Loading...
18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DR.PDF11111111111111 12542 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DR 11 160 _ - 170 �X -- ------ oil 1BO �jMY f61 68.6 Oy c EVERGREEN NMS c PARKING STRIP EX AWWU NNmy = OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE : El a rib Q\ IV O C Orri N NO Z7 asavc�aoa �c � c) 11 II II II aoo�oo�o A� C rri CAC� N �F Z . M= II II 11 N_ O V � U1 ::�,,... .., �---',_ ,'p a.. ;.,,,e.._.,s • 1' ^. .• �; rr. r ...Ar ter 1­4. '., .r.; .y✓. �.., .. ... 1 City Of E�onds PERMTT NO: 9712 PERMIT EXPIRES�/fi1�- SIDE SEWER PERMIT Address of Construction: / Property Tax Account Parcel No Attach copies of all access and utility easements. !�6 Verified and Approved by u Owner and/or Contractor: ( -421 - Contractor License #: PFI'F_ /R e N 6 / Building Permit #: 2 ab 2- QY:2 6 Ingle Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes o— . ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units _� *RW Construction Permit # ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) .'Cross other.**Private Property:. ❑ Yes ❑ Public "Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. Owner/ o racto % D3 Owner or contractor signature a6d acknowledgement statement: Date 1By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the'City's public handout entitled Side Sewer Specifications, and shall:comply with all City requirements outlined therein. 2 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-42til-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL'425-771-0220 extension�69 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REOUESTS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY . Permit Fee $ Repair Fee Issued $ By: Trunk Charge$ Date Issued: Assessment Fee $ '®~ Receipt No: City Permit Surcharge Fee $5.00 Total Fees Paid $ , NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready .YES NO Date: Initial:. Partial Inspection: Date: Initial: PardalInspection: Date: Initial- { FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Q Initial:196j As -built to Street File: ❑ 11, PERMIT MUST BE POSTED. ON JOB,SITE t- White Copy. File Green Copy. Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bl dg forms;ssper mitj lg4/00 o Qs c N N II II F C3 3 w 3AIdO IN3N OIdMIO Z_ a a3 � 9 �� II II II II �3�j <mc�pa�< •�-Fiffil u u 0 dIULS 9NIXWd ,90--- oar----""r�—��=__' f ==�.. �'.►'c�sun�-` � —ss_� I; gog d x ---------- I 1-- --__ maxlki 09t z z z Z IL m W O cc a a 03 PLANNING DATA NAME: .0 ISO DATE: SITE ADDRESS: t O m i( V-7Z7771ve PLAN CHK#: Oq-dK PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAwftcK T Y5erfia�ii on jr7� ec REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: e / No MAP PAGE: 3 Sy CORNER LOT: es No FLAG LOT: Yes N ONING: �S - CRITICA AREAS DETERMINATION #: 17 - qd Stu Required: �dM 1M 4 r ❑ Waiver _ O_eck t 5*-,,) cl/C i, t i Gv �•-� i{ ccu grea dot . dd .'loi �nC/paC� iA1-0 ,ttv'1/{d t0-�voi iie�1�f'Co �� e/ Oeck t 5���) 01�. ❑ Conditional Waiver �f p Ol(,e`� Bice T�% Q�Q 3O 4exd A; tv7 (d i SEPA DETERMINATION: �^ . ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area. site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) XExempt !�. f e)? r� t/7 irtl�cV� �3; a^cc. SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: / Street: Left Side: tU Right Side: to Rear: as VleActual Setbacks: i i i//'`� ��. Street: Left Sidef� IQ Right Side: to Rear: Street map check for additionai ack required? (Yes / No / DNA) AO Chan e a �( DETACHED STRUCTURES: / "0 "� `; Qk �Cc40e �IQCG( iS VAJf! 3� (eff T�n ROCKERIES: l ! 3 �nib ft Tl"V, FENCES/TRELLISES: C� BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: STAIRS / DECKS: - PARKING: Required: Actual: 0'), LOT COVE 0 Calculations: I BUILDING HEIGHT: / Datum Point: l Datum Elevation: Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: A.D.U. CREATED?- N / Yes SUBDIVISION: --------- LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: es No OTHER: Plan Review By )/ 2G b d q I NewBPPIanningDataFomLDOC NAME: "7 —lVe-4. SITE ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PLANNING DATA VI REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED? Yes No) MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: Yes / No) PLAN CHK#: FLAG LOT: (Yes / No) ZONING: — CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) / ❑ Exempt SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: / Street:-2��Left Side: f l% � Right Side: I D � Rear: :?-5 Actual Setbacks: Street: Left Side: > Right Side:�0 Rear: Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No / DNA) ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: ❑ROCKERIES: �VO'� �O G2e 01 3 ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: VV / n S e-�-L)L-s (J S 4 ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: I V► e,'1.�ASTAIRS / DECKS: cz; fir,/ P-s h-o+ —{—b eX ced' I,', Se- &jL--- I PARKING: Required: Actual: 04- LOT AREA: LOT COVERAGE� PIS5'VI KO Ala" IfAG ho l� Plan Review By: i Ij�S'�� I (�I ' try, NewBPP1anningDataForm.D0C S 5 Y4 - '� I ING HEIGHT:) Datum Point: Maximum Allowed: I1'i��it�h V A.D.U. CREATED?: No / Yes) Am SUBDIVISION: Elevation: Height: LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes / No) VJ1 ' y` q�I 5� rrn f, 41v . �Uh �� . -'CL PLANNING DATA NAME: DATE:0�-- SITE ADDRESS: 1 0 V PLAN CHKM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: f? e-w REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: es / No MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: CYes No FLAG LOT: Ye No ' ZONIyG: 9-5�- 1Z- ba'StStudy Reauired: l ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: 91-7 - Pl (:::) SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 f'. of Puget Sound or lake Ballinger) �xempt tO- L l ✓j Z Gy D S SETBACKS: (� ` Reauired Setback , ( r Street: Left¢Side: �O Rig ht Side: � Rear - Actual Setbacks: P S Street: Left Side: / G Right Side: Rear: � / Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No / DNA) o-Y/ ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: ROCKERIES: (Zoc I��r (nrj f' yl.v-f - q P 3 / U FENCES/TRELLISES: Je G� �� ' ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: STAIRS / DECKS: PARKING: Required: Actual: Z LOT AREA: O [�] LOT COVERAGE Calculations: 'LO 1© //Llo q o i _r • -� BUILDING HEIGHT: G�Slr1 /�/�►'�©� Datum Point: r- Datum Elevation:_ Maximum Allowed: -/ 7i067. %5 Actual Height: • $� Via! • 3 A.D.U. CREATE : No�/ es SUBDIVISION: LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Ye / No OTHER: Plan Review NewBPPianningDataForm.DOC i PLANNING DATA NAME: Nets,,, SITE ADDRESS: 1e31S' (-/ti„-.p,� V'c✓D,DATE: . 2/1s/97 ZONING: �-5 -1 Z PLAN CHK#: 97- 44- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: = y (, rr,,,,,�,a,�, CORNER LOT No (Yes/No) FLAG LOT Na (Yes/No) SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front: 25' Left Side: 1 �' Right Side: 10 ' Rear: ZS Actual Setbacks: sFe- Front: 2-7, Left Side: 19' Right Side: 1 4' Rear: ^-//4' Street map checked for additional setback required? c2n6<,vm ►mac a(Yes/No) A&v S - Ovn ° loe LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: (9x13) FlZo*36)_ (L4" 3G'J _ I7oi (Z07o Maximum Allowed: 352. Actual: jg, lz7 BUILDING HEIGHT: n,°, ,v.�5 4qde kfl-o- cc-cu. J/ AtII", b&j<�„ - -&,- cam.41" - Maximum Allowed: Z5' Actual Height: Datum Point: Na W>, - Datum Elevation: Fr" ep A.D.U. CREATED?: No f 3 ao- SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS #: 97-90 - �i l 1 G y{1,Mn S ✓o �ikL. L1 Vi o 4 W �`° J< ; i G�iKntc hQ� f �n Ch+� /Je�( _ bell s1 rvYagc hT� ja $low (M G�/ 04o. , �— SEPA DETERMINATION: -7n �J_�N kA0"Vf Al/e.A1 1� �� •�..nti� � pJror) — ,�f �iQ J- yp4,T ,F r^nI„�ti7 LOT AREA: /-6T - Z03' = 14 0o7 ° w Plan Review By: c:U'ileApertniMplandaL doc .iticM:b�A Z4. d,nz �'�J iF all �n .1 ATE RECEIVED / - . PERMIT EXPIRES ( .. CITY OF EDMONDS USE (` PERMIT ZONE " Sy, I2. NUMBER aU 04 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS �l SUnVAPT# r "� Oro OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS L 'f' tj K/ G PLAT NAME/SUBDMSION NO. LOT 'LID NO. LID FEE $ 00 MAILING ADDRESS ) ` f /� /� C/(";j C "I " r ;• 0 `R.✓U `�= ! PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY' PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED DEDICATION FT TESCP MAP RW Street Use P kemi Regd I^ePe�Oe�"uea SidewalkReWlretl ^ o CITY ZIP fi N�[ 1, /� f (/ J �r TELEPHONE `)� — 6 7� -- �/ �!JS� NAMEr [ � I;.� AH[..• LT� METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES• PRV EOUIRED . YES NO 0 = C ADDRESS A ' 7 /� ' I ' 1 I 1 /� �j��1 ) {Q ,I ) L- CJ (/�f 1(� _ 1`/jV /// tt, lJ REMARKS �r lE �. OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR OSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE tl V RING :To — 3 . -� I � �. �t�g ro iW c�uKIL�"C-� �a�2T� ZIP TELEPHONE 2��—���`� t F wA L c--r NAME —1•...'" �..I U � � TC' t�--...7`�J � �. J ��/ R E DATE ADDRESS CC S 31 � 'REVIEWED FIRE B DATE ut CC C "ZIP_ 3 Gr TE PHONE' 5 7�I�-ZTZ:Ir VARIANCE OR CU �-- - SHORELINE OR ADBP INSPECTION '9` REO' [3YE3 O BOND POSTED STATE LICENSE NUMBER _ E7(PIRATION DATE �.M•, s i f CH D BY SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT EXP 1/ SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED HEI HT ALLOWED PROPOSED' PROPER1�TAJ," o/`UZ. �•/O�O'�+•� � .5 55 CJ / PRESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH ,., ElCOMPLIANCE OR ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE OF USE REMODEL APARTMENT ❑ ❑ SIGN REPAIR C'1j . CYDS ' ❑ FENCE (. X FT) DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER ' LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED, PROPOSED � � , REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT FRONT SIDE REAR 5 'O ROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT L/R SI E REAR �j I " IL❑ PARKING REQ'D PROVIDED LOT AREA . N � y � PLANNING REVIEWED BY ATE RE AR � h"1 U _ m $ GE AINING. WALL RENEWAL ARPORT' .. OCKERY ❑ .. E OF USE, BUSINESS OR A N: NUMBER,, NUMBER OF CRITICAL OF DWELLING AREAS %.. ..STORIES UNITS NUMBER t./ ,. CHECKED BY TYPE OF COASTRIJ CTION' OCCUPANT GROUP. � ��, "` SPECIAL IN TOR REQUIRE r YES A ""' OCCUPANT LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE:DONE REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION READ 5 VALUATION $ 6. ,.. Description _ FEE Description : ' FEE / Plan Check - HEAT SOURCE. N %' L .;SLOPE�I Building p D PLAN CHECK NO;,v VESTED DATE." Plumbing (.� o.Mechanical THIS PERYIT AUTHORS ONLY THE WOAK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLX ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE, Grading, Recording Fee . SEPARATE PERMISSION.. . �+'� s . Engr. Review V City Surcharge PERMIT APPLICATION: ISO DAYS IL PERMIT umm 1 YEAR • PROVIDED'WORKIS STARTED WITHIN 18O DAYS Engr Inspection 0.0 State Surcharge. SEE BACK OF,PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION ,', Lj'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AN' D sucCESORs Traffic Mitigation Plan Chk Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND: AND. HOLD HARML1S3'THE CITY OF - EDMONpS: WASHINGTON,. R8 OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AG AS FROM ANY AND. Fire Review Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMfr. ISSUANCE OF THIS ,PERMIT. SHALL. NOT BE Fife.lnspection . TOtaI ArnOUnt DUe 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY WANE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE i . NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE crrys ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'. Landscape Insp. Rect3ipt.# I' HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I. HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION ,d GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT 1'AM THE OWNER;, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION. APPROVAL THE OWNER.' L AGREE TO.COmmy WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-. CALL T�Ig BppliceUon Is not a permit unto signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED' THEREBY NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Suilt11ng.Ofticlal or, his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and .IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 'RELATING TO. FOR INSPECTION .. receipt le acknowledgedlnepac p�oylded. WORKMEN'S TION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. BI Tu (OWNER R AGENT) .� DATE SIGNED (425) °F . N • 7 1 R722O ' LEASED BY DATE ATTENTION EXT 1333 - , IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 q A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CE�RTIFI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW . INSP croR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 , • . FAX PINK- OWNER. • GOLD -ASSESSOR Ill/01 ��Flat:; {� ?less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site �ty�� r . '>-� Rolluig• slopes on site, generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a ZZ fi7 .. •' I`- ~..�. It`f Yy1- .tom ... 1 ....� t ^l•l%.�.f •W 2-'SC' �j horizontal distance of 66-feet). r %silly:; slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 3W(a.vertical > rise of 10-feef 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: • Approx. Depth: l� What seasons) of the year? y y ; d floodplain of a watercourse. 8. �s in Site the floodwa �_, 9. Site contains a crqek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are :.. year-round? 0 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: For City Staff Use Only 1. Site.is Zoned? 125 - f 2__ 2. SCS mapped soil type(s)? *4W-&4W c-AbXeIr- .Srwoy Z..r, 7e't/6. 3. • Wetland inventory or CA. map indicates wetland -present on site? �a 4. Critical Areas inventory or CA.:map indicates Critical Area on site? -� 5. . $ite: within designated earth sulisidence::landshde hazard area? 6.. Situdesignated.on the Environn entally Sensitive Areas Map? 3AI80 M31A OIdKOO cs 3 AYMNMM OHM 13 � ca dIa1S 9MNM Ln r` C ci N C N II II II s O � � x z CS �r,3oo > U L.LJ J Ll- 00 P� n O C N N ��cT3 o S F - t C N M M= G7 3 v� O 0 pZ� ooaoCCoco U m V Q m u C Q m Q c ur 3AIa0 A31A OIdVUIO �t Ay"" INPXV x3 3 MIS 9NINdVd o J� 533& 1,33),1)83h3 0 o ao IP a1 —ss— — —ss_dksA oa ____--T-�' __�� __�-- kviui�rsx ss� \ _ss-�00 - - - - - - - - - - ---- x�x\ Oil xi x N _--. --- zl 091 _x I1 A �7 O m 0 Q7 F 2f z Z Z CL m W ® cr. 0- ©.. Q 0000 I� LI: L,4 N Ih V) N 2 F O O N 0 N N J d ZS W a C a W N Z O 3 O m U 0 d S Z 2 Z Z �8888 0 W cxW �q1 ?71 aa1-- it I _� ��_,_ -ate,.-•---ss=r_..,A�y_�I-1'' I WNWO - ___-ig X�X-------- O O 8 i-a------ 11r- I --1L 42 ------ _ n W---- I ALL.ou 5 • . T -�` 3Z,64 -2 Lb 'wo DATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS , MAILING ADDRESS CITY jj�-� 00k ADDRESS CITY "i NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE LICENSE NUMBER PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT ZIP NO. NEW ''-CA00"RESIDENTIAI �DITION ; , OMMERCIA O REMODEL O PAR IWNT 0 REPAIR RA INS' O DEMOLISH 0 NK GARAGE O R INI V z CARPORT (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVIT EXPL a - U c NUMBER NUMBER OF OF DWELLING O STORIES !/ UNITS / DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE SIGN FENCE ( X FT) 0 OTHER REN AL P' Iq CRITICAI AREAS NUMBER 0 / PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT ZONE 5 -/Z NUMBER JOB m PIC � >.Or - ADDRESS PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. / C / ✓ I LID FEE $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP CP RW Pe Approved rmN Required ,/� EXISTING w Street Use PermitReq'tl JL Inspection Requlred PROPOSED Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED 3�4 �, YES NO CC W REMARKS Z 2 OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CON DRAINAGE z ass+^' i/W '`r/ ''�b�+`•"i Vn �,.�/y�-\lr DATE w U. VARIANC R CU INE OR ADBa INSPECTION BOND CHECKED BY REO'D POSTED 0 YES O �--� _. SEPA RE W•.... C E xEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED' HE HT ALLOWED PROPOSED EX9�t / LO C VA OUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) `',.PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ECH ALLOWED RONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REjR PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY D,Tj ocrYn I Port r, Otbor»Y . _ A' CHECKED BV TYPE OF SPECIAL INtCTOR REQUIRED vc �V/o/ OCCUR GROUP NSPECTION REQ VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE lb �— HEATS URCE GLAZI O S O BUILDING Z5 PLAN ICHECK NO: v ED DATE PLUMBING �— / MECHANICAL 10 '+ THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC GRADING/FILL _ DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE J SEPARATE PERMISSION. C�� � STATE SURCHARGE w PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS n PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS ENG. REVIEW FEES SO SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION to "APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS t/f ENG. INSPECTION FEE IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF LANDSCAPING 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND INSPECTION FEE CC ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY a RECEI = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT c J DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE = NOR LIMIT IN ANYWAY THE CITY'SABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION." RECEIPT TOTAL AMOUNT DUE r 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SIGNATUR (OWNER OR GE DATE SIGNE (425) fOIALS, SIGNATURE D l fo 22 0 / 771-0220 R EASED BY DATE ATT NTION EXT033 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC,SECTION 109 FAX ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW - INSPECTOR PINK - OWNER - GOLD -ASSESSOR 5/98. s FIECO COMPANY IN . PO BOX 31228 SEATTLE, WA 98103 (206) 547-8347 BILL TO LIZ NELSON PO BOX 404 EDMONDS, W 98020 Invoice DATE INVOICE NO. 7/30/2002 15773 JOB LOCATION 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WA 98020 JOB NUMBER TERMS REP PURCHASER SELLER 9990 DUE ON RECEIPT DR ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT L/T ATTEMPT TO LOCATE UNDERGROUND HEATING OIL TANK 125.00T SUBTOTAL OF CHARGES 125.00 CITY OF EDMONDS SALES TAX 8.9% 11.13 THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Please include job number and invoice number on your check. Total $136.13 JUL-Lb-LbVOL 110:49 AN GIGRICH 2O63610992 i INVOICE:Q2=1 JOB: Fff.rn ADDRESS: 18118 OLYWIC V W D /FnmownS i-s TANK SIM: DEPTH BELOW SURFACE: TANK DIAMETER: I XQUID, LAY OF TANK: GROUND COVER: DATE OF LOCATION: 07m= i a mk,;:v I ki 94, : 1 !► ; !1 !1� EVERY RPP MT IS MADE TO BE AS ACCURATE AS PO&SIBLE WHEN DETECTING FOR IJNI)ERGROUND UB1EC1 S. BECAUSE OF FLUCTUATIONS CAUSED BY VARIOUS SOIL CONDITIONS ANDu�Oit OTHER METAL OBJNCo IN CLOSE js. 1'LOKUCATXllVllTYIONSO6K H SVAOBIHCTS ANMR OBSTRUCTIONS R13,�'IR)CTM 113E OF LOCATE EQuwNENT; OIL TANK ICE,ID WIU, A(XEPT NO WIM TPy FOR MISTAKES, ERRORS, OR OMISSIONS MADE IN OUR REPORT. P.02 4 , rst. 189v Date: To: Subject: Transmitting 10 0 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Letter of Transmittal June 19, 1997 Elizabeth Nelson Critical Areas Checklist Copy of the completed Critical Areas Checklist For Your Information: XX As you requested: For your -file: - XX Comment: This completed Critical Areas Checklist is a site specific determination, not a project specific determination. .You must bring in a copy of the completed critical areas checklist with any permit application, or your application will be rejected. Permit applications include Building permits, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivisions, Variances, Applications to the ADB land use applications, or any other development permit applications. Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane M. Cunningham, Planning Secretary • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan .1 , 41 ,�0, Pllw m am 419 � ' REl :� KEYSTONE BLOCK( KEYSTONE BLOCK i .- 1`. %:l 4 .,t s N � � t Description C J� r �C��V S By gM Date � D� � � L, rJ S l g ! 3 Checked Date ENGINEERING Oc yM0/4 r! G�. Scale Sheet No. �- 250 4th Ave. South Project lob No. Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 • 0 �N��E x I oil II a' I !6; 1 _ F Aa _ PARKING STRIP. APIwi 8� w Y E Q _ e awPlc Hnv GRID a ---DO rn v a�avc�ma cam �X�i u n n u ac r �o=owoin DG7 Z M u „ � cn N N m I v m m <3C 3� oM T Zq CA. oC p n Ln N 1 low STREET FILE CITY OF ED:MONIDS CIVIC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT Cali PRbspect 6-1107 when work Is ready.for Inspection.. (No Inspec- tions Saturday, Sunday. or holidays.) N0� 9 SIDE SEWER PERMIT ADDRESS .................... 183:L8...Q.lym..pi G..V eia Drive ............................................................................................. OWNER ........ :... arde... T...... Swenson ........................................ CONTRACTOR.... Edmonds --Underground Perllission is granted .....AST` l_.11.__.._ 1 19 5§ for ........................ days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer with City Scwers in accordance with application on file and governing ordinances. ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING: NOTE No. 1—The owners of the property may obtain a permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct side sewer In street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been Inspected. NOTE No. 2—Obtain full Information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit: N No. 3—Top of side sewer must have at Is 30 Inches coverage at property line and 12 Inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%. FN-.. No bends 1n grade sharper than % will be permitted. NOTE No. 4—Trenches in street must be seater settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failuredue to Improper work which may develop within one year of completion. Nr'—t No. 5—It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for In the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its appur- tenances except to insert the pipe into the wye. ADDRESS TAX ACC( BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):r�:J�a _ z/` c� COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: "G �"' DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver tudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: pwel� DRAINAGE PLAN DATED PARKING AGREEMENTS DA EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) SOILS REPORT DA STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DA BLOCK: a LATEMPOSTsTomiAStreet File Checklist,doc ..fi..4+: rr.....'