGTO tmft�lll BY Wt it VED By c Iiton w=* A I �. A, ' � M ABBREVIATIONS & And D Dryf KIT L Angle DBL . Double ® At DET Detail LAM Centerline DF Douglas Fir -Larch LAV L Channel DJN Dining Room LIV .. Diameter, Round DN Down i LNIDY d Petuiy (Nail Size) DS Dow•nspotit.. LWR Perpendicular DW Dishw•ashet -( Plate MAS y Pound, Number EA Each MAX ± Approximately 1:L Elevation MB ELECT Electrical MECH All Anchor Bolt EQ Equal MFD ABV Above EXP JT Expansion Joint MFR ACOUS Acoustic EXIST Existing MIN ALT Altemate EXT Exterior MISC ALUM Aluminum EW Each Way MTD MTL BD Baud FD Floor Drain B.DRM Bedroom FDN Foundation' NIC BLDG Building FIN Finish NO. BLW Below FLR Floor NTS BLK Block, Blocking FP Fireplace BM Beam FTG Footing O/ BOT Bottom OC BRG Bearing GA Gauge OD BRK Brick GALV Galvanized OPNG BSMT Basement GAR Garage I OSB BZWN Between GC General Contractor BYND Beyoud GFI Ground Fauilt Interrupt PERF BU Built-up GLB Glued Luninated Bearn PLAM GWB G)I)sum Wall Board PLBG CAB Cabinet GWB-X Type X Gypsum Wall Bond PLYWD CFM Cubic Feet per Minute PSF CH Ceiling Height (Sh-IE) HDR Hea!]rx PSI CIO Ceiling HIT Hem -Fir PT CL Closet HORN Horizontal CLR Clear HVAC Heating, Ventilating, R CMU ;' Concrete Masonry Unit Air Conditioning RAD 'COL Column INSUL Insulate, insulation REF COMP Compacted INT a Interior REINF CONC Concrete REQD CONT Continuous REV CPT Carpet JT ,': Joint RM JST Joist , RO SYMBO• , LS14 �- ... COLUMN ,GRID LINE N RTH -OW 0 -" LINE BOY9 A ItrSTIhG HL Ex AL - - - LINE BELOW 1EW WALL - CENTERLINE '(�`_._ BUILDING SECTION =-= EXISTING WALL TO BE REI•IOVED . IO-•-WALL SECTION t� FINISH WOOD lEd E21FRAHING. (CONTINUOUS BLOCK) DETAIL. INTERIOR ELEVATION ''' GYPSUM kALL BOARD ROOM NUMBERINSULATION (BAT & RIGID) DOOR NUMBER METAL I WINDOW NUMBER ' CARPET/PAD •- VERTICAL ELEVATION CONCRETE •• REVISION & NUMBER -il� . EARTH PROPERTY LINE•:GRAVEL __-_1*3 EXISTING GRADE: CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT' - I! -- FINISH GRADE BRICK `rye FINISH SPOT GRADE . i S Kitchen SC Solid Core, Self Closing SECT Section Lartunate SF Subfloor, S4ucre Feet Lavatory SG Safety Glazing Living Room SIiT Sheet Laundry SIiTG Sheathing Lower Similar S PEC Specification ; Masonry S Q Square Maximum SS Stainless Steel ; Machine Bolt STL Steel Mechanical STOR Storage Manufactured SUSP Suspended Manufactutrer Minimum 4 T Tread Miscellaneous T&B Top and Bottom Mounted T&O Tongue and Groove Metal TC Trash Compactor TEL Telephone Not in Contract TYP Typical Number Not to Scale UNO Unless Othenvise Noted Over VB Vapor Barrier On Center VERT Vertical Outside Diameter VTO Vent to Outside Opening Oriented Strand Board W Washer W/ With Perforated wil Within Plastic Laminate W/O Without a Plumbing WC Water Closet Plywood WD Wood Pounds per Square Foot Wp Weathegl oof Pounds per Square Inch WR Water Resistant Pressure Treated Welded Wire Fabric Riser Radius Refrigerator `. Reinforced Required : Revision Room Rough Opening G E,RAL__NOT S J t , •i 1. 'the Contractor shall verily conditions at the site including dimensions:aitd shall , , .s immediately report any discrepancies to the Architect before proceeding with the work. , 2. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing all work and materials in conformance with the Uniform 13uilding Code, 1994 Edition, as well as all other governing city; county, and state building codes as required.. u 3. Electrical work shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Dectrical Code 4. Mechanical work shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Mechanical Code. 5. The Contractor shall keen areas under construction secure and clear of dirt and debris. >� orb -7 � � t Ul CJ fflw,� /N 87 ° 351 4-31rW N2 o cHIMu¢r0 00 y rS a r- - M �an�ee o .to • , -_ tzr�'�o f-PA-n o r c-ouRT, I DRIVE L I' G sPAce ' o J - PRO FILE - SITE SLOPE 6. The Contractor shall schedule work, m much as possible, to avoid inconveniences to existing neighborhood property owners. 7. Dimensions on drawings are taken to face of masonry and/or concrete walls, to face of. studs, and to face or columns unless noted otherwise. Written dimensions take precedence over scaled dimensions. 8. Repetitive features not noted on the drawings shall be completely provided as,rf drawn In full. 9. The Contractor shrill provide all shoring, barricading, and bracing necessaryto ensure the �.... ,' t structural stability of the building and the health and safety of the public and all wt>wo enter t the building during construction. 10. The Contractor shall provide temporary facilities as required, 11, The Contractor shall obtain all permits and approvals. S T._ 12. Check details for location of all items not dimensioned on plans. 13. Ail changes in plans and field modifications shall be approved by the Architect. 14. Che Contractor shall verify rough -opening requirements for all fixtures and equipment prior.'' - to installation. 15. The Contractor shrill be governed by all conditions as indicated in the construction documents and spegfications. / ,l 16. if the Contractor is aware of any discrepancy between the work as sown and tequ' vements / t � of codes and governing agencies, notify the Architect immediately and await ht$ direction. 7 •fhe Contractor shall verif any dimensional questions with the Architect. Do not bast; 1. Y decisions on scaling drawings. LAND LIDE•-HAZARD MAP +, SJII IARY F1�I kGY �iJ1yLMARY, CODE SUMMARY 13�1Ii•�tvc* �t1iy�lv�gx�c StT Site Area: 355tt3 S.F 0.61-A: Code: 'W;S.R.C.; 1994 Ed. Code Edition: 1994 U.B.C. ' � Floor Area S.F. : ( ) Dwelling Units: I;. 'Method of Com liande: PI2�S�GEaP"►-tvE , p l�ro'cci Address: J IC�315 75th Place W� IVrnin Floor 2A `1 g !� .�. Density: 1; 2�t�. 'f7�t?,L� %r2. i C►P"1 1►.l IV. Isdmonds, WA 98020 ` ;Upper Floor 254 .F• Slope: I2% AT eLtA. 51-te 1 Climate Zotie: I Heat T CIAO Qwnc L�cstgn Load Dolores Uc 25I Sl (snow) + 15 I Sh (bead) . ' :' Lower Floor C`ovetage: Yf� Moor 40.PSir (live) + 15 PSV (dead) To' 5 04 I S F. Roof Decks, Pouches, Etc. �82(e 1^• I 1 3 s F Element Area 1L-value 19cck 60 Psi (live) + It) i�Sl� (dead) ; Govcred Porch CiArage ito4 Drive, Walks, Patio z$o.o s.F: Gla7ittg 8lgr? 5 1 . a�� D.CoS Wind 'Lone 80 MI'I1, 1`sxp. IJ 1, Total- 6739 5': F. r.7.;5 Seismic 3 (Z = 0.3) ,Butldtng Height: A', Doors 0..4© Zoning: Ii5-2(T�"--f' (t2er m in t mp'T I C W S E3 Coverage (11o) 19 �a Ceiling: Attic: R - 3 Setbacks: Front: 25' : ,4 dN. 61TE PIAfJ, rills 1 1 0 . o Parking: Vaulted: �' - 3 Side: 25' (Car? South), l0' (Z� North) :' ! sI�T� p �, °I 7. $ Required: Walls: IZ- I `� 12car: 50' from'slopc Av C.'. l 0 3. 1 Proposed: Floor: 2- t �► Occupancy: R-3, U-1 Ll�oWaE3LE t IT.: 2 ; o 1xandscaping: occupant Load: 17 MAX, E LEA• t. . Required: Slab perimeter: N/A Construction Type: V-N P(�Ut�SEp 5LEV• ; 127.E Proposed: t-UrzJ.l, A;Fi�t✓'. O.7$ Stories: 2 A F2 F11C 0< . GUT : 10 Sob GF &A_KA,G,E • PV-IVE. rC(ooK I 2y1� Q��Do LF ToTA.� GtJT 1 °oa1O0 4F 700 e-Y IL,Ppac7.% , F 1 t_L f��a l I d �s•nr 2.0 K 7 ii� ,, li'1. 14 . �.' .. GLCh,'?C r S vn G'� / LLAIJ UL.JIVIV FRONT 0 Ao MWAAEL:Ar GEORGE ARCHITECTI ::' SIDE �t'7 PEAR OTHER HEIGHT �w r h have rOVG t7Vr1 nitl �o tfTtaf tlnpsltYi t < :isupplerydchnlcW tei�"�tet eparretPei tt ;by Assockttes, Inc.of klrktarxi ,1tVasttlt't oh tlCt tt�fi "i' � Ond . ,Cp�l t a itlly$ lJtiti � • n tr►l�nditt4 , Je ,'... � 1st drt�otn f 1C7 t�f lU t�l� • 'f•33S•0} 6 � wkhln. t ftiAvtt dlsctisgt with fi`td;t�4idtirafi'the:ttlel il�tk'tif ltA t1tihf, • ' to >il Ides , of ' t�thei'' t>2npriadll'�bl� •� tW� ltcttv�y VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE, Zi. 0; �t 160TH ST. SW i a 1La 164TH ST SW NORTH .LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF CITY OK EDMONDS SHORT PLAT "-10. 5-8-87. R.ECO"ED MARCH .22 1330 UNDEr,) ALIDITOR•'S FILE NO, 9003 zzon0 BEING A pOR,710M OF LOTS 62 AND 63 Mt=ADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAN" THEREOF - RECOR,dED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS PAGI 38 RECORDS OF SNONOMI SH COUNTY) W ASH I NG-M1 . SITUATE It l THE COUNTY: OF SNOHOMISH) STATE OF WASHINGTOW, - TAX ACCOUNT NO, ' 5131- b00-O62- 0006 IA-15 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS I I` Project No. 3 �� 4' .'