•,r......ri .�- :^,.I.-.,...-,"4h,. _.--aF .,�..+Tv'-.r .. �,nrll 4',�.: ,. +u ^+v.J. ..A.I..iF. '•Y WNr.w.nl'�'!ti' � � � i f _ - 1r r .-w, y. City. of Edmonds Permit.No:w0 -GtJT f RIGHT—OF—WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: 2 is o Address or Vicinity of Construction: Work (be specific C. Contractor: ��a Lam-,., 2�4� Mailing Address: / 5-2, i State License #: 1%= %1 �' N e5 / S D D D. Building Permit # (if applicable): on- w5 E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Multi -Family INSPECTOR: F. PAVEMENT.CUT: CONCRETE CI IT! ❑ Subdivision P-'§ingle Family ImI x'I'L lfiuLm Phone: -7 �/ - -'2 7.2't/ Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): ❑ -City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ .Other 8 YES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF CUT "l N X �6 ❑ YES ❑ NO" INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims "of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, .that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceediogs including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP, AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF, ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shallbe in accordance with City regulations as required by "the "City Engineer. Every flagger • must be trained ,as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration- is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or. City - approved material prior,to the end of the workday —NO EXCEPTIONS. i ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit,application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555), PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND,THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS /lam --- Date: 2, T Signature: (Contractor or Agent) FOR,CITY USE ONLY Approved by; t "` (i� d� Right of way Fee:. Time Authorized: Void After ; . r �k' l -•1 l�_ �'3 � �D�ysrvptlon Fee/Fund 111: Special Conditions: 841 % 00hf!i'1` .f "' Restoration Fee: Fl.l � ll z S Total Fee: r S . Receipt No: 2 f Issued by: UPON •COMPLETION OF ,PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 1.8.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE P 25-771-0220, Ext. 1326 FINAL APPROVAL OFPERMITTED WORK: DATE: Inspector's Signature For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. NO WORK SHALL l3�GIN NRIOR TO NI?ItMII ISSUANCI '.� pf. F';' ._y . ....-� .. t� � �ti ¢ •'v A,.:J 1 �'C_ .hl. :�r'� ��-e. c. ,i•- .,-.�Vt.�gt Pk ^q !- � ��a`` '•� � S i ".r t f x � � ,tip°'., � "�, f N, City of Edmondsa i i rILCPermit No: RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date:\`' 5' /9-03 . A. Addressor Vicinity of Construction: B. Type of Work (be specific): ^} C. Contractor: 1' ' % l C CY 1 Contact Mailing Address: '7C3 � �Cxns�_ '-'/�.1 Phone: �C( 10 ` V"23q State License.#:,; L 1- Q V Liability Insurance:. Bond:, $ ­ D. Building Permit #,(if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. Commercial Subdivision . .Y ' , VERIZON; P - VWD ❑ ❑ ❑` City Project ❑ EUC,(PUD S ) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: OW F. PAVEMENT CUT: M YES El NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE'CUT: • , ❑ YES ❑ NO 3 INDEMNITY.- Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds'harmless. from 71 injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or .unforeseen; that may" be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments 'or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including.defense costs and;attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. 4 THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City. Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by, (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying. completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to'be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt.or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday = NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets,of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE .ATALL' TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS - k!n Signature: �ti t . �. Dater (Contractor or Agent) \ ' UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: Olc%rtc out , j?e ,rnl DATE iolzro/o� 1 pector's Signature JLO1�iV(S For inspection'requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. NO WORK SFIALL 13f:GIN PRION TO P[;RMIT ISSUANCr N �•yN y�o \'�� S s 890,091 v e m to �i-� c r o=n 1� `77je 0 • � •s� 6Ib ►1tiN �� S ,rOj� � 51•NO '��E p�� gl 9��E �V•+ P � i •Q _� - 5 \yg2 20' ESMT� e5rn uwje a•yrt j (s el �ey5 ''Y b", �qN b � Q it1� Id o 1 _ o- ,• a mqa Cbb. C11- ti �b fig✓ ,,di��Q�� • •�,3 7� •'J'ua h 9� etrSe rg .� �84Z7 4�W 4 at- G S,eeo qM /c,, Sit—, \ 12 3d 1-02M on3►+n a �aonn a anon .� N �Q tr-OZM C?- 01f3Hn OdOt! 3NVI 3N0 a VL-02MN- 0 • e CHANNELIZING DEVICE SPACING (FEET) TAPER TANGENT 20 1 40 rho rt� coo LEGEND '.f WORK AREA • 28" TRAFFIC CONE —�► EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW SZ. SIGN LOCATION FLAGGING STATION PROTECTIVE VEHICLE ® OR WORK VEHICLE Notes: 1. All signs and spacing shall conform to the MUTCD and City of Edmonds specs. 2. Work zone is 100' w/o c/I 86 PL W & 18' n/o c/I Olympic View DR 3. Flaggers will control alternating one-way traffic. 4. Alert affected residents 5: Channelizing devices are 28" cones. 6. Tapers will be 50' - 100' and must contain at least 6 devices. 7. All signs are 48" x 48" B/O unless otherwise specified. Ao** oW H18ON ~o Z fn Pilchuck Contractors, Inc. Job #106093494 10 Feb 03 Sheet 1 / 1 J. BUSS 'National Barricade Co 1 --V N. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. �WM775.�1• December 12, 2001 Project No. KE01369A Ms. Elizabeth Nelson P.O. Box 404 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0404 Subject: City of Edmonds Plan Review Comments 18318 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Nelson: n RECEIVE DEVELOCiPMENT OF �" Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed this letter in response to the comments made by Lyle Chrisman, City of Edmonds, in his fax to Kathi St. Peter on November 19, 2001. AESI's response to the four items in the November 19, 2001 fax is summarized below. 1. The pump, as specified on AESI's plans, is a 1/2 hp, TEEL model 4RK57. Pump performance data is attached to this letter. 2. The pump has been moved to a separate catch basin, which is shown on the revised plans. 3. The alarm panel is to be installed in the residence garage. 4. The pump will be connected to a chain to allow for easy removal for maintenance. We have enjoyed working with you on this project and trust this report will meet your current needs. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Melissa A. M gnuson, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer wnsyi�c O Sf0 TrTtG�� hAL 1XV01ES Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Engineer MAM/af - KE01369A3 - PR0JECTS\2001369\KE\WP - W2K Corporate Office • 91 1 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirl.land, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fay 425 827-5424 West Sound Office • 179 Madrone Lane North • Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 • Phone 206 780-9370 • Fax 206 780-9438 V . U CU tU O . CL C.N. L J I � LL 6 Z U N • a rn . 0 a as - CL N . N C U , L N W •o 'U O Q • STREET FILE MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 1997 To: File PC-97-284 From: Meg Gruwell, Planner Re: Nonconforming Building at 18318 Olympic View Drive The applicant, Elizabeth Nelson, shows in her plans, dated 8/27/97, that she is proposing to remodel her existing home at 18318 Olympic View Drive as it currently stands. The value of the home according to our Metroscan records is $64,300 and the estimate for repair work is $100,000. As this is greater than 50 percent of the value of the home, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 17.40.020.F requires that the ') building be constructed in conformance with the provisions of the ECDC. The home currently has a nonconforming setback to the steep slope, as generally shown on the site plan of the above plans. ECDC Section 20.15B.040.2 allows for "remodeling, reconstruction or replacement of legal structures and improvements that do not meet the requirements of this chapter but which are in existence" when the Critical Areas ordinance was passed in 1992 "provided, that such activity does not increase the potential impact to critical areas or their buffers; or, in the case of an existing structure or improvement in geologically hazardous areas, does not create the potential of soil movement or risk of harm or damage to existing uses or development, or to the public safety." The plans submitted do not show any changes to the foundation of the structure, and show no construction which appears to be outside of the existing footprint. The file shows that the addition to the west obtained a building permit in 1971 (BP#710433), which received a final inspection, so the structure was legally created before the passage of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Planning staff are prepared to issue a Conditional Waiver to the critical areas study requirement, provided no work will be done outside the footprint of the existing house, and no heavy equipment will be operated to the west of the existing home. As the work will be reconstruction or replacement of legal structures created before 1992, city staff can waive the requirements of the Critical Areas Chapter 20.15B. Because the house has been constructed in its current location, the slope has been disturbed up to that footprint already. Therefore, reconstructing the house in the same footprint, with no heavy equipment to the west of the home, is in conformance with the provisions of the ECDC, and can be done even though the 'repair expenses are more than 50 percent of the value of the home. • FILE S-TWIT CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant jnc.18°�� October 1, 1997 Mr. Galen Holmquist 23632 Highway 99, #F311 Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Nelson Repair @ 183,18 Olympic View Drive, Plan Check #97-284 As you may be aware, the City of Edmonds is required to enforce the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code (LTBC) as adopted by the State Building Code Council. The UBC does not require the local jurisdiction to conduct pre -inspections of structures in order to determine required repairs or code upgrades. The UBC does require that the City be provided with plans, specifications, engineering calculations and reports that accurately reflect the proposed work. For the Nelson project, the City was provided with two licensed professional engineer's reports that specified some known, and some assumed, structural deficiencies in an existing 79 year old residence. It is apparently unclear to all parties involved --the owner, contractor and insurance agent, which structural deficiencies are required to be "upgraded" or changed to current code. In order to determine this for any project, the City typically requires that a licensed engineer submit a report that includes recommendations for repairs. The same engineer will review the repair plans and provide the City with a letter stating that the plans have accurately incorporated all report recommendations. The City is not required to investigate the validity of the proposed repairs from the engineers' report. However, if the plans show that the repair work effects life - safety or energy code requirements, the City would be obligated to require that the plans be changed to meet current minimum code requirements. I believe we are all working toward helping Ms. Nelson in her endeavor to repair her home however, at this time it seems premature for the City to be specific on required "code upgrades" since repair plans have not yet been submitted for review. Thank you, r• fK' eannine L. Graf Building Official cc: Ms. Nelson • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Inc. 1890 • SIREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant October 15, 1997 Galen D. Holmquist Paradise Construction 23632 Hwy. 99, F-311 Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. Holmquist: This letter is in response to your letter dated October 7, 1997, regarding Elizabeth Nelson's home at 18318 Olympic View Drive. You state that you understand that this house is nonconforming, per Edmonds ordinance 17.40.020. This is true, in that our Critical Areas ordinance, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B was enacted since the house was built. This chapter seeks to protect the public from losses due to steep slope failure and other hazards of critical areas. ECDC Section 20.15B.110 requires a 50 foot buffer from the top or toe of a steep slope, unless a geotechnical engineer can convince the Planning division that reducing the buffer to 10 feet would not have any adverse impact. A building setback of 15 feet is required to this buffer by ECDC Section 20.15B.080.C., for a total setback to the building of between 25 feet and 65 feet. Although no critical areas study has yet been submitted to determine the actual top of slope, as required by Critical Areas Determination CA-97-90, a top of slope has been indicated on the site plan in building permit application PC-97-284. The west addition appears to be 23 feet from the top of the slope, and the portion of the house further east appears to be 38 feet to the top of the slope at its closest point. To determine the actual distances we will need a critical areas study done by a licensed land surveyor. If the surveyor determines that the setback from the top of the slope to the house is less than 25 feet, that portion of the structure within 25 feet will be considered nonconforming. If a geotechnical engineer submits a report stating that reducing the buffer to 10 feet will not result in any adverse impact, then the portion of the house further than 25 feet will be in conformance with the code. If a geotechnical engineer feels that more of a buffer is needed, then the portion of the structure not meeting the buffer and building setback required will also be considered nonconforming. The value of the home, according to our Metroscan records is $64,300. ECDC 17.40.020 allows nonconforming buildings to be maintained and continued, so long as the degree of nonconformity is increased. ECDC 17.40.020 further specifies that in the event that a nonconforming building is destroyed or damaged in an amount equal to 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in conformance with the provisions of the ECDC. It follows that any restoration of the building • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • Galen D. Holmquist October 15, 1997 Page 2 which costs $32,150 or more will have to be done in conformance with the provisions of the ECDC. The only portion of the building which is affected by the nonconforming provisions is within the area that is in the required steep slope buffer and building setback. If the building is torn down to the foundation, all of the building will have to be in conformance with the required critical areas buffers and setbacks. If the west addition will not need any remodeling which will impact the critical areas, ECDC Section 20.15B.040.A.2 would allow the remodeling. I would interpret this to mean reroofing, residing, or interior work. However, if the framing has to be replaced, it would. appear to be major work with potential adverse impacts, and any replacement would have to meet the required setbacks. You also asked, in your facsimile today, about the existing permits and plans. After checking with the Building Official, I understand that the permit has had correction notices sent, and we are awaiting information to be submitted. It will continue in that status until corrections are submitted. If the owner wishes to withdraw their permit application upon receipt of this letter, the city would then consider the plans null and void. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Meg ruwell Planner cc: File PC-97-284 • )1.)[11 L �►. r(i>jCyrs, �!C)�c�:: ConFttltittfi Etighiccrs May 16, 1997 Property loss Consultants, Inc. Attn: Mr. Jerry Plowman P.O. Box 131 Arlington, WA 98223 Subject: Elizabeth Nelson Residence z18318 Olympic View Drive ; Edmonds, WA Dear Mr. Plowman, STRIET FILE At your request I again visited the Nelson residence on May 1, 1997. At the Site I met Mr. Galen D. Holmquist of Paradise Construction, Inc. Mr. Holmquist removed wall finishes to allow observation of the wall framing to confirm suspected framing deficiencies discussed in our April 7, 1997 report. Mr. Holmquist removed the wood paneling and sheathing on the east side of the living room between the bedroom door and the kitchen door. Surface removal revealed a rather large framing opening, including the hall door and the adjacent pocket for the sliding door. There Is no header above the opening although the wall is a bearing wall supporting the original building roof and the east addition roof, There are only single studs adjacent to the openings. The studs between the door openings are sometimes very widely spaced. Mr. Holmquist also removed a small section of paneling above the north window of the west wall. The opening for the window is approximately 6' wide. There Is no header above the window. We believe that these illustrations, both of which are in bearing walls and which would be expected to have 4x10's or larger headers, indicate the widespread nature of framing deficiencies within the wall framing of the original part of the house. We also observed more closely the condition of the perimeter foundations of the original portion of the house and the east addition. We verified that there is no continuous perimeter concrete foundation at the original house. Concrete has been crudely placed along the base of the wall to prevent pest intrusion Into the crawlspace, but the perimeter foundation of the exposed portions of the perimeter is post and beam. 11-n;t 600 liuildinj!, Buhr 620, 600 Srt•%%arr Sticct, Scattiv, \C1a5hinkrnn 98101 1200448-8444 I Ax (?V6)7,N-M7 Property loss Consultants, Inc. Elizabeth Nelson Residence May 16, 1997 Along the north and south walls of the east addition, we observed what appeared to be a very small continuous strip footing, approximately 4" thick and perhaps 8" wide. The top of the footing is about 4" below the exterior soil elevation. It appears that post end beam framing bears on the footing. A cement asbestos board exterior finish extends below the ground surface to the top of the footing. On the east side of the east addition, the foundation is a concrete foundation wall. The wall thickness Is not known. A concrete footing projects outside the foundation wall. The projection is about 4" thick and extends about 4" outside the well. The top of the footing is about 2" below the exterior grade. The bottom of the footing Is about 6" below the exterior grade. None of the foundations observed appear to conform to Code requirements. Demolition and reconstruction of the original (center) part of the house without removal of the east addition would be very difficult and expensive. The remaining east addition would block access for materials and equipment. The repairs required to bring the original house and east addition of the Nelson residence up to current Code standards appear to be so extensive and widespread throughout the roof framing, wall framing, floor framing, and foundations that we believe the cost of repairs would significantly exceed the cost to demolish these parts of the house and reconstruct the house meeting current Code requirements. The west addition is a deck at the main floor level with two basement bedrooms enclosed below the deck. It was constructed much more recently and probably comes much closer to meeting current codes. However, wall and ceiling finishes in the bedrooms may need to be removed to allow investigation into the code compliance of the addition. The west foundation and walls of the original house support the west addition roof deck joists. Replacement of the original wall and footings will require temporary support of the roof deck. Demolition of the original house and reconstruction of the new portions of the house will need to be done more carefully and expensively to' attempt to •save the two existing bedrooms. Saving the two bedrooms would constrain the design and construction of the new house. The value of the bedrooms probably does not justify the increased demolition and reconstruction costs or the constraint on the design. The opinions and recommendations contained in this report are based on visual field observations performed as part of this investigation and on information provided by the owner and other parties. Except as discussed, no physical testing or subsurface Investigations have been performed and no calculations have been made to determine Page 2 of 3 I Property Loss Consultants, Inc. Elizabeth Nelson Residence May 16. 1997 the adequacy of the structural system or its compliance with accepted bullding code requirements. Our conclusions are professional opinions derived In a manner consistent with the level and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in this area. The accuracy of the conclusions Is limited by the extent of investigation requested and the accuracy and completeness of the Information provided by others. Conclusions are subject to modification if additional Information Is presented. This report does not constitute a design, nor does It address any portions of the structure other than those areas mentioned. This report does not provide any warranty, expressed or Implied, for any portion of the existing structure. This report does not address any non structural systems such as electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating or mechanical systems. Thank you for utilizing the services of Smith & Huston, Inc. to assist you in this Investigation. We hope this report provides the information needed with regard t0 the damage claim at the Nelson residence. If you have any questions or need further Information please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Smith & Huston, Inc. Theodore E. Smith, PE, SE EXPIRES 1/2Y Pago 3 of 3 �. `�il�lilliill.�l l► � � . �.. p1l 11 IOIISultifig .41Rinc•crs April 7, 1997 Property Loss Consultants, Inc. Attn: Mr. Gerald Plowman P.O. Box 131 Arlington, WA 98223 Subject: Elizabeth Nelson Residence 18318 Olympic -View Drive Edmonds, WA Dear Mr. Plowman, S-MEET FILE At your request I have reviewed the engineering reports by Cary Kopccynski and Company dated January 10, 1997 and by Pacific Engineering Technologies, Inc. dated February 7, 1997. 1 also visited the site with you on March 13, 1997 to observe the conditions of the residence. My observations concur almost entirely with those of the Pacific Engineering report. That report clearly and thoroughly discusses the conditions I observed and drew valid conclusions with regard to repair concepts and likely Building Department requirements. One item 1 noticed that differs from their report is with regard to the eastward lean of the east wall of the east addition. They stated that the wall was tilted approximately 2" prior to the storm as evidenced by finishes of intersecting wall and cabinets being cut to fit the tilt. At the time of my site visit, it appeared that there had also been a relatively small; perhaps Yz ", additional outward lean of the east wall in the kitchen area. While the adjacent cupboard seemed tight. against the wallboard at the top, it was separated by perhaps K " at the bottom of the cupboard. The concave curvature of the gypsum wallboard surface suggests that the wall framing may have been pushed further eastward at the top, while the sheetrock in the area may have been restrained from movement by attachments to the cupboard or the adjacent north wall of the kitchen. I also noticed a serious crack in' the chimney. The crack is within the attic space, just above the original roof line at the northeast corner of the original house. The crack appears to be recent. It is likely to he related to the lateral movements of the roof and ceiling discussed in the other engineering reports. Tile Pacific Engineering report noted an eastward lean of the garage. We also observed a considerable southward lean of both the north and south garage walls. I saw no indication that the movement was recent. You asked for additional discussion with regard to cnde violations in the floor framing and foundation. Observed and suspected code violations in the original huilding include: IMil, ni,_, 161r O.Y. nil S1,.n:ui rig, i, . iil,..".:„11 0111101 (200,148-84,18 • A Property Loss Consultants, Inc. Elizabeth Nelson Residence April 7, 1997 1) None of the roof framing meets current codes with the possible exception of the glulam beam over the center of the living room. 2) It is likely that headers over doors and windows are inadequately sized for current codes. 3) Exterior walls probably do not provide adequate insulation to meet current energy codes. 4) The existing wood studs, presumably 2x4's, may or may not provide adequate strength to resist vertical loads and lateral wind loads perpendicular to the wall. It is particularly likely that studs adjacent to door and window openings do not have adequate strength. 5) It is likely that the 30 floor joists and 4x4 floor beams do not meet current code requirements and all will need to be reinforced or replaced. 6) As discussed in the Pacific Engineering report, the foundations appear to have been placed on soft ground. In many cases, the wood posts are in contact with the soil. This is a code violation. Replacement of all the footings will probably be required. 7) It is very likely that the walls do not meet current requirements for providing resistance to lateral forces due to wind and earthquake. Tile Kopceynski report refers to removing the siding and sheathing the exterior of the building with plywood. This is an effort to address stability and lateral force resisting inadequacies. The damage caused by the snow load increases the threat to occupants in the event of high winds or earthquake. The movement and separation of the roof components decreases the ability of the roof to support itself and additional live load. The existing roiling joists were already minimally supported and the bearing on the supporting walls along the joint has been decreased by the separation. Although the roof did not completely collapse when subjected to a very heavy snow load, relatively small 9dditional movement could cause more severe consequences including ceiling collapses. We could not clearly observe the floor framing of the east addition. It appears that the east addition construction is similar to the original house. It is likely that the roof framing, wall framing, floor joists, floor beams, and foundations are similarly inadequate. The crawlspace beneath the east addition did not appear to provide adequate clearance in accordance with the code. If the original house is replaced or upgraded to meet current codes and standards, it is likely that the additions will also be required to he upgraded. If the floor and foundations of thA original building anrllnr the east addition need to be hroirght tip to current code, cnrnplete demolition and reconstruction will probably be less expensive than attempting to reinforce the existing building strrrchire. It would be more difficult to Page 2 of 3 r. Property Loss Consultants, Inc. Elizabeth Nelson Residence April 7, 1997 reconstruct the original lionise if the east addition remained in place. Access from tine street would be restricted by the remaining structure. The west addition did not appear to have suffered significant damage as a result of the snow, although some moisture staining was observed at the Past edge of the west addition where it adjoins the original house. We also observed ants and corrosion of the framing anchors at the ledger in this area. The west addition is believed to have been constructed within the last five years and presumably comes much closer to meeting current codes. It is likely that this part of the house could remain in place during reconstruction of the other portions of the house. However, it would undoubtedly require some repairs like deck resurfacing and flashing. This is a relatively small and simple area of the house. It may not be practical to constrain the design and reconstruction of the house for the sake of saving this relatively small west addition. The opinions and recomrnendatinns contained in this report are based on visual field observations performed as part of this investigation and on information provided by the owner and other parties. No physical testing or subsurface investigations have been performed and no calculations have been made to determine the adequacy of the structural system or its compliance with accepted building code requirements. Our conclusions are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in this area. Tile accuracy of the conclusions is limited by the extent of investigation requested and the accuracy and completeness of the informati6n-V rovided by others. Conclusions are subject to modification If additional information is presented. This report does not constitute a design, nor does it address any portions of the•structure other than those areas mentioned. This report does not provide any warranty, expressed or implied, for any portion of the existing structure. This report does not address any non-structural systems such as electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating or mechanical systems. Thank you for utilizing the services of Smith & Huston, Inc. to assist you in this investigation. We hope report this provides the information needed with regard to the damage claim at the Elizabeth Nelson residence. If you have any questions or need further information please feel free to contact us. o-AL.2-Am Sincerely, Smith & Huston, Inc. Theodore E. Smith, PE, SE EXPIRES 1/23/ y Page 3 of 3 STAND*D DRAINAGE DETEN*0N SYSTEM -� OWNER CALC BY: 11 LY55A M#6,1 lbaw, ADDRESS 31g OLZ"'C PHONE: - - 77 0 DATE: l 4 10 r 0 *•***DESIGN DATA***** 1MPERV U AREA PIPE DIA scs • 214 ,►.�cH ��r ,N DETENTION PIPE LENGTH FINISHED G ,^ r.L'. MiN1MUM .3X TO IX SLOPE UPPER CATCH BASIN CONTROL CATCH BASIN r SYSTEM CROSS SECTION W. 2'X2'X6'.DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL FROM CONTROL CB 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK XISTING GRADE FROM CONTROL LID OF Mi CONC UBOX FOR DR RISER JTLET CONTROL IN• RAE11/E'D JUL 3 0 2001 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONOS OUP TFLOV TRENCH, MIN Hr LONG. I I PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL PERFgF PIPE W/ ENN��D CAPS DD 1 RIPRAP 0C,7'LET PRIOHTO PLACEMENTNOF VA4HEDI DRAIN ROCK RUNOFF SPREADER - TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: I. Call Engineering Division g g (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. APPROVED BY 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the R/7 /v/ responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice DATE ■B NORTH SOUND DESIGN 8122 206th SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 425.771-5283 Cob6-reu6rio sir.5 PO eloAsr- Q o►aE LebJE 5-V 4 Iiiirw/J oo 01 Zoo' REGEF.:...: JUL 3 0 2001 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS L---------------- ------------------- ------------- J I I �NI4ti1�L 1�XI�S Mwhih� Wn;.ti+.�e. In 2W. M 3W GwwWYq llgrfw.OgArwt .- V_ 1. HoW Ilrrt tA"40 N. prwkl i ' W wqA h.p.r gwhwt'N'Kij�l w ft d". 7. q wrtw. .tDrA .N. h .WOM hwli on. n.tim, .dray. t "p, b rA1.0 �."wgNN 4m" a—td b.M1I w •ijll w M.W. 4. Ch.— Wry 0..1[.. U. w b w. rides. IO . ..dWft WIht Kev: r•t,,.r ••G..�.Irr.y anon o06- LA 0,6� wrl.to .jam ///JJJ 'o Alp rklU Awi C= f•� "�L," APPROVED AS NOTED J BY E GINEERING'/5�" l� Date: --�oILA F--. 13 a 18 FA% "Staullach 004/004 r. _ ,.;r ..a..... APPLICATION OR PIPE X.UIY>E CROSSING OR LONG&INAL ch Company „ APPLICANTS TAX I.D. NOJSS# .. Services ECV IV F 1V ID Riverside Dr., Ste. 10� STREET oit Worth, TX 76137 ��� 2 Z I SUN 2 /�� � 5/5 60 a 90 yao '.r T �p�NTEA We submit for your approval aria o owing specifications for a. pipe line we propose to build across THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANI'A FE RAILWAY COMPANY right -of way, as shown on enclosed sketch. .Legal name of company or municipality who will own the pipeline £1-.1246LTH -N F45d.& State in which incorporated tU k.M1VZL—MV-a = Knot incorporated, correct name of owners or all partners: &.A-eA%� ►Sa SetJ ;; : . = . Correct mailing a «v 1 ?O_ ? ,- �10�( ad)/110 Al P5- /: •��1 �f �a0 Zip Code 4$a7.rn Type of Encroachman ZCivssing _Longitudinal r'J tsc one 6a ro rartaz quit Location of encroachment N`, i/4 r3 . Twsp . Z� .. Rng ae MP + Name of nearest town on Railroad E%mo,�aCounty State w hs�aiwemtl`` Name of nearest roadway crossing Railroad Within lirrats of public road or street ❑ Yes No If yes, dbtance from center line of road or street Width of public road or street N k ft. CARRIER:CASINO Contents to be handled through pipe crrcst�--1 wo.-,TM 09449N6Z Emergency Contact: Q, / ,6we7?"", IleC4sed Emergency Telephoner Length of pipe on Railroad Co. property (Plastic pipe must be encased full width of right of way) Lis & R - inside diameter of pipe 3. I Z. ia. Pipe Material Specification dt grade (Min, yield strength casing 35,000 psi.) 5�R. 15. $ Wall Thickness (Min. wall thickness of casing pipe under 14 in.-0.188 in. E-80 Loading) WIN in. M. in. Actual working pressure h0 psi Type of joint - (mechanical or welded type) Longitudinal Joint Factor ►u Coating Distance Base of rail to top of pipe ' (Flaaunable, contents, steam, water or non-flammable - min. 5 1/2 ft. under main track.) (Uncased. gaseous products - min_ 10' under track) Minimum ground cover on Railroad Co. property (min. 3 fQ rJ k Cathodic protection casing -(flammable substance) N Type of insulators or supports . ��k Size Space Vumber of vents VZ&A- Size Height above ground .- (Flammable substances require 2 vents) jLrd o Wethod of crossing: Jacking N Iwo-,CUS&NG Tyre iN v- ch N/h- Bore Only (If trenched - Railroad furnish flagman at appEcant's expense.) (If bored or jacked - Jacking Pit location minimum 30 fL fiom centerline of nearest track) Pit must not be open mot than 48 hours. Also, it must be protcctcd when not in use. does pipeline support oil of gas well? ❑ Yes >rNo Y�' • � If yes, advise distance the well is from Railway ta� R. Name of w�11,. Was this service requested by BNSF? Yes or o Circle one) If yes, who requested relephone N of Requestor N/A Auached to this sheet is location plan and detail sketch. Sketch shows tic -down measurement to- centerline of nearest road :Tossing, bridge or other railroad structrae. Please authorize us to proceed with this installation or advise whaf care necessary tv neet your specifications. Signed: 1. - X PritrtName: C/ c Title: lzltifG/ivk I , Telephone: NL f - 41.7 - 7 7 7/ STANDA)* DRAINAGE DETENTAV SYSTEM -� WORKSHEET OWNER �i l -^cN ' n1v-1�1j tF • r , - � /^gy CALL B 1p : -117"155A /nA6N uSaw 1? f_ 455dc101rri-0 t±,g0rO &4)fWZC6S yK ADDRESS 1'631'K OLYtiga VIGw PHONE: Y"- 911- 7701 DATE: 6 Li yl al *****DESIGN DATA***** IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA PIPE LG ORIFICE 3�1°ll sa. Fr.. Zit ,NcH _23 Far 31J mc.N DETENTION PIPE LENGTH LOCKING LID FINISHED G=ININIM"L041 STYPICAL) 6 MIN tt q TIGHTLCONSUBOX FOR RjS OF 0 OUTLET r OUTLET CONTROL _. MIN. UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFICE .CONTROL CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 2'X2'X6' DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL FROM CONTROL CD 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK XISTING GRADE FROM CONTROL OUTLET - HASHED ROCK OUTFLOW TREKCK MIN 10' LONG. PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL PERFN��PIPE W/ ENNED CAPS t R - PRIORHTO PLACEMENT OF WASHEDIDRAIN ROCK RIPRAP OUTLET RUNOFF SPREADER. TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED T1O DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. APPROVED BY 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated is the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice DATE ■ STANDAW DRAINAGE DETENT/�11/ SYSTEM a WORKSHEET OWNER �i-� "'� l�l�' t CALL BY: ft"6519 IytA6iyW avv, t' f ADDRESS W3) K oty" Re Vl �Q PHONE: z - Q 27 - 70 ) �e-ro>,os _ 11ll� DATE: g b yI,9 *****DESIGN DATA IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA PIPE LG ORIFICE iz&5cs . . ' 2-J4we B rveT- 3/j4 Nca I I FROM CONTROL CB • DETENTION PIPE LENGTH LOCKING LID FINISHED �oe�r .(TYPICAL) �`L/ r.L' HINIHUH ' UPPER CATCH BASIN .3X TO IX SLOPE *A1 N%P or CONCBOX OROR OUTLET CONTROL 79HIN. rernrr ., ..CONTROL CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 2'X2'X6',DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL 12'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4CRUSHED ROCK I . / FROM CONTROL OUTFLOW TRENCH, MIN 10' LCNG. r L� PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL PERgFNN��PIPE M/ END CAtNPES� - - PRI0RHT0 PLACEMENT OF WASHED DRAIN ROCK RrpP orrrt,Er RUNOFF SPREADER - TRENCH F0077NG DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division C771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. APPROVED BY 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice DATE must be kept oven at all times. T "o C • 18 9 v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering September 5, 2001 RE: Engineering Drainage Requirement for Elizabeth Nelson Property 18318 Oly,mpi&View Drive, Permit 01-230 To Whom It May Concern: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The preferred option for meeting the engineering drainage requirement for the development at the subject property is to connect to the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad system. The only other (and less preferred) alternative is to pump to the City system and provide backup power to minimize the chance of drainage flow on the slope above the railroad. If the preferred alternative is chosen prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the City must verify that Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad has approved the connection to the drainage system on their right-of-way. If you have any questions regarding this requirement, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (-� r—L" DON FIENE, P.E. Assistant City Engineer DF/cmc DAMyDocumnts\Engax\DEVELOPWelson.01-230.1131W orated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 1hc.18o�� • • CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building - Engineering September 5, 2001 RE: Engineering Drainage Requirement for Elizabeth Nelson Property. 18318 Olympic View Drive, Permit 01-230 To Whom It May Concern: My GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The preferred option for meeting the engineering drainage requirement for the development at the subject property is to connect to the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad system. The only other (and less preferred) alternative is to pump to the City system and provide backup power to minimize the chance of drainage flow on the slope above the railroad. If the preferred alternative is chosen prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the City must verify that Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad has approved the connection to the drainage system on their right-of-way. If you have any questions regarding this requirement, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, . DON FIENE, P.E. Assistant City Engineer DFlcmc 11, DAMy Documents\En@see\DEVELOP\Nelson.01-230. 831tDV .dot00 YQ t2C'1' August1S90 ° Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Of EbAf 0 4- CITY OF EDMONDS Fs�i 1 s90 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Grading of 600+ cubic yards for a new single family residenceRECEIVED Proponent: City of Edmonds MAY 0 3 2002 DEVELOPIAENT SERVICES CTR. Location of proposal, including street address if any: 18318 Olympic View Drive CITY OF EDMONDS 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. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by September 11, 2001. Responsible Official: Kathleen Tavlor Position/Title: Planner Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: <0 U&2,,:P0 J XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than September 11, 2001, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave, Planning Manager to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on Ausaust 28, 2001, 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. STREET FILE Page 1 of 2 NELSONDNS_2.DOC 6/27/01.SEPA - 4D Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section XX Burlington Northern Railroad 2900 Bond Department of Ecology Everett, WA 98201 P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Applicant: Elizabeth Nelson XX Department of Fish & Wildlife P. O. Box 932 Edmonds, WA 98020 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Agent: Kati St. Peter 8122 — 206 h St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Attachments pc: File No. PC-01-230 SEPA Notebook �. ram;,; ::r n;4ZI Page 2 of 2 NELSONDNS_2.DOC 6/27/01.SEPA St. 1 ATY OF EDMON S tee._.. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RECEIVED CITY C®PY RECEIVED SEP 15 2000 ,UN , 901 PERMIT COUNTER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. Purpose of Checklist: CITY OF EDMONDS The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Insbudions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if. there may be significant adverse impac L Use of checklist for nonprojed proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." I1V ADDTI'ION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND L Name of proposed project, if applicable: I Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone of applicanj and ��5- ?�6 --16 6-6 CHMMocua+ovva3 Par t of 44 rVMA 4. Date checklist prepared: LZ Li zo O S. Agency requesting.checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. L r' i (STAFF COMMENTS) & List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 2 of 24 CH=TJ)WI4 -" MASMRVWRA 4 10. List ag government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. M Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers nu this noap Location of the proposaL Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. (STAFF COMMENTS) CHKL' DMI-NOV-0Par 3 of24 MAVMWEA TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one)(a3rolling, hilly, steep slopesountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? . ..C. (STAFF. COMMENTS) (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or hi_story of ynstable soils in the immediate vicinity? N so, describe. ,'err Page 4 of 24 CHKLTJ)=4W-93 MASMWSA C. f. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. _ Could erosion occu" a result of clearing; consouction, or use? If so, generally desert AM $��8/Q; (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposfd measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts tope earth, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) L AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. �g (STAFF COMMENTS) Pages 3 af24 CWCI TDW1-NW-" MUMMA, c b. Am�there �any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? u so, generally describe. r (STAFF COMMENTS) C.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) ' 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state w at stream or r river it flows ' to (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over; in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, Qlefse describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected Indicate the source of fill material. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 af24 MWITMOLII M-0 MASIBRWU 0 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. . (STAFF COMMENTS) (S) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? 9 so, note location on the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? N so,- describe the. type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.. N� (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) Pap 7 of Z4 CHKLTAO - IOW". MASnRUM (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for- example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following cbemicals...; agricultural; etc. Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ c. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? N so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Par s ofza MAST %&nA' • 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: LX deciduous tree: tfiro aspen, other.evergreen tree•dar pine other shrubs l/ grm pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. \I/1...4 1--A .—A _.all 1... _...�.._....i ..� .aa..�..A• (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Par 9 424 MASIBRWU ft Proposed landscaping, use of native plants,.or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: I - (STAFF COMMENTS) S. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on ornear the site: 1, rtbird hawk, heron, eagl songbirds other., mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? N so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) rage to of 24 CHKLTMOCU-MV-03 MASISrtUM d. Proposed mpsures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Wouldyour project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? N so, generally (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measure reduce or control energy impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 11 of24 C=TD=-N0VAl MASMSPM 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Desc�riib-e special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 af24 CMMTDOL .Wv.o MASI8 USA (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. , i (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) & Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the -site and adjacent properties? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) PNp 13 of 24 canaroocu.rw -0 C. Describe any structures on the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What is the current zoning classification of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) E What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline„master plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 14 of Z4 CHKLT X)C U-NOVA3 MASTEKW6A L Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? 9 so, specify. (STAFF COMMENTS) L ApproAmately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approaigfately how many people would the completed project displace? (STAFF COMMENTS) L Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, N any: (STAFF COMMENTS) L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, V an . , n (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 15 af24 Cf MTA0C1fai0V-" MASIIRWIIA 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. N� (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building materials) proposed? _ Page 16 of 24 csnarnoca.xov� MAS(B OSA • • b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed mSasures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What tyke of light or glare will the proposal producer What time of day would ijmainly occur? (STAFF COMMENTS) L Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? v (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? AJ r", (STAFF COMMENTS) Par 17 of24 CWLTMOL114W43 MASISRVM d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace -any existing recreation uses?. If so, describe. �10 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the -project or applicant, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of u CHKLTAOLU4W-93 MASfERWU r • 0 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or neat to the site? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or neat to the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposidhneasures to reduce or control impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 19 of 24 CHKLTJ ocd4W-P3 MASMO ► 9 9 i b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? (STAFF COMMENTS) c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal, require any new roads. or streets, or improvements .to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 20 of 24 CMUM cv.trovas uws=WU t E How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumSs would occur. (STAFF COMMENTS) & Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example; fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) L Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: VA (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21. ef24 CAKIT Md-NOV-93- MASMSP8A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, atural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe, the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. A (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead. agency is relying on them to make its decision. /SD a Signature of Proponent Date Submitted Page 22 of 24 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general,'it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general teams. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; orproduction of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Z. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: rage 23 424 CHKLTDOL -NaV-0 MA9=%SMA . 1 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or 4. under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: S. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or sboreline.uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Page 24 of 24 CHKLTAOCU-NOVA3 I-. r :* ea XheckfiS 4 Va PER OWN% R7 - Flat:! less than 5-f6et elevation change over entire site. R611ing-.! slopes on site,generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30%.(a,vertjcRp, E I V E D rise of 10-feef'over a. horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). MAY 3 2002 Steep:,, grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical :O rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR_ CITY OF EDMONDS ------ Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8 Si "thidfl, Site is. m,'v.�ay floodplain_ of a water course. 9.1 Site contains a ek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? 0 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: For City Staff Use Only- 1. S.ite.is Zoned? :5 — 2- 2. SCS mapped soil type(s)? _1k-AX6AW e_-Un4d-6_ Q-xiU 16m, PC- 70*/6, 94avag-:5 3. Wetland inventory or C.A. map l indicates wetland -present on site? 4. ..tritical Areas inventorror CA. -map indicates Critical Area on site? 5., . $itewithiri designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? .6. 'Site, designaitedon the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? DETERMINATION- - sruDy REQUIRED CONDITIONAL WAIVER _ _ AE�?r`D•� d �„� uu��urur tv qe Hasa out uylany., , �,� :,�.r fwtl! re- -th "checklist make a 'r' a 3 a Yi a. i i > F / i t r person,preparing aDevelopment Perrrut sy� precursor site'visit and make a } A licatioii-_for`theCi pp Y ty'of Edmonds �, r �„ t deterrrunation of_the, subsequent steps' rior to his her submittal of a ` a ���:r?ecs ,9:rr� P /, j ' ry necessary to complete a development ., r developmentpermit-to the City �r licatiori :. r}'� permi 4 • 1 } u� 't app:. The purpose of�the Checklist; is to enable .J ,< 7. s: ;With a signed copy of this form, the City staff to:determine""whether any t' �'- �'�applicant should also submit a vicinity potential Critical Areas are 1.or may be map or plot plan for: individual lots of present on the subject -property.. The the parcel with enough detail that City information needed to complete the,, staff can find and identify'the subject.,_ Checklist should 6iYeasily`available'` parcels) In addition, the applicant from observations of the `site or data::include'other pertinent ' available at City Hall (Critical Areas,.,,;-`. p'utforination e. site pI _ (� an; topography_' inventories4; m� aps,, or soil surve ,s� ) "``'aiap etE),or'studies in conjunction P`,�i '`"t',''�.f .�t,�i5i�� • r. - S� �t rr (i J �,.. S •Fs th this Check`list'to assist staff in An applicant,,i his/her representative, f;trcompleting their preliminary must fill out the checklist, 'sign and "date 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: " Applicant Representative: YrqanW_ Name A 7' i�GLcJ Str ALddress Street Address City, State, ZIP City �honP e ._ Sc 2, 7i S' tare Date Signature ' Date r.4 r 1 �S'. .r..,. ... . . .. .... . .. � �ar�.. :�.,....-.._.'iL o,.,,. Y�ri....^it x r-.c...ir�r..�inti�.rYi.».s-x._...>•.-..u..:,i:. .s,...:.'cz~ ..._..r:..�;:J�.3......,.� � - _..z,.a:. ;. ,., . . ,... i� City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Nelson Determination #: LC A-97-90 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 18318 Olympic View Drive Property Tax Acct #: 5656-002-009-0.003 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection has revealed a site developed with a single family residence, and which slopes down steeply to the west from Olympic View Drive to the Burlington Northern Railroad right -of way which runs along the water of Puget Sound. The steep slopes, particular at the western end of the property appear to be are greater than 40% with a vertical elevation change of more than 20 feet. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is potentially a steep slope critical area on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the boundaries of this potential critical areas, the buffers and setbacks. For the steep slopes, a licensed surveyor must create a topographic map of the site which indicates all areas which slope 40% or more and have a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 40% slopes. The map must also show the location of the steep slope buffers and setbacks. . If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell Name . a ure June 19, 1997 Date AVMNIVM 11VHdSV 'X3 p ►- M a N Q dId1S JNlAdb'd � � i � � � � lei Ctf Q JP > S1161 N3.38084!',_i at 'r ^ rat -'R LU LLJ LJLJ ' VQJ Z r r n/ ub �0o ds:: i f LJLJ ca It_}� o co x . I �" ;\ ! cz . ` . II CL z 1 - c — - —� I . \ - • in v \ x I x zLLJ \_ MID R —SS— _ 8 w —SS — _Ss_ \ x LL � ' —s_s Jul NE 1/4, NE 1/4, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. LP 4.0' ELEV=180.5 4" DIA. ADS 0 0.5% OVERFLOW TO '► ' INFILTRATION TRENCH -' i m 1" PLASTIC CONDUIT TO GARAGE W/ POWER LINE m 2" (SCH 40) PVC SUMP PUMP HYDROMAIIC MODEL NO- SR-S (SEE NOTE BELOW) OR EQUAL soer- 33 TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN -- 2e PLASTIC CAP 6.0, 2" PVC CHECK VALVE (SCH-40) 18" MIN. P P ELEV.=181.0 6" 25' - 24" DIA. ADS, S=07. # ELEV.=179.0 ELEV.=180.0 12" MIN. 0.75" DIA. ORIFICE 2e DIA. ADS TEE - MERCURY ON/OFF FLOAT 3" CONCRETE SWITCH SET TO FOR 181,0 ON AND 178.75 OFF. PUMP NOTE: PUMP TO BE ADJUSTED TO PUMP 10 GPM OR LESS. DETENTION PIPE -- SECTION NTS PERF. 4" " Iv"t4! 3 DIA. PVC, 12 MIN. (LAID LEVEL) TOP SOIL w pCVELOP�lE�1T S%nVIi:ES CTR• FINISH GRADE i't [��- 1 BACKFILLFm C17Y OF EDEJUNDS 5.0 u, 6" EXTRUDED CONC. CURB 175.0 e? FILTER FABRIC EMERGENCY OVERFLOWN NTS o0OOo0 o°OO°0°OOOoQ0aa� 0000()0°0o°o ;,ice _,�"'T<� .� •. i . DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SCALE: 1 3'=1' � 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 { I l 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 l 1 1 1 1 I 1 l 1 { 4 l 1 i 1 1 1 1I1 //1 / N 67*05'W {I 196. 8' / w w l rri.0 w l w �r! w w .rrr`ww .► r ..t..+i� w w ji•.rwwrnw rr• ....•..w ..+.++.. .. w 45 LF OF CY II � l 1I 1 / 1 1 / 1 'orywJ RpFlow ALONG / �I.,., N G CONTOURS A N. OF 5' FROM SLOPE BREAK I PER DETAIL 2 1 1 1 I EX. STEEP SLOPE 1► Lw X / 1 IE=1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l Il I 1 1 / Il 1 1 1 X t X f8 /X / " I tAa1 �1 / l I 1 1 1 I .xiljr..r.... X � X w .� 21:0.46' / 7 = BEEN PREPARED FOR AGENCY REVIEW AND AR 1'-6" 1/2" TO 1-1/2" WASHED ROCK 4FILTRATION DISPERSION TRENCH 1-1/2" TO 2" OF CLASS "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE WEARING COURSE (WSDOT STD. SPEC 5-04.0) 2 TO 4" OF CRUSHED SURFACING BASED COURSE (WSDOT STD. SPEC 9-03.9(3)) 8" TO 12" LAYER OF GRANULAR FILL \ DEPTH OF E� STING SEWER IS I \ UNKNOWN; CO TRACTOR TO \ VERIFY LOCATI AND DEPTH I \ OF MAIN AND SI SEWER. \ LOCATION AND D TH OF CATCH 1 \ BASIN, AND PIPE �Y BE ' \ADJUSTED TO AVOID CONFLICTS. EX. FENCE \ \ 10.00' / Ul 1 I I FOOTING DRAIN I // (Typ•)1 , PROPOSE SFR 1 FINISHED RAGE cn 4' Fmmc DR,UN 1' & FLOOR .=195.15� / i 1 � y r �r Wj u r I I\ \\ All I I f PUMP LINE 8.00' MIN. ZOO'8A0 � ..�; � F1EV.=197.0 TREET FILE FINISHED GRADE PROPOSED /,' • .`�f�ti PAVEMENT COMPACTED GRANULAR tl`•:r BACKFILL 3' HIGH �,;�;��/% �,�•�>~�;,,y\�� . NOTE: ROCKERY �.�' f �;/ CONSTRUCT ROCKERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ELEV.=193,0 _ . o •� `�\�' CURRENT ASSOCIATED ROCKERY CONTRACTORS °o ° ° '\`�'�:}�'' ARC GUIDELINES" AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS o (ARC) 1 ; '100- t� °000 o STANDARDS. 00 _: _ 3.00' 4 o o 00 012 WASHED ROCK, o oo °o �\t -1/2" MAX00 TO I o 00 K 00 0o r:r+" " o °o°o °° \� j e;' 4 PERFORATED EXISTING GRADE ELEV.=i90.0•" oo°� 00 0� ff� DRAIN PIPE 00 EXISTING GRADE _ SECTION A NTS _ ..r... DRAINAGE NOTES 1. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. 2. ALL PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON STABLE EARTH, OR COMPACTED GRAVEL MATERIAL. 3. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED EQUALLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PIPE OR PIPE -ARCH IN LAYERS WITH A LOOSE AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6", MAXIMUM DEPTH 8", THOROUGHLY TAMPING EACH LAYER, COMPACTED LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR ONE DIAMETER ON EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE OR TO THE OWjy� SIDE OF THE TRENCH. (REFER TO WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 7-04.3(3) AND STANDARD o� RACTOR /$ RSPONSI SPECIFICATION 2-03.3(14)C, METHOD B & C. I <x 0a 4. BACKFILL MATERIAL UNDER PAVEMENT (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95X I AND DR41NAGE USE REASONABLE CARE IN HANDLING AND INSTALLATION, I 5. ALL DRAINAGE PIPE COUPLINGS, FITTINGS, ADAPTERS & APPURTENANCES I SHALL BE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE INSTALLED PIPE AND SHALL BE N 1 1� 1 co POWER POLE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. DATUM +200' 1. ALL CATCH BASINS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. -` pp 2. ALL CATCH BASINS WITH A DEPTH OVER 5.0 FEET TO THE FLOW LINE SHALL BE A 1 t; O TYPE II CB OR LARGER (MANHOLE). :'` �• 1= :`;"'� 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING ALL MANHOLE INLET AN .�-.• :::<` .---..,,1rn..: 1 D CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND GRATES JUST PRIOR TO POURING OF CURBS AND PAVING. ' .jj�jjjj FOG LINE `!iY:ti.` ?'L�.Iw'_,�"; <ci1• 3rt•r f . 4. ALL CATCH BASIN GRATES SHALL BE SETT PAVEMENT LEVEL 5. ALL TYPE II CATCH BASIN MANHOLES, INLE4 AND CATCH BASINS SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. , ,1 �.� i 6. STANDARD LADDER STEPS -SHALL BE PROVIDEi) IN ALL CATCH BASINS AND -MANHOLES- „ EX. 2' CONC. EXCEEDING 5 FEET IN DEPTH. U{Wmi�r \ ,a;;. ; r.;;.w;i 1 '��� RETAINING WAL 7. CATCH BASIN GRATES IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL. BE SET TO FINISHED GRADE NOT BELOW PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. . • trt - x z.Yt . (.F� t:•!l.cj L-L� t 19ii.1,' ?' f <� <•;:� !�, i 1 PUMP NOTES 1074!_ \ 5 GARAGE V 1. MAINTENANCE OF THE PUMP SYSTEM SHALL BE THE HOME OWNER RESPONSIBILITY AND SHOULD BE CHECK ANNUALLY AND AFTER EVERY POWER OUTAGE. 0 Q Q o 2. THE PUMP SHALL BE CONNECTED TO A SEPARATE CIRCUIT AND BREAKER IN THE ELECTRICAL PANEL. :� f 3. A HIGH LEVEL ALARM SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH LIGHT AND AUDIO IN THE GARAGE. THE SYSTEM SHALL BE TESTED PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL FOR JIM ACCURACY OF HOUSE. k. ENTRY �a •I., N 4',t t Q p BENCHMARK • a r , a► EX, CB RIM=200,0 (ASSUMED) IE=198.0 ....QONSTR T-42'_' HIGH TREATED 2, l WOODEN GUARD" R . OR 6' HIGH LK CONC. , SOLID C FORM / PATIO EX CONC. RETAINING WALL EXISTING ASPHALT vi 1 - 5.0' MIN. I ' i I^! I x -x -�-x --IX X x x X O�w�� � rfr I �� �.�� �� \r•r �rrm• rr� w j �I� �.r �.� ' 1 N 67 05 00 W I \ \ Ex CONC, RETA�+iG WALL TO REYN• N 24 DIA, ADS TEE 25 If 24 DIA. 24 DIA. ADS TEE CONTRACTOR i►RIST CONTACT STRUCTURAL R 180.50 1 ADS DEM410 PIK I RIM=184.00 \ ENGNEER PRIOR TO DWOUTION GARAGE tE=179.00 1 PER DETALO E 179.00 \ A STRUCTURE To VERIFY WALL CONDITION OVERFL0W179.50 1 I I ` AND FOOTING D58 o0 00 6' i 1 �f EROSION CUtV i rig+,• ,_,, ,,� �; wiAlfli�k � l D X 1 � �' 7/ . MR OWNERICON ii�ov , EROSION CON-Ma-�'N[- ORAINAGE i R CONSTR BIDDING P 10 SES WI 0 5 10 SIGNED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REQUIRED WATER & SEWER INSPECTIONS REQ'D 7iJ- W.1326 APPROV Date: GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS TO CONNECT TO EXIST. SYST. SPECIAL TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE: ALL TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS PLAN PROVIDED BY OTHERS AND CG ENGINEERING ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 EXPIRES:11 /07/02 I Zl•2lq'•0"0 w A Q X - MEW- Lopim DESIGN! RMS DRAWN, JRZ CHECKi e A 'a JOB N❑i 02030.20 DATE! 4/25/02 Lli 1.tJ � � Q LLJ„ O CN Z p _w U Q > 00 w ��-- t _U "a <' W z w �v`I /� w�� N ��w SHEET.- NCY APPROVAL STAMP. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424--5555. rl> C06 Q ti CL1 (0 rn Y U ti 00 CA U Q) z c� 65 O O DO ti z 0 Q a Q 180 178 176 174 172— 48' L.Fj DISPER IOI (ORIENT TRENCO P OSEE ORS) ' ETAIL I S rEEPEESI l j VIDE ND MAI TAIN SI I NG L R PE IMETER FEN E DETAI r WITFI SITE AR 196.56' DRAIN INLET LOCATION AND —� Z ELEVATION PER ARCHITECT w z J 4w O -1 V1 0 O 0- 2 U w w 7n N SEE DETAIL NOTE: DEPTH OF EXISTING SEWER IS UNKN❑WNj CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF MAIN AND SIDE SEWER. L❑CATION AND DEPTH OF CATCH BASIN, AND PIPE MAY BE ADJUSTED TO AVOID C❑NFLICTS �.�. . PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL 10' SETBACK UNE A 1:1 R ENTRY ® II GARAGE Z,32' — 24" DIA. DETENTION PIPE PROPOSED RESIDENCE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ BI ❑ Y-D' ❑ N - LANDSCAPED COMPACT -0' - 249 WBIC FEET OF EXCAVATION EXCAVATED SOL TO BE DISBURSED OVER PROPERTY FOR LAND E AND FILL PURPOSES 32' — 24" DIA. DETENTION PIPE GRADE ELEVATION CATCH BASIN POWER POLE DATUM +200' PP O /Cl-IN I � TYPE 1L C TCH BASIN WITH GRATED COVER SET ELEVATION TO PROVID SLOPE TO EXISTING CB AT ED E OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE w �4 te- ITT- Tn ?IIP7- 05av 3 PPROXIMATELY 28'-8" PVC TIGHTLINE, 2% MINIMUM SLOPE J 0 EXI 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC PUMP DISCHARGE MAX HGT 10'-6" ABOVE PCL 0 10 20 FEET 200' PROPERTY CENTER LINE T98' OLYMPIC DRIVE SOUTH PPOPERTY LINE Tsa' 180' JAW lax 1ffi' V�J TYPE 1L CB WITH SOLID COVER TO STORM DRAIN ON EAST SIDE OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE CATCH BASIN WITH 8" tE PIPE OUTLET HIGH WATER ALARM LIFTING CHAIN EL. 178.4 2' DIA. PVC (SCHEDULE 40) PUMP DISCHARGE, MINIMUM 18' I ft BURIAL �vALLZ vP EL. 1780 P"z i 5 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS �— CHECK VALVE ii'PE PUMP FLOAT CONTROLI PUMP 'ON' @ EL.176.2 (DETENTION PIPE INVERT) ,I SEE NOTES PUMP 'OFF' @ EL. 174.0 (PUMP CHAMBER INVERT) 7/8' ORIFICE 1 2 01 FEET PUMP CHAMBER BASE EL. 174.0 1/2 HP AUTOMATIC PUMP, SEE NOTES l �t� G� P40A TeTmsrx:�/) nl�u 1 T - VI C I N-1TM--A P — SITE ADDRESS: 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON POST SPACING MAY BE INCREASED TO 8' IF WIRE BACKING IS USED WATER & SEWER INSPECTIONS REQ'D CALL 425-771-0220 EXT.1326 ACCEIjwOLc HIGHTLINE MATERIAL JOINTS IN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED AT POSTS. USE STAPLES, WARE, OR EQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TO POSTS. FILTER 2" X 2" BY 14 GA. WARE OR EQUIVALENT. IF STANDARD STRENGTH FABRIC USED. MINIMUM —' 4" X 4" TRENCH — BACKFILL TRENCH WITH 3/4" —�+ — 1.5" WASHED GRAVEL 2" X 4" WOOD POSTS, STEEL FENCE POSTS, REBAR OR EQUIVALENT NOTE: FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG CONTOUR WHENEVER POSSIBLE 0 1 2 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIO T ENTRANCE REQUIRED SILT FENCE 1 sDR 35 EXPIRE$ d 0Z DETENTION PIPE/DISPERSION TRENCH 1 APPROVED AS NOTED SCH ®0 . -7 co BY ENGINEERING N -12 I) F810 RANCOR CD Date: 0) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue Suite 100 SHEET 1 DRAINAGE PLAN o Kirkland, Washington 98033 ERICONTRAGTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DATE 7/01 CD Ph: (425) 827-7701 EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE Fax: (425) 827-5424 NELSON RESIDENCE co contact: Bruce L. Blyton P.E. ED M O N D S 1lVAS H I N GTO N PROJECT NO. KE01369A I2JZolol N a) N L 0) a) Cn 0) co co 0 c 0 U) a) c rn M T C) MAINTENANCE STANDARDS GENERAL DRAINAGE 1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS 1. ALL PIPE AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY PREPARED FOUNDATION IN AND SPECIFICATIONS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/APWA 1994 ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE LEVELING AND COMPACTING THE 2. IF CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE EVIDENT UPHILL OF THE FENCE, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TRENCH BOTTOM, THE TOP OF THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL, AND THE REQUIRED PIPE BEDDING, THEY MUST BE INTERCEPTED AND CONVEYED TO A SEDIMENT TO A UNIFORM GRADE SO THAT THE ENTIRE PIPE IS SUPPORTED BY A UNIFORMLY DENSE TRAP OR POND. 2. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS IN THE FIELD. ANY VARIATIONS UNYIELDING BASE. ARE TO BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. 3. IT IS IMPORTANT TO CHECK THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE FENCE (AESI) 2. THE CATCH BASINS SHALL BE TYPE 1L, PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. FOR SIGNS OF THE FENCE CLOGGING AND ACTING AS A BARRIER TO FLOW AND THEN CAUSING CHANNELIZATION OF 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING 3. PIPE SPECIFICATONS ARE BASED ON DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETED PROJECT. DURING FLOWS PARALLEL TO THE FENCE. IF THIS OCCURS, REPLACE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT ALL THE FENCE AND/OR REMOVE THE TRAPPED SEDIMENT. OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AND TO SURFACE INSTALLATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONFORMANCE WITH THE PIPE PROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK COVERED BY THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION LOADING ON PIPES. 4. SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT IS 6" HIGH. CONTRACT. 4. ALL DETENTION PIPE UPSTREAM OF CB SHALL BE N-12 HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE). 5. IF THE FILTER FABRIC HAS DETERIORATED DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT AESI AND THE OWNER REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF AREAS ALL OTHER PIPES TO BE PVC AS NOTED ON PLAN. BREAKDOWN, IT SHALL BE REPLACED. FOR STOCKPILING MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT ACCESS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 5. ALL PIPES ARE TO BE FLOW TESTED AND INSPECTED BY AESI PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 5. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR CONSTUCTION. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. SHALL BE 6. PUMP NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IF A CONFLICT EXISTS. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE KNOWN TO EXIST PUMP SHALL BE TEEL 1 /2 HP SUBMERSIBLE SUMP/EFFLUENT PUMP, GRAINGER STOCK NO. IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BUT HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED AND ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE 4RK57 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. INSTALL AUTOMATIC CONTROLS AS SHOWN ON PLAN. PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES. TEST SYSTEM PRIOR TO USE. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 6. CONTRACTOR IS REPONSIBLE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL, SIGNAGE, FLAGGERS, AND MAINTENANCE 7. CHECK VALVE 1. PROPER OPERATION OF ANY PUMP SYSTEM REQUIRES REGULAR OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTES AS NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION. CHECK VALVE SHALL BE TEEL WASTE WATER TYPE GRAINGER STOCK NO. 4RG91, OR MAINTENANCE AND TESTING. AT A MINIMUM OWNER SHALL ANUALLY: EQUIVALENT. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT a) Clean catch basins EXCESS SILT FROM LEAVING THE SITE. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 8. HIGH WATER ALARM b) Test pump/conveyance system ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS. HIGH WATER ALARM SHALL BE TEEL—BRAND, GRAINER STOCK NO. ID002 OR EQUIVALENT. c) Test high water alarm INSTALL ALARM SENSOR ELEVATION PER PLAN. AUDIBLE ALARM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS, WIDTHS, THICKNESSES, AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL RESIDENCE GARAGE AREA. TEST SYSTEM AFTER INSTALLATION. OTHER THAN SHORT—TERM POWER/PUMP FAILURE, THE DISPERSION EXISTING PAVEMENTS, PIPES, STRUCTURES OR GRADES THAT ARE TO INTERFACE WITH THIS TRENCH SHALL NOT BE USED FOR RUNOFF DISPOSAL. EXCESS WATER PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ALL TRIMMING, CUTTING, SAW CUTTING, DISCHARGE ON THE SLOPE CAN LEAD TO ACCUMULATED EROSION AND GRADING, LEVELING, SLOPING, COATING OR OTHER WORK INCLUDING MATERIALS AS NECESSARY DEBRIS REMOVAL AND CLEANUP EARTH MOVEMENT. TO CAUSE THE INTERFACE WITH EXISTING WORK TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER AND AESI, COMPLETE, IN PLACE AND READY FOR USE. 1. EXCESS SOIL EXCESS SOIL MAY BE DISPOSED OF AT AN ONSITE LOCATION ACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER iZ? Crczf (42�, 771-Ob-26 j32.�,� AND AESI. SOIL SHALL BE GRADED SMOOTH AND HYDROSEEDED. EXCESS SOIL MUST NOT BE PLACED ON STEEP SLOPES. 2._ _____-SHRUBS—AND WOOD -- WOOD AND SHRUBS THAT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 3. DEBRIS ARE NOT SAVED SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFFSITE AT ALL CONTSTRUCTION DEBRIS IS TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFFSITE AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. Associated Earth Sciences Inc. 911 5th Avenue Suite 100 DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET 2 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Ph: (425) 827-7701 DATE 7/01 Fax: (425) 827-5424 NELSON RESIDENCE ` Contact: Bruce L. Blyton P.E. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. KE01369A 14Vf07 I t1Uh-Uy-CUU1 IN U4;41 rn 4 FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 01 ' J' Associated August 9, 2(>O1 Project No. KE01369A Ms. Elizabeth Nelson P.O. Box 404 PAIrnonds, Washington 98020-0404 Subject: Nelson Residence 18318 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington V-Utr Ms. Nelson: Earth Sciences, Inc. As requested, Associated earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has reviewed the subject geotechnical report for this project. This report was dated May 28, 1998 and was prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. ((itiN). In general, AES1 agrees with the findings and recommendations outlined in tho GGN report. As di=ssed in AESI's letter dated June 15, 2001, we recommend that the west portion of the new rusirlcnco foundation tnay be situated on deepened spread footings. The augercast piling recommended iii the Gco Group Northwest, Inc, report may therefore be eliminated. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely ASSOCIATED RARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kick gton ; I f WAS �I 7 CITY COPY QCt»&G� i�+�Aca S13 oK RECEIVED Mo4 L. 111 n, Senior Associate Hagineer A.UG 1 0 2001 cc: Norih Sound Drafting and Design PERMIT (DO INTER 81.22 206" SW Edmonds, WaAhington 98026 Attention: 1C3thi St. peter 11m; 425-774-6416 corporate Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • I(irldandWA • 98033 • Phone 425 823 i'fl = '? gZ1'S' 'P%s of ' w:s We!t Sound C)tke • 179 Madrone lane North, Bainbridge Island WA 98110 • Phone 206 780-9370 • Fax 206 780 9438 k Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. June 15, 2001 Project No. KE01369A Ms. Elizabeth Nelson P.O. Box 404 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0404 Subject: Proposed Foundation Recommendations 18318 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Nelson: ItCEaftamNEI VE JUN 212oo' PERMIT COUNTER Associated Earth Sciences; Inc. (AESI) has completed a review of the geotechnical report completed \ for the subject site. This report. was titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed -Single Family Residence, 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington" as prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. and dated May 28; 1998. . Three 'exploration ,borings were drilled in conjunction with the report cited above. These borings encountered suitable bearing soils at relatively shallow depths in borings B-1 and B-3. However, on the west -side of the property, boring B-2 encountered approximately 4.5 feet of fill soil. No ground water'was encountered during the field study. Based on our review of the information contained in the May 1998 report, it is our opinion that the entire house may be supported on standard spread footings.. On the west side of the house, the footings will have to be deepened to extend to the dense soil encountered at approximately 7 feet. By extending the footings to. the dense, natural soils at this depth, the use of augercast piles can be eliminated. It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at a 1HAV (Horizontal: vertical) inclination from any footing must not intersect another footing or 'intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1V line extending down from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils. Corporate Office - 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 - Kirkland, WA 98033 - Phone 425 827-7701 - Fax 425 827-5424 West Sound Office - 179 Madrone Lane North - Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 - Phone 206 780-9370 - Fax 206 780-9438 1 1. All footing areas should , be inspected by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prior to placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction conforms with the recommendations contained in this letter and the May 1998 report prepared by Geo .Group Northwest, Inc. The governing municipality may require such inspections. We have enjoyed. working with you on this study and trust this letter will meet your .current needs. If you have any questions; or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington W-AS i. 'j S EYvaES Melissa A. Magn on, P.E. Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer Senior Associate Engineer map KMI369A1 D:\WP\ap\6-01 - WZK i 2 1 • CHGroup Northwest, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists h Environmental Scientists March 5, 2001 G-0907 Ms. Elizabeth Nelson P.O. Box 404 Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: CORRECTION TO CROSS-SECTION A -A' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY RECEIVED PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE JUN 2 2 2001 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PERMIT COUNTER Dear Ms. Nelson: We have prepared this letter and the attached Plate 3 - Cross Section A -A' to document the correction to our report dated May 28, 1998 and titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single Family Residence, 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington." The original Plate 3 - Cross Section A -A', dated 5/6/98, incorrectly presented the depth to the dense gravelly SAND as 14 feet at boring B-2. On the attached and corrected plate we have indicated the depth to the gravelly SAND at boring B-2 was 7 feet below the ground surface. Please incorporate this correction letter and attached plate into the original report and accept our apology for the inconvenience. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call at (425) 649-8757. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. Adam Gaston William Chang, P.E. Staff Engineer Principal attachment: Plate 3 - Cross Section A -A', 3/5/01 13240 NE.20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 • FAX 4251649-8758 PK- 0 rER T PPOPERTY PRO po-58? LINE- Ll E-- X L00-5E 7-0 D5/4j's� SANLI -7 e- .;r-R-A VE L Ll y -5 A ND 10 20 40 80 SCALE: I inch = 20 feet t4o 12-0 fob, RECEIVED wo JUN 2 2 2001 PERMIT COUNTER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 19318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G-0907 Prepared for Ms. Elizabeth Nelson c% Mr. Galen D. Holmquist Paradise Construction,. Inc. 23632 Highway 99, F-11 Edmonds, WA 98026 May 28, 1998 Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 649-8757 RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2000 PERMITI.COUNTER t,r_ s Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists Group Northwest, Inc. & Environmental Scientists �6ray 28, 1998 G-0907 Ms. Elizabeth Nelson c/o Mr. Galen D. Holmquist Paradise Construction, Inc. 23632 Highway 99, F-11 Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single Family Residence 18318 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington IDear Mr. Holmquist: We are pleased to submit the report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single Family Residence, 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington." This report presents the results of our site exploration, engineering analyses and our conclusions and recommendations for steep slope setbacks, earthwork, drainage, foundations and retaining wall design parameters. We understand that the existing one story house with a daylight basement at 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA will be demolished and replaced with a two story house. At the time of this study. We were provided with an approximate footprint for the new house, as shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan. The subject site was explored with I p three borings on April 7, 1998 in accordance with our proposal dated March 9, 1998. The subsurface soils encountered in B-1 and B-3 near the east side of the existing house consists of 2.5 to 4.5 feet of medium dense SAND with gravel, below which is a very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and silt. The soils encountered in boring B-2 on the west side of the existing house consists of 7 feet of loose to medium dense soil which is underlain by dense to very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and some silt. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed single family residence Y P P P P� Y foundations can be supported on conventional spread footing bearing on the very dense native soil. Due to the existence of loose soils up to 7 feet encountered in B-2, the western half of the proposed 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 • FAX 425/649-8758 May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Paee ii house be supported on a foundation system consisting of augered reinforced concrete piles bearing on the very dense native soil. As an alternative, the entire house could be supported on augered concrete piles. The proposed construction will present a minimal risk of instability to the site during and after the construction, provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. y1pM C� y �r 20114 William Chang, PE. '$ Reis W Principal s1�0lV1►L txrows 2/ 191 Z-000 Geo Group Northwest, .Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS JOB NO. G-0907 page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description ...................... ............. 1 1.2 Scope of Services ........................... . 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 2.1 Surface Condition ......................... . . 2 2.2 Subsurface Conditions ......................: 3 2.3 Groundwater ............................. 3.0 SEISMICITY ..... . ............... 3 3.1 Seismic History ... ...................... .............. 4 3.2 Soil Liquefaction Potential ... ... • • • • • • • • • ' * ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 4.0 BUILDING SETBACK AND BUFFERS .............................. . 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION ... . • • • • • ............. AND RECOMINENDATIONS 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 General ........................................ 6 6.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork .. .. • • . . • • • • • : 7 6.3 Spread Footing Foundations .............._ ::: ' ::: 8 6.4 Angered Concrete Piles — 10 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors .................... • Retaining Walls 10 6.6 Permanent Basement & Conventional 12 6.7 Excavations and Slopes 13 6.8 ........................................... Drainage ...................................................... 13 6.8.1 Surface Drainage ........................................... 13 6.8.2 Footing and Wall Drains l4 6.9 Driveway Area ................................. .......... 14 7.0 LIMITATIONS ...................... . 8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................... • • ' ' ' ' ......... . Geo Group Northwest, Inc. ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 - Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Site Plan Plate 3 - Steep Slope Cross Section Plate 4 - Soil Legend Plate 5 - through 7 Boring Log Plate 8 - Typical Basement Wall Backfill & Drainage Details Plate 9 - Typical Footing Subdrain Geo Group Northwest, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G-0907 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description and Understanding The proposed single family residence is located at 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, as shown on Plate 1 - Vicinity Map. Based on.our site visits and discussions with you and Ms. Elizabeth Nelson, it is our understanding that the existing one story single family residence with a daylight basement at the subject site will be demolished and replaced by a two story residence at the subject site. We also understand that the City of Edmonds requires a geotechnical study prior to issuing a building permit due to the steep slope and building setback issues. Therefore, the purpose of the geotechnical engineering study is to define the subsurface soil conditions in order to address slope stability, setbacks from steep slopes, foundation support, lateral earth pressures, drainage and earthwork considerations. At the time of this study, the detail of the new house plan was not available. 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of the work is outlined in our proposal dated March 9, 1998, and they are: 1. Perform a subsurface investigation by drilling 2 soil borings, one at the east and one at the west side of the proposed house. The borings will be drilled to a depth of 15 to 30 feet, and soil samples taken every 2.5 feet to detect any zones of weakness in the subsurface soils. The borings will be drilled using a portable drill rig; Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0901 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 2 2. Collect soil samples to perform laboratory tests and prepare boring logs; 3. Perform engineering analysis to evaluate slope stability, foundations and retaining wall design requirements; 4. Prepare a geotechnical report with the results of the analysis and prepare conclusions and recommendations for steep slope setbacks, earthwork, drainage, foundations and retaining wall design parameters. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Surface Condition The subject property is rectangular in shape and approximately 14,000 square feet in size. It is bordered to the east by Olympic View Drive, to the west by the Puget Sound and by two railway lines at the bottom of a steep slope, to the north and south by single family houses. According to the topographic site plan and our, site observation, a steep slope with an average inclination of 46 degrees (103 percent slope) and a topographic relief of 100 feet is situated on the west half of the subject property. The backyard and the proposed building area are relatively flat with an average inclination of 7 degrees (12.5 percent slope). Chain link fences were observed at the top of the steep slope and along both sides of the property line on the north and south. The existing one story single family house with a daylight basement is located on the east half of the property with a detached one car garage at the southeast corner of the property at the street level. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions According to the geologic map for the area, the site is underlain by Transitional Beds (Qtb) which in turn underlain by Olympia Gravel (Qog). Transitional Beds were deposited during the Fraser Glaciation to Pre -Fraser Glaciation, the glacial and non -glacial deposits consist mostly of massive, thick or thin beds and laminae of medium to dark gray clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907• Proposed Single Family Residence Page 3 Olympia Gravel was deposited during the Pre -Fraser Glaciation and consist of stratified, fluvial sand and gravel. Gravel is mostly pebble size and is locally oxidized. and weakly cemented so that it stands vertically in fresh exposure. The subsurface investigation was conducted by drilling three exploratory soil borings (B-1, B-2, and B-3) on April 7, 1998. The borings were drilled using portable, low -profile hollow -stem auger equipment to a maximum depth of 13.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The locations of three soil borings are shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan. We estimated the location of our exploration by using a measuring tape from the existing house. A geotechnical engineer logged the borings and collected soil samples for further examination and testing at our office. The subsurface soils encountered in B-1 and B-3 consist of medium dense brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt from 2.5 to 4.5 feet below the ground surface. The medium dense SAND was underlain by very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and silt. Both borings were only drilled to 6.5 feet below the ground surface due to the difficulty to drill through the gravel. Boring B-2 was drilled on the west side of the house in the lawn area. The soils encountered in boring B-2 consists of 7 feet of loose to medium dense soil underlain by dense to very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and some silt. The soils encountered in the borings at the site match those for the Olympia Gravel (Qog) on the geologic map--- - — - — - - -- 2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. However, the ground water table can fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall, surface runoff and other factors. 3.0 SEISMICITY 3.1 Seismic History The project site is located on a bluff facing the Puget Sound and about 10 miles north of Seattle. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 4 The greater Seattle area has experienced a number of small to moderate earthquakes and occasionally strong shocks during the brief 155-year historical record in the Pacific Northwest. The major earthquakes in the region are believed to be associated wi" ctoruc activity. Major faults within the region have not been active in the I c period dating since the last glacial retreat 14,000 years ago), conseq own to be associated with historical seismicity. Historical records for the region indicate that the Olympia earthqual nth a Richter magnitude of 7.1, produced ground -shaking of intensity VII ;id the Seattle -Tacoma earthquake of April 29, 1965, with a Richter magnil d a ground -shaking of intensity IV to VIII on the Modified Mercalli Sc� L This level of ground -shaking is estimated to be the maximum that has occurred in the region during the 155 years of historic record. 3.2 Soil Liquefaction Potential Although there may be subsurface variations from point to point, we expect the native soil underlying the subject site consists of dense gravelly SAND. Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigation. Due to the dense nature of the native soil, it is our opinion that the subsurface soils at the site are not susceptible to liquefaction. 4.0 BUILDING SETBACK & BUFFERS The City of Edmonds, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), Section 20.15B, dated August, 1996, sets restrictions on the development of sites with steep slopes (40 percent or. more). The ECDC 20.15B requires a total building setback of 65 feet from the top of a steep slope which includes 50 feet of buffer setback and 15 feet of building setback. The total building setback may be reduced to 25 feet (10 foot nondisturbance vegetative buffer plus 15 foot building setback) if there is a special geotechnical study. Smaller setbacks, or construction on steep slopes requires an exception from a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 20.1000.010 from City of Edmonds. Based on the review of the site plan provided to us, the current plans place the proposed two- Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 5 story house at least 25 feet east of top of the steep slope which is in agreement with our recommended 25 foot total building setback (10 foot buffer plus 15 foot building setback), as shown in Plate 2 - Site Plan. For the purposes of this report, provided that the recommendations herein are adhered to, it is our opinion that the proposed single family house can be located closer than the required 65 feet from the top of the steep slope. Building near the top of any steeply sloped hillside always has. some inherent risk. However, the risk can be minimized by incorporating a reasonable building setback from the top of the slope, preventing concentrated surface water runoff from eroding the slope, minimising disturbance to the slope, and maintaining the native vegetation both on the slope and above the slope. To mitigate landslide and erosion hazards, we recommend incorporating all these items into the design of the subject project. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION The subject lot is considered to be a geologic hazard area due to the existence of a greater than I40 percent steep slope with a topographic relief of 100 feet as shown in Plate 3 - Steep Slope Cross Section. 1 red native soil on the to of the steep slope is Based on the subsurface investigation, the undisturbed P dense gravelly SAND with some pebbles and silt and in our opinion they are not susceptible to deep seated sliding. However, the surficial loose soil or fill may be susceptible to erosion on steep slopes, especially where vegetation is removed. It is our professional opinion that the subject lot is currently stable and will be stable after the subject construction. The proposed single family house will present a minimal risk of instability to the adjacent property during or after the construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General Based on the results of our study, it is out professional opinion that the site is geotechnically suitable for the development of the proposed single family house, and that the proposed house can be supported on conventional spread footing bearing on the very dense native soil. Due to the 7 feet of loose soils encountered in B-2, the western half of the proposed house should be supported on a foundation system consisting of augered reinforced concrete piles bearing on the dense native soils. As an alternative, the entire house could be supported on.augered concrete piles. Specific recommendations regarding the site development are presented in the following sections. 6.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The proposed structure area should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation and debris from the demolition of the existing house. Disturbance to the site should be kept to a minimum to prevent erosion. Silt fences should be installed around areas disturbed by construction activity to prevent sediment -laden surface runoff from being discharged off -site. All structural fill material used to achieve design site elevations below slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc. should meet the requirements for structural fill. During wet weather, material to be used as structural fill should have the following specifications: 1. Be free draining, granular material, which contains no more than five (5) percent fines (silt and clay -size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve); 2. Be free of organic and other deleterious substances; 3. Have a maximum size of three (3) inches. All fill material should be placedat or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 7 for a given compaction effort. Due to its silt content, some of the existing loose fill soils are considered to be moisture sensitive and should not be used as fill material during wet weather conditions. During dry weather, any compactable non -organic soil meeting the above maximum size criteria may be used as structural fill, provided the material is near the optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Structural fill under driveways, patios and sidewalks should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density, with the exception of the upper twelve (12) inches. The top twelve (12) inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to evaluate the suitability of structural fill material and to, monitor the compaction requirement during construction for quality assurance of the earthwork. 6.3 Spread Footing Foundations It is our opinion that the eastern half of the house can be supported by conventional spread footings bearing on the dense undisturbed native soils -or -compacted structural - fill -bearing -on -the -dense undisturbed native soils. The conventional spread footing foundations can be designed as follows: - Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads on undisturbed dense gravelly sand = 2,000 psf on compacted structural fill = 2,000 psf Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below adjacent final exterior grade = 18 inches Minimum depth to bottom of interior footings below top of floor slab = 18 inches Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 8 - Minimum width of wall footings = 16 inches - Minimum lateral dimension of column footings = 24 inches - Estimated post -construction settlement = 1/4 inch - Estimated post -construction differential settlement; across building width" = 1/4 inch A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short- term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing undisturbed soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. Structural fill requirements can be found in Section 6.2 - Site Preparation and General Earthwork. It is our professional opinion that the following parameters can be used: - Passive pressure - Coefficient of friction 6.4 Augered Concrete Piles = 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight = 0.30 We recommend that the western half of the proposed house be supported on a foundation system consisting of augered concrete piles. This recommendation is based on the loose soil conditions encountered in Boring B-2 down to a depth of 7 feet below the ground surface. The pile foundation should penetrate through the loose to, medium dense zones, with a minimum embedment of five feet into the very dense gravelly SAND below. We estimate that the total length of each pile to be about 12 feet below the ground surface. We recommend that the diameter of the augered hole have a minimum diameter. of 14 inches. For augered reinforced concrete piles of 14 and 16 inches in diameter embedded into very dense Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 0 9 0 a May 28; 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 9 gravelly SAND with a minimum of 5 feet embedment, the following allowable bearing capacities may be used: Pile Diameter Pile Embedment Inches(Feet) Allowable Bearing Tons Allowable Uplift Tons 14 5 M. 10 5 16 5 T-12 6 Note: Pile Embedment Length based on the embedment depth below the top of the very. dense gravelly SAND. No reduction in pile capacities is required if the pile spacing is at least. three times the pile diameter. A one-third increase in the above allowable pile capacities can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by using battered piles or by the passive earth pressures acting on grade beams. To fully mobilize the passive pressure resistance, the grade beams must be poured "neat" against compacted fill. Our recommended allowable passive soil pressure for lateral resistance is 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight. between -the subgrade and -the grade beam: A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used We estimate that the maximum total post -construction settlement should be one -quarter (1/4) inch or less, and the differential settlement across the building width should be one -quarter (1/4) inch or less. The performance of piles depends on how and to what bearingstratum the piles are in p stalled. Since a completed pile in the ground cannot be observed, it is critical that judgement and experience be used as a basis for determining the embedment length and acceptability of a pile. Therefore, we recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to monitor the pile installation operation, collect and interpret installation data and verify suitable bearing stratum. We also suggest that the contractor's equipment and installation procedure be reviewed by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. prior to pile installation to help mitigate problems which may delay work progress. A structural engineer should be retained to design the reinforced augered concrete Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0901 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 10 piles. 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors Based on the encountered site conditions, we anticipate that the house will have supported floors, if slab on -grade floors are used, the slab -on -grade floors may bear on thedense undisturbed soil below the site, or on compacted structural fill; placed above the dense natural soils; compacted as specified in Section 6.2 - Site Preparation and General Earthwork of this report. All loose soil should be removed, or replaced with engineered structural fill. To avoid moisture build-up on the subgrade, slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary break, which is in turn placed on the prepared subgrade. The capillary break can consist of a minimum of six (6) inches thick layer of free -draining gravel containing no more than five (5) percent finer than No. 4 sieve. A vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, is recommended to be placed over the capillary break beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the barrier membrane for protection during construction. In preparing the subgrade, native soils disturbed by construction activity should either be recompacted, or excavated and replaced with compacted, well -draining, structural fill or crushed rock. Prior to placing the capillarybreak, the barrier membrane and the concrete-for-slabs--On- grade, we recommend the subgrade be proof, rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully loaded dump truck. Any soft spots or disturbed areas thus detected should be recompacted or excavated, replaced and compacted as described above. If groundwater seepage is. encountered in the foundation slab area, we recommend that a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 50OX, or equivalent, be placed on the wet subgrade, above which a minimum six (6) inch layer of one and a half (1.5) inch minus gravel, or 2-inch crushed rock, no fines, be used as a capillary break. This will also eliminate the need for the 6-mil plastic membrane. 6.6 Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls Permanent basement walls restrained horizontally on top are considered unyielding and should be Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 11 designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition; while conventional reinforced concrete walls free to rotate on top should be designed for a active lateral soil pressure. Active Earth Pressure Conventional reinforced concrete walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to 0.002 times the wall height, should be designed to resist the lateral'earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of: • 3 5 pcf for level backfill behind yielding retaining walls; At -Rest Earth Pressure Walls supported horizontally by floor slabs are considered unyielding and should be designed for lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition. The design lateral soil pressure should have an equivalent fluid pressure of • 60 pcf for level ground behind permanent unyielding retaining walls; Passive Earth Pressure and Base Friction The available passive earth pressure that can be mobilized to resist lateral forces may be assumed to be equal to 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight for both undisturbed soils and engineered structural backfill. The -base friction that can be generated between concrete -and undisturbed bearing soils or— - -- engineered structural backfill may be based on an assumed 0.30 friction coefficient. We recommend that a vertical drain mat, Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, be used to facilitate drainage behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls. The drain mat core is placed against the basement wall with the filter fabric side facing the backfill. The drain mat extends from the finished surface grade, down to the footing drain pipe. A minimum of 18 inches of clean, free -draining, washed rock, crushed rock, or pea gravel should be placed in the bottom of the footing trench. With the above exceptions, perimeter foundation drainage recommendations and installation procedures are in the - Footing and Wall Drains section of this report. Please also refer to Plate 8 - Typical Basement Wall Backfill and Drainage Details. If vertical drain mats are incorporated into the design, we recommend using the existing native Geo Group Northwest, Inc. ri May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Paee 12 soils as structural backfill behind the walls, provided the native material can achieve the specified compaction. If the native soil cannot achieve the specified compaction, then we recommend placing a free draining granular backfill material. Alternatively, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls, a granular, free draining structural backfill material can be placed within a horizontal distance of 18 inches of the wall, in place of vertical drain mats. We recommend using a clean, granular, free -draining, structural fill material, free of organic or other deleterious substances, such as pea gravel, or washed rock, containing no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of material passing the No. 4 sieve. The free -draining granular material should surround the wall subdrain system as described in the footing drain section of this report. The top twelve (12) inches of the fill should consist of compacted and relatively impermeable soil. This cap material can be separated from the underlying more granular drainage material by a layer of building paper or visqueen. The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall. Alternatively; the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Where backfill material behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls is not supporting slabs, or structural loads, the backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor Method). The top 12- inches should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The backfill in areas adjacent to basement or conventional retaining walls should be compacted with hand held equipment or a hoepack. Heavy compacting machines should not be allowed within a horizontal distance to the wall equivalent to one half the wall height, unless the walls are designed with the added surcharge. 6.7 Excavations and Slopes Under no circumstances should temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 H: l V (Horizontal Vertical). A geotechnical engineer or geologist should determine the type of soil encountered in the excavation and determine the safe inclination of the excavation. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0967 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 13 Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes into the excavated area. During wet weather exposed cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheets during construction to minimize erosion. To improve the surficial stability of the slope especially when doing excavation, we recommend that the existing slope vegetation be maintained. Waste debris, such as lawn clippings and tree limbs should not be discarded on the slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be consulted if changes to the above plans are contemplated. 6.8 Drainage 6.8.1 Surface Drainage The finished ground of the site should be graded such that surface water is directed away from the structure and off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings, slabs, parking lot or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow drainage away from buildings. We suggest that the ground be -sloped at a gradient of three (3) percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from buildings except in areas that are to be paved. 6.8.2 Footing and Wall Drains We recommend that drains be installed around the foundation perimeters and behind concrete retaining walls. The drains should consist of a four (4) inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at or just below the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to generate flow (see, Plate 9 - Typical Footing Subdrain). The drain line should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free -draining rock, pea gravel, or other free -draining granular material. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-09Q7 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 14 Once the drains are installed, the excavation behind foundation walls should be backfilled with a compacted structural fill material. For structural backfill criteria behind walls, please refer to Section 6.5 - Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls. The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall or sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected directly to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge into the storm water collection system. We recommend that sufficient cleanouts be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drains and downspout tightline systems. 6.9 Driveway Area It is anticipated that the driveway area is to support passenger cars and light trucks only, we recommend the pavement design to consist of the following: Two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock base (CRB) material, The adequacy of site pavements is strictly related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. If this is inadequate, no matter what pavement section is constructed, settlement or movement of the subgrade will be reflected up through the paving. In order to avoid this situation, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in Section 6.2 - Site Preparation and -- General Earthwork of this -report.- At -least the top twelve (12) inches of the-subgrade-should-be-- compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-91). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. If so, they may require overexcavation of the unsuitable materials and their replacement with a compacted structural fill or a crushed rock. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This project has been prepared for the specific application to.this site for the exclusive use of Ms. Elizabeth Nelson, and her representatives. We recommend that this report in its entirety be included in the project contract documents for use by the contractor. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 15 Our findings, conclusions and recommendations stated herein are based on site observations, subsurface conditions encountered in our field exploration, our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. Soil and groundwater conditions described herein may vary from those actually encountered during construction. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear then, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be requested to re- evaluate the recommendations in this report and to verify or modify them in. writing prior to proceeding with construction. 8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to perform a general review of the final design. This is to verify that our recommendations included herein are properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction documents. We also recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to provide monitoring and testing services for geotechnically related work during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to and during the construction. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. • May 28, 1998 G-0907 . Proposed Single Family Residence Page 16 Respectfully submitted GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. P► Mc y1' og VVvi 9,y Linjung "Steve" Hou, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer 20114 -� TONAL rwoms 211912g422 William Chang, P.E. Principal Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I e VICINITY MAP Group Northwest, Inc. ELIZABETH NELSON RESIDENCE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, d 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Environmental Scientists EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .. +, •� ,,,., , , /'.n+iris !+r e•ll: 1 o A sy o 'v 6 - = p CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYP) 196 O i C , oS8 :. PROpoS ED NEB -HOUSE. zry� oo I \ EXIST. CV / �^j �`� �° EXIST. GAR. pS, 6 (o EWE -. Op -pipo 0 / 8-z 0 O - LEGEND B-1 indicates the approximate location of borings cross section A -A' '• approximate new house footprint `t Site plan was. adapted from Dunaway Surveying. PA:Un GAR. 4� T �F • rr} t ELIZA ® Group Northwest, Inc. 1831 Geolechnieal Engineers, Geologists. a Eli 'Environmental Scientists CI-t CHKD WC LEGEND OF SS CLASSIFICATION AND PENEATION TEST UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) LABORATORY GROUP MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL CRITERIA . WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND Cu _ (0601 of 0) greater than 4 CLEAN C>W MIXTURE, LITTLE OR NO FINES DETERMINE Cc = (D30 • D30 / D10106M between 1 and 3 GRAVELS PERCENTAGES GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, AND GRAVEL -SAND NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS GRAVELS llittle or no OF GRAVEL AND fines) MIXTURES LITRE OR NO FINES SAND FROM (More Than Hal GRAIN SIZE ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW Coarse Grains DISTRIBUTION COARSE Larger Than No. DIRTY GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES CURVE. CONTENT 'A' LINE. GRAINED 4 Sieve) GRAVELS OF FINES or P.I. LESS THAN 4 SOILS COARSE GRAINED EXCEEDS ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE (with some GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY SOILS ARE 12% -A- LANE. fines) MIXTURES CLASSIFIED AS or P.O: MORE THAN 7 FOLLOWS: WELL GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS, Cu = (D80 / D10) greater than 6 More Than Hal GLEAN SW LIrTLE OR NO FINES < 5% Fine Grained: Cc = (D30.O301 Di / 080) between 1 and 3 by Weight SANDS GW, GP, SW, SP SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS Larger Than No. 200 eve SANDS p rate or no ' 12% Fine (More Than Hal fines) LITTLE OR NO FINES Grained: Coarse Grains GM, GC. SM. SC: ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW Smaller.Than SM SILTY SANDS. SAND -SILT MIXTURES 5 to 12% Fine CONTENT 'A' LINE No. 4 Sieve) SANDS OF FINES with P.I. LESS THAN 4 Grained: use dualtwrm symbols. EXCEEDS ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE some SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES 12% 'A' LINE firms)with P.O. MORE THAN 7 SILTS Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, SANDY SILTS (Below A -Line .50% ML OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY 60 i PLASTICITY CHART A -Line on Plasticity Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR CharL Negligible i FOR SOIL PASSING FINE-GRAINED Or anrc g ) > 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS. FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOIL io '-I NO. 40 SIEVE i I SOILS I C or ON Liquid Limit ' INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, W CLAYS CL GRAVELLY, SANDY. OR SILTY CLAYS. CLEAN I I j I (Above A -Line on < 30% CLAYS - 2 Placbcity Chart. • Negligible LtgwO Limit ( INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT F I L or I i More Than Hal Organic) > 50% CH V 1 by Weight g .CLAYS QQ I bH Smaller Than No 200 Sieve ORGANIC Liquid Limit OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF I H or CL SILTS 8 CLAYS < 50% LOW PLASTICITY i 10 ( —� (Below A -Line e , OL on Plasticity Liquid Limit ORGANS CLAYS.OF HIGH hLASTICTY_ I — — —Chart)—OH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100 LIQUID LMITT (%) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SOIL PARTICLE SIZE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE Passing Retained SANDY SOILS SILTY & CLAYEY SOILS FRACTION Steve Size Sieve Size glow Relative Friction Blow Unconfined (rt1m) (mm) Counts N Density % Angle 0, degreeTrip—] Counts N Strength qu, tsf Description SILT I CLAY 0200 0.075 SAND 0.4 0.15 Very Loose < 2 < 0.25 Very soft FINE ri40 0.425 0200 0.075 4 - 10 15. 35 26. 30 Loose 2.4 0.25.0.50 Soh MEDIUM 010 0 940 0.425 10. 30 35.85 28 - 35 Medium Dense 4-8 0.50 - 1.00 Medium Stiff COURSE Aril � 4.75 010 2 30.50 > 50 65 - 85 85 - 100 35. 42 38 • 46 Dense Very Dense 8 - 15 15 - 30 1.00.2.00 2.00. 4.00 Stiff Very Stiff GRAVEL FINE 19 Nil 4.75 1 1 1 1 30 1 > 4.00 1 Hard 04P] Group Northwest, -Inc. COURSE 76 19 COBBLES 78mmto203mm - BOULDERS ' 203 mm Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & Environmental Scientists ROCK > 76 mm FRAGMENTS 13240 NE 20th Street Suite 12 Bellevue. WA 96005 Phone Q06) 649.8757 Fax (206) 64"758 4 PLATE ROCK � >0 76 cubit meter in volume ' BO ING NO. B-1 Logged By: SH Date Drilled: 4n198 Surface Elev. 189 feet +/- Depth USCS Soil Description SAMPLE SPT Blows SPT (N) Blows Water Content Other Tests d per per % Comments Type No. & 64nches foot SP/ Brown SAND with gravel and trace of silt, medium dense, moist T S 1 2,5,7 12 7.8 SM Drill rig stuck ® 2.5 fed due to rode, added water in hole to ease drilling 1 T 1 S2 10,11,35 46 5.9 Brown/gray gravelly SAND with pebble and trace of silt, very dense, damp 5 SP/ to moist SM T 33 30,32,33 65 5.9 10 Note: Total depth = 6.5 feet. There was no water seepage encountered. 15 20 25 30 35 40 Using 6"0.D portable rig, standard 140 lbs hammer and 2-O.D. split- sampler — BORING LOG roup NOtthwest, Inc. ELIZABETH NELSON RESIDENCE 19318 OLYMPIC VEIW DRIVE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, a EDMONDS, WASHMGTON Environmental Scientists DATE 4/22/98_1 JOB NO. G-0907 IPLATE 5 BOIRNG NO. B-2 Logged By: SH Date Drilled: 4/71998 . Surface Elev. 180 feet +/- Depth USCS Soil Description SAMPLE SPT Blows SPT (N) Blows Water Content Other Test s a per per % Comments Type No. fL 6-inches foot SM Brown SAND with some silt and gavel, loose, moist (Fill) T S1 11.9 Drilling gets slower at 4.5 feet 1 T S2 1,2,1 3 16.0 5 SW light brown SAND with some gavel and sik medium dense, moist I S3 3,4,10 14 8.7 SP at 7 to 8 feet, drill rig gets stuck, added water to ease drilling ---- ------------------------------------------------ gravelly Brown avelly SAND with h pebble and traceof sift, damto very dense, I S4 15,21,24 45 11.5 10 SM moist IS5 13,13,17 30 16.4 IS6 15,50/3" 50/3" 12.6 15 Note: Total depth = 13.5 feet. 20 There was no water seepage encountered. 25 30 35 40 Using 6"0.D portable rig, standard 140 lbs hammer and 2"O.D. split- sampler BORING LOG ELIZABETH NELSON RESIDENCE Group Northwest, Inc. 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON _ Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, a Environmental Scientists DATE 4/22/98 JOB NO. G-0907 IPLATE 6 ~ BORING NO. B-3 n SH Logged y. Date United: 4/7/98 Surface Elev. 189 feet Depth SPT SPT (M Water USCS Soil Description SAMPLE Blows Blows Content . Other Tests a R. Type No Per 6. inches per foot % Comments 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 I recoverSl 4,7,3 12 no SP/ Brown SAND with gravel and tray of sib, medium dense, moist SM hard to drill ® 2 fed due to rock. I S2 9,9,11 20 9.9 SP/ ' Light brown gravelly SAND with pebble and trace of silt, very dense, damp I S3 14,17,39 SM to moist - I 56 11.1 Note: Total depth = 6.5 feet. There was no water seepage encountered. 40 Using 6"0.D portable rig, standard 140 lbs hammer and 2"O.D. split- sampler BORING LOG roup Northwest,inic. ELIZABETH NELSON RESIDENCE 18318 OLYMPIC VEIW DRIVE Geotechnlcal Engineers, Geologists, a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists DATE 4/22/9R JOB NO. G-0907 JPLATF 7 Relative Impermeable Free draining material, (Washed rock or Crushed rock) Geotextile (mirafr 140 NL: or equal) 4 or 6 inch diameter slotted or perforated PVC pipe Basement Wall Slope to drain COMPACTED ONSITE BACKFILL MATERIAL (IF USABLE) NOT TO SCALE ' Vertical Drain Mat (Miradrain 6000 or equal) NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. 4.) Backfill should be compacted to 90% of maximum dry density based on Modified Proctor. The top one foot should be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density if backfill is to support sidewalks, driveway, etc. TYPICAL BASEMENT WALL BACKFILL (! Group Northwest, Inc. AND DRAINAGE DETAIL Geolechnieal Engineers, Geologists, & Environmental Scientists SCALE NONE I DATE 5/7/98 MADE SH CHKD WC JOB No. G-907 PLATE 8 BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED NATIVE, RELATIVE EM PERMEABLE SOIL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI 140 NL, AMOCO 4535, 4545, OR EQUAL FREE DRAINING BACKFILL--- CONSISTING OF WASHED ROCK OR CRUSHED ROCK MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER ' PERFORATED PVC PIPE WITH POSITIVE GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE 6"to 12". J y . NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN (! , Group Northwest, Inc. .�� Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists, d Environmental Scientists SCALE NONE I DATE 5/7/98 1 MADE SH I CHKD WC I JOB NO. G-0907 I PLATE 9 4b CA- - c(l --9 D GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERINGSTUDY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G-0907 Prepared for Ms. Elizabeth Nelson c/o Mr. Galen D. Holmquist Paradise Construction, Inc. 23632 Highway 99, F-11 Edmonds, WA 98026 May 28, 1998 Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 R E C E I V E D Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 649-8757 SEP 2 9 2000 PERMIT COUNTER I 0 Inc.Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists Group Northwest, In & Environmental Scientists 'Way 28,1998 G-0907 Ms. Elizabeth Nelson . clo Mr. Galen D. Holmquist Paradise Construction, Inc. 23632 Highway 99, F-11 Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single Family Residence 18318 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Holmquist: We are pleased to submit the report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single Family Residence, 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington." This report presents the results of our site exploration, engineering analyses and our conclusions and recommendations for steep slope setbacks, earthwork, drainage, foundations and retaining wall. design parameters. We understand that the existing one story house with a daylight basement at 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, WA will be demolished and replaced with a two. story house. At the time of this study. We were provided with an approximate footprint for the new house, as shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan. The subject site was explored with three � p t t ee borings on April 7, 1998 to accordance with our proposal dated March' 9, 1998. The subsurface soils encountered in B-1 and B-3 near the east side of the existing house consists of 2.5 to 4.5 feet of medium dense SAND with gravel, below which is a very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and silt. The soils encountered in boring B-2 on the west side of the existing house consists of 7 feet of loose to medium dense soil which is underlain by dense to very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and some silt. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed single family residence foundations can be supported on conventional spread footing bearing on the very dense native soil. Due to the existence of loose soils up to 7 feet encountered in B-2, the western half of the proposed 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 0 FAX 425/649-8758 I ` I' May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page ii house be supported on a foundation system consisting of augered reinforced concrete piles bearing on the very dense native soil. As an alternative, the entire house could be supported on augered concrete piles. The proposed construction will present a minimal risk of instability to the site during and after the construction, provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. William Chang, PE. Principal M WAS y ' s' .� 20114 _ C1�rorv�� 1XPRES 2/ 19/ ZED Geo Group Northwest, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS JOB NO. G-0907 page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... .............. I 1.1 Project Description ........................................:..... 1 1.2 Scope of Services 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS . . .............. 2 2.1 Surface Condition ........................... . . 2 2.2 Subsurface Conditions ........................... 3 2.3 Groundwater ................................ 3.0 SEISMICITY .... . ............. 3 3.1 Seismic History ............................. • 4 3.2 Soil Liquefaction. Potential ............................ . 4 4.0 BUILDING SETBACK AND BUFFERS 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION ................................ . AND RECOMNENDATIONS 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 General .........................................• 6 6.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork ................ • ..... • • ... 7 6.3 Spread Footing Foundations ........................ • .. 8 6.4 Augered Concrete Piles •.••••.•.• 10 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors ...••.••.•..•.•....•.••...•••...• Conventional Retaining Walls ... • ..... 10 6.6 Permanent Basement & 6.7 Excavations and Slopes ........................... • ............. 13 6.8 Drainage......................................................13 6.8.1 Surface Drainage .......... .................. ... 13 6.8.2 Footing and Wall Drains ...... 14 6.9 Driveway Area . 7.0 LMHTATIONS........................................ . 8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .................................... . Geo Group Northwest, Inc. ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 - Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Site Plan Plate 3 - Steep Slope Cross Section Plate 4 - Soil Legend Plate 5 - through 7 Boring Log Plate 8 - Typical Basement Wall Backfill & Drainage Details Plate 9 - Typical Footing Subdrain Geo Group Northwest, Inc. L� GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G-0907 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description and Understanding The proposed single family residence is located at 18318 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, as shown on Plate 1 - Vicinity Map. Based on our site visits and discussions with you and Ms. Elizabeth Nelson, it is our understanding that the existing one story single family residence with a daylight basement at the subject site will be demolished and replaced by a two story residence at the subject site. We also understand that the City of Edmonds requires a geotechnical study prior to issuing a building permit due to the steep slope and building setback issues. Therefore, the purpose of the geotechnical engineering study is to define the subsurface soil conditions in order to address slope stability, setbacks from steep slopes, foundation support, lateral earth pressures, drainage and earthwork considerations. At the time of this study, the detail of the new house plan was not available. 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of the work is outlined in our proposal dated March 9, 1998, and they are: 1. Perform a subsurface investigation by drilling 2 soil borings, one at the east and one at the west side of the proposed house. The borings will be drilled to a depth of 15 to 30 feet, and soil samples taken every 2.5 feet to detect any zones of weakness in the subsurface soils. The borings will be drilled using a portable drill rig; Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 2 2. Collect soil samples to perform laboratory tests and prepare boring logs; 3. Perform engineering analysis to evaluate slope stability, foundations and retaining wall design requirements; 4. Prepare a geotechnical report with the results of the analysis and prepare conclusions and recommendations for steep slope setbacks, earthwork, drainage, foundations and retaining wall design parameters. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Surface Condition The subject property is rectangular in shape and approximately 14,000 square feet in size. It is bordered to the east by Olympic View Drive, to the west by the Puget Sound and by two railway lines at the bottom of a steep slope, to the north and south by single family houses. According to the topographic site plan and our site observation, a steep slope with an average inclination of 46 degrees (103 percent slope) and a topographic relief of 100 feet is situated on the west half of the subject property. The backyard and the proposed building -are a are relatixelflat with an average inclination of 7 degrees (12.5 percent slope). Chain link fences were observed at the top of the steep slope and along both sides of the property line on the north and south. The existing one story single family house with a daylight basement is located on the east half of the property with a detached one car garage at the southeast corner of the property at the street level. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions According to the geologic map for the area, the site is underlain by Transitional Beds (Qtb) which in turn underlain by Olympia Gravel (Qog). Transitional Beds were deposited during the Fraser Glaciation to Pre -Fraser Glaciation, the glacial and non -glacial deposits consist mostly of massive, thick or thin beds and laminae of medium to dark gray clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 3 Olympia Gravel was deposited during the Pre -Fraser Glaciation and consist of stratified, fluvial sand and gravel. Gravel is mostly pebble size and is locally oxidized. and weakly cemented so that it stands vertically in fresh exposure. The subsurface investigation was conducted by drilling three exploratory soil borings (B-1, 8-2, and B-3) on April 7, 1998. The borings were drilled using portable, low -profile hollow -stem auger equipment to a maximum depth of 13.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The locations of three soil borings are shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan. We estimated the location of our exploration by using a measuring tape from the existing house. A geotechnical engineer logged the borings and collected soil samples for further examination and testing at our office. The subsurface soils encountered in B-1 and B-3 consist of medium dense brown SAND with gravel and a trace of silt from 2.5 to 4.5 feet below the ground surface. The medium dense SAND was underlain by very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and silt. Both borings were only drilled to 6.5 feet below the ground surface due to the difficulty to drill through the gravel. Boring B-2 was drilled on the west side of the house in the lawn area. The soils encountered in boring B-2 consists of 7 feet of loose to medium dense soil underlain by dense to very dense gravelly SAND with pebbles and some silt. The soils encountered in the borings at the site match those for the Olympia Gravel (Qog) on the geologic map.- 2.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. However, the ground water table can fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall, surface runoff and other factors. 3.0 SEISMICITY 3.1 Seismic History The project site is located on a bluff facing the Puget Sound and about 10 miles north of Seattle. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 4 The greater Seattle area has experienced a number of small to moderate earthquakes and occasionally strong shocks during the brief 155-year historical record in the Pacific Northwest. The major earthquakes in the region are believed to be associated with deep-seated plate tectonic activity. Major faults within the region have not been active in the Holocene Age (geologic period dating since the last glacial retreat 14,000 years ago), consequently, they are not known to be associated with historical seismicity. Historical records for the region indicate that the Olympia earthquake of April 13, 1949, with a Richter magnitude of 7.1, produced ground -shaking of intensity VIII near its epicenter; and the Seattle -Tacoma earthquake of April 29, 1965, with a Richter magnitude of 6.5, produced a ground -shaking of intensity IV to VIII on the Modified Mercalli Scale near its epicenter. This level of ground -shaking is estimated to be the maximum that has occurred in the region during the 155 years of historic record. 3.2 Soil Liquefaction Potential Although there may be subsurface variations from point to point, we expect the native soil underlying the subject site consists of dense gravelly SAND: Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigation. Due to the dense nature of the native soil, it is our opinion that the subsurface soils at the site are not susceptible to liquefaction. 4.0 BUILDING SETBACK & BUFFERS The City of Edmonds, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), Section 20.15B, dated August, 1996, sets restrictions on the development of sites with steep slopes (40 percent or more). The ECDC 20.15B requires a total building setback of 65 feet from the top of a steep slope which includes 50 feet of buffer setback and 15 feet of building setback. The total building setback may be reduced to 25 feet (10 foot nondisturbance vegetative buffer plus 15 foot building setback) if there is a special geotechnical study. Smaller setbacks, or construction on steep slopes requires an exception from a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 20.1000.010 from City of Edmonds. Based on the review of the site plan provided to us, the current plans place the proposed two- Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907. Proposed Single Family Residence Page 5 story house at least 25 feet east of top of the steep slope which is in agreement with our recommended 25 foot total building setback (10 foot buffer plus 15 foot building setback), as shown in Plate 2 - Site Plan. For the purposes of this report, provided that the recommendations herein are adhered to, it is our opinion that the proposed single family house can be located closer than the required 65 feet from the top of the steep slope. Building near the top of any steeply sloped hillside always has some inherent risk. However, the risk can be minimized by incorporating a reasonable building setback from the top of the slope, preventing concentrated surface water runoff from eroding the slope, minimizing disturbance to the slope, and maintaining the native vegetation both on the slope and above the slope. To mitigate landslide and erosion hazards, we recommend incorporating all these items into the design of the subject project. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION The subject lot is considered to be a geologic hazard area due to the existence of a greater than 40 percent steep slope with a topographic relief of 100 feet as shown in Plate 3 - Steep Slope Section. Based on the subsurface investigation, the undisturbed native soil on the top of the steep slope is dense gravelly SAND with some pebbles and silt and in our opinion they are not susceptible to deep seated sliding. However, the surficial loose soil or fill may be susceptible to erosion on steep slopes, especially where vegetation is removed. It is our professional opinion that the subject lot is currently stable and will be stable after the subject construction. The proposed single family house will present a minimal risk of instability to the adjacent property during or after the construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General Based on the results of our study, it is out professional opinion that the site is geotechnically suitable for the development of the proposed single family house, and that the proposed house can be supported on conventional spread footing bearing on the very dense native soil. Due to the 7 feet of loose soils encountered in B-2, the western half of the proposed house should be supported on a foundation system consisting of augered reinforced concrete piles bearing on the dense native soils. As an alternative, the entire house could be supported on.augered concrete piles. Specific recommendations regarding the site development are presented in the following sections. 6.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The proposed structure area should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation and debris from the demolition of the existing house. Disturbance to the site should be kept to a minimum to prevent erosion. Silt fences should be installed around areas disturbed by construction activity to prevent sediment -laden surface runoff from being discharged off -site. All structural fill material used to achieve design site elevations below slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc. should meet the requirements for structural fill. During wet weather, material to be used as structural fill should have the following specifications: Be free draining, granular material, which contains no more than five (5) percent fines (silt and clay -size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve); 2. Be free of organic and other deleterious substances; 3. Have a maximum size of three (3) inches. All fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 7 for a given compaction effort. Due to its silt content, some of the existing loose fill soils are -considered to be moisture sensitive and should not be used as fill material during wet weather conditions. During dry weather, any compactable non -organic soil meeting the above maximum size criteria may be used as structural fill, provided the material is near the optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Structural fill under driveways, patios and sidewalks should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density, with the exception of the upper twelve (12) inches. -The top twelve (12) inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to evaluate the suitability of structural fill material and to monitor the compaction requirement during construction for quality assurance of the earthwork. 6.3 Spread Footing Foundations It is our opinion that the eastern half of the house can be supported by conventional spread footings bearing on the dense undisturbed_native_soils-or_compacted structural -fill -bearing -on -the dense undisturbed native soils. The conventional spread footing foundations can be designed as follows: - Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads on undisturbed dense gravefly sand = 2,000 psf on compacted structural fill = 2,000 psf Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below adjacent final exterior grade = 18 inches Minimum depth to bottom of interior footings below top of floor slab = 18 inches Geo Group Northwest, Inc. s May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 8 - Minimum width of wall footings 16 inches - Minimum lateral dimension of column footings = 24 inches - Estimated post -construction settlement = 1/4 inch - Estimated post -construction differential settlement, across building width 1/4 inch A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short- term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing undisturbed soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. Structural fill requirements can be found in Section 6.2 - Site Preparation and General Earthwork. It is our professional opinion that the following parameters can be used: - Passive pressure - Coefficient of friction 6.4 Augered Concrete Piles = 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight = 0.30 We recommend that the western half of the proposed house be supported on a foundation system consisting of augered concrete piles. This recommendation is based on the loose soil conditions encountered in Boring B-2 down to a depth of 7 feet below the ground surface. The pile foundation should penetrate through the loose to, medium dense zones, with a minimum embedment of five feet into the very dense gravelly SAND below. We estimate that the total length of each pile to be about 12 feet below the ground surface. We recommend that the diameter of the augered hole have a minimum diameter of 14 inches. For augered reinforced concrete piles of 14 and 16 inches in diameter embedded into very dense Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 9 gravelly SAND with a minimum of 5 feet embedment, the following allowable bearing capacities may be used: Pile Diameter I Pile Embedment I Allowable Bearing I Allowable Uplift "- - 14 5 10 5 16 5 12 6 Note: Pile Embedment Length based on the embedment depth below the top of the very. dense gravelly SAND. No reduction in pile capacities is required if the pile spacing is at least, three times the pile diameter. A one-third increase in the above allowable pile capacities can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by using battered piles or by the passive earth pressures acting on grade beams. To fully mobilize the passive pressure resistance, the grade beams must be poured "neat" against compacted fill. Our recommended allowable passive soil pressure for lateral resistance is 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight. A'coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used mid between the* subgrade_and the grade beam. - We estimate that the maximum total post -construction settlement should be one -quarter (1/4) inch or less, and the differential settlement across the building width should be one -quarter (1/4) inch or less. The performance of piles depends on how and to what bearing stratum the pil es are installed. Since a completed pile in the ground cannot be observed, it is critical that judgement and experience be used as a basis for determining the embedment length and acceptability of a pile. Therefore, we recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to monitor the pile installation operation, collect and interpret installation data and -verify suitable bearing stratum. We also suggest that the contractor's equipment and installation procedure be reviewed by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. prior to pile installation to help mitigate problems which may delay work progress. A structural engineer should be retained to design the reinforced augered concrete Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0901 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 10 piles. 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors Based on the encountered site conditions, we anticipate that the house will have supported floors, if slab on -grade floors are used, the slab -on -grade floors may bear on the dense undisturbed soil below the site, or on compacted structural fill; placed above the dense natural soils; compacted as specified in Section 6.2 - Site Preparation and General Earthwork of this report. All loose soil should be removed, or replaced with engineered structural fill. To avoid moisture build-up on the subgrade, slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary break, which is in turn placed on the prepared subgrade. The capillary break can consist of a minimum of six (6) inches thick layer of free -draining gravel containing no more than five (5) percent finer than No. 4 sieve. A vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, is recommended to be placed over the capillary break beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the barrier membrane for protection during construction. In preparing the subgrade, native soils disturbed by construction activity should either be recompacted, or excavated and replaced with compacted, well -draining, structural fill or crushed rock. Prior to placing the capillary break, the barrier membrane and the concrete for slabs -on - grade, we recommend the subgrade be proof -rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully loaded dump truck. Any soft spots or disturbed areas thus detected should be recompacted or excavated, replaced and compacted as described above. If groundwater seepage is encountered in the foundation slab area, we recommend that a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X, or equivalent, be placed on the wet subgrade, above which a minimum six (6) inchlayer of one and a half (1.5) inch minus gravel, or 2-inch crushed rock, no fines, be used as a capillary break. This will also eliminate the need for the 6-mil plastic membrane. 6.6 Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls Permanent basement walls restrained horizontally on top are considered unyielding and should be Geo Group Northwest, Inc. • May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence - Page 11 designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition; while conventional reinforced concrete walls free to rotate on top should be designed for a active lateral soil pressure. Active Earth Pressure Conventional reinforced concrete walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to 0.002 times the wall height, should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of: • 3 5 pcf for level backfill behind yielding retaining walls; At -Rest Earth Pressure Walls supported horizontally by floor slabs are considered unyielding and should be designed for lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition. The design lateral soil pressure should have an equivalent fluid pressure of: • 60 pcf for level ground behind permanent unyielding retaining walls; Passive Earth Pressure and Base Friction The available passive earth pressure that can be mobilized to resist lateral forces may be assumed to be equal to 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight for both undisturbed soils and engineered structural backfill. iction that can -be -generated between -concrete and undisturbed bearing -soils -or engineered structural backfill may be based on an assumed 0.30 friction coefficient. We recommend that a vertical drain mat, Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, be used to facilitate drainage behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls. The drain mat core is placed against the basement wall with the filter fabric side facing the backfill. The drain mat extends from the finished surface grade, down to the footing drain pipe. A minimum of 18 inches of clean, free -draining, washed rock, crushed rock, or pea gravel should be placed in the bottom of the footing trench. With the above exceptions, perimeter foundation drainage recommendations and installation procedures are in the - Footing and Wall Drains section of this report. Please also refer to. Plate 8 - Typical Basement Wall Backfill and Drainage Details. If vertical drain mats are incorporated into the -design, we recommend using the existing native Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 12 soils as structural backfill behind the walls, provided the native material can achieve the specified compaction. If the native soil cannot achieve the specified compaction, then we recommend placing a free draining granular backfill material. Alternatively, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls, a granular, free draining structural backfill material can be placed within a horizontal distance of 18 inches of the wall, in place of vertical drain mats. We, recommend using a clean, granular, free -draining, structural fill material; free of organic or other deleterious substances, such as pea gravel, or washed rock, containing no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of material passing the No. 4 sieve. The free -draining granular material should surround the wall subdrain system as described in'the footing drain section of this report. The top twelve (12) inches of the fill should consist of compacted and relatively impermeable soil. This cap material can be separated from the underlying more granular drainage material by a layer of building paper or visqueen. The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall. Alternatively; the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Where backfill material behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls is not I supporting slabs, or structural loads, the backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor Method). The top 12- inches should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The backfill in areas adjacent to basement or conventional retainingwalls should d be compacted with hand held equipment or a hoepack. Heavy compacting machines should not be allowed within a horizontal distance to the wall equivalent to one half the wall height, unless the walls are designed with the added surcharge. 6.7 Excavations and Slopes Under no circumstances should temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1H:1 V (Horizontal Vertical). A geotechnical engineer or geologist should determine the type of soil encountered in the excavation and determine the safe inclination of the excavation. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. • May 28, 1998 G-nGn7 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 13 Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes into the excavated area. During wet weather exposed cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheets during construction to minimize erosion. To improve the surficial stability of the slope especially when doing excavation, we recommend that the existing slope vegetation be maintained. Waste debris, such as lawn clippings and tree limbs should not be discarded on the slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be consulted if changes to the above plans are contemplated. 6.8 Drainage 6.8.1 Surface Drainage The finished ground of the site should be graded such that surface water is directed away from the structure and off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings, slabs, parking lot or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow drainage away from buildings._ We suggest thatthe_ground be sloped at a gradient of three (3) percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from buildings except in areas that are to be paved. 6.8.2 Footing and Wall Drains We recommend that drains be installed around the foundation perimeters and behind concrete retaining walls. The drains should consist of a four (4) inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at or just below the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to generate flow (see, Plate 9 - Typical Footing Subdrain). The drain line should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free -draining rock, pea gravel, or other free -draining granular material. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-09Q7 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 14 Once the drains are installed, the excavation behind foundation walls should be backfilled with a compacted structural fill material. For structural backfill criteria behind walls, please refer to Section 6.5 - Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls. The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall or sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected directly to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge into the storm water collection system. We recommend that sufficient cleanouts be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drains and downspout tightline systems. 6.9 Driveway Area It is anticipated that the driveway area is to support passenger cars and light trucks only, we recommend the pavement design to consist of the following: Two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock base (CRB) material, The adequacy of site pavements is strictly related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. If this is inadequate, no matter what pavement section is constructed, settlement or movement of the subgrade will be reflected up through the paving. In order to avoid this situation, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in Section 6.2 - Site Preparation and General Earthwork of this report.—At`least the top twelve (12) inches of the suu grade shoul- e compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-91). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. If so, they may require overexcavation of the unsuitable materials and their replacement with a compacted structural fill or a crushed rock. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This project has been prepared for the specific application to. this site for the exclusive use of Ms. Elizabeth Nelson, and her representatives. We recommend that this report in its entirety be included in the project contract documents for use by the contractor. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. ' May 28, 1998 G-0907 Proposed Single Family Residence Page 15 IOur findings, conclusions and recommendations stated herein are based on site observations, subsurface conditions encountered in our field exploration, our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied is ' made. Soil and groundwater conditions described herein may vary from those actually encountered during construction. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear then, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be requested to re- evaluate the recommendations in this report and to verify or modify them in writing prior to proceeding with construction. 8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES f 'E We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to perform a general review of the final design. This is to verify that our recommendations included herein are properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction documents. We also recommend that Geo Group_Northwest,_Inc. be_retained to provide monitoring and testing services for geotechnically related work during construction. This is to observe compliance.with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to and during the construction. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. May 28, 1998 G-0907 . Proposed Single Family Residence Page 16 Respectfully submitted GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. Linjung "Steve" Hou, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer William Chang, P.E. Principal Mc AIN WAs'9� y � Z 20114 C:SS`O NF AL EXPIRES 21191 ?p(,b Geo Group Northwest, Inc. BROWNS / I BAY i i :I' afl 7 I % FREDERICK PL 17, �1 9TH PL , t 1.1 low sT >r / 0.1 i c '; . it 1 K OVERLOOK / . PK G i �m R sv a 1® a a s. + PROJECT /� "':r �a� g� a " SITE '°m film -------; - - — f Q Qom' i s" PL 511 Nt I1f 1H n 9/ ' 187TH 1B ' l rr, PL 5, 187TH ST SW 8s, ° m s tt w 188TH 1 ST SM / ,0 189THS Sy 1 T 'a 6, . PL ST SM I},� < 19OTH ST SW HATER tt• < CHERRY ST �� i i$ 1's'r s• Irks rT z %00 8 192ND I ST Sw SW m !J r a . _..._...... .. .. .. ._..__. .. .-,._._Q .._ _.-y .. �901l- •a600' = 8.06 cvlx r II .....• .`. . ifrlN ti t`A tOR[STe� _ r, Ism 4r. L. is moo, tC2 GILL t 1 < �` S,�r` ►` 196TH ST ;ia SW I N r' uac PIIGET PUGET, o �� OR .61 �;. MELODY tN ssr F _s _ . c7 _ ��' HIMILEY = viFLn.AHO - - W NILL' P L� • 198TH� m a J,� BR70KHERE U 1 / s a ST I =� /� BROOKHERE ST ` z' � ' l w,p� C•1 $Y :n1• � z ST SW i I $ �J s • ial t7RACKE7 5 4 .:'CASP 1 .�; _ �200TH- f g ST SW _• 8 - s lTr- • ..• ILTMI L VIST• 8DO an-.:x VIS'�I 7 BEACH ,p; t SATE R yY : �_ trLa-1� ->i-Jrj = ' is @ < s.,1 AK" 202ND > m ALUN sT Bow. EjJIpL < SIERRA �: a w: < WIOL i .IpI. tm -tea lot r11 < $T $M t 1 Q GLEN :ST c� suRRA ST �+' r , +arn n A ' ��: [M ST < 241 .u.. Qvl o N SY . �s R �1.7DTR 1 a I m a 19••� 1 DALEY 2 4 ST '8 I ' r ,\�` I :r s i7 tar �O:'.« `a et tt� �CRR � SPRA E -- ' 1 o t I rn R n� s o / PIkEI as �� YFI = , iz ry, 2o6TH worrati HILL Po `1. a F_ -� a r.. ,pm,l. 8 Po tt ♦ m ,.•M SY ♦ s sc a �� +n ��a BE ^ SST -- u ow Mt S ,� 1 20 ST r a w.a 8 s ST n m MAIN sgrla N N DAYTDN ,.t+s_ $T 100k'.=;��'j�lAy:C. :�%1•i< J�wq � • 20Bi4n'ss��dH PL �H N.[TN W > N y may,a < z 23 3 t11ER ALDE • 1 0 $ < _'� $ coo sm c 1 s:; `<`;l: '_ �4Q• ,S %s 8 ty' UNION 1 = of m u MALNUT Im i=..•. EFyE( Q�Or FS Loa �2121H III 0(L 10° IOLLt a M CEDAR S1 �Q�IN ' PARK � r L ra ST S. i 1 ! D MARSH 1 j E'Q s �'»> ` NL Q R110E S.,. ST L @a �rLOh•LQ 1�2i 21ATHPL SY [rL$ f�Na ,Z v > < HOaI)Cc N to j S: P �� 21STH ST sTH ST uT = LPL uutt V, 2157H L I - 215 TH € € a a a w nsTH n ME 21 Sao - `I :E" T .01 = t17TH 5 • tT_ b u.tDS i� °4i HAKAH f"1 r•el N: :M y,' < . < m: Os >I� �I l2 �i .J l LION R sI a' a tY mi VICINITY MAP Group Northwest, Inc. ELIZABETH NELSON RESIDENCE GeolecAnical Engineers, Geologists, a 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE ��� Environmental Scientists EDMONDS, WASHINGTON �0 LEGEND OF SO CLASSIFICATION AND PENEATION TEST UNIFIED SOIL"CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) _ LABORATORY GROUP MAJOR DIVISION SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND Cu = (D801 DI 0) greater than 4 CLEAN GW MIXTURE, LITTLE OR NO FINES DETERMINE Cc = (D30 • D30I DI / D80) between 1 and 3 GRAVELS PERCENTAGES GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, AND GRAVELSANO NOT MEETING ABOVE REOUIREMENTS GRAVELS pitbe or no OF GRAVEL AND fines) MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES SAND FROM (More Than Hat GRAIN SIZE ATTERSERG LIMITS BELOW Coarse Grains otsm BUn10N COARSE Larger Than No. DIRTY GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES CURVE. CORM 'A• LINE. GRAINED 4 S1eve) GRAVELS OF FINES or P.I. LESS THAN 4 SOILS COARSE GRAINED EXCEEDS ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE (with some GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVELSAND-CLAY SOILS ARE 12% •A' UNE. fines) MIXTURES CLASSIFIED AS orP.I. MORE THAN 7 FOLLOWS: WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, Cu = (D80I DI 0) greater than 8 More Than Hat GLEAN SW LITRE OR NO FINES < 5% fine Grained: Cc o (D30 030 1010 / D80) between 1 and 3 by Weight SANDS .. GW, GP. SW, SP SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS Larger Than No. 200 Sieve SANDS dtle or no > 12% Fine (Moro Than Hat fines) LITTLE OR NO FINES Grained: Coarse Grains GM, GC. SM• SC: ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW Smaller Than DIRTY SM SILTY SANDS, SANDSILT MIXTURES 5 to 12% fine .CONTENT "A"LINE No. 4 Sieve) SANDS OF FINES with P.I. LESS THAN 4 Grained: use dual symbols. EXCEEDS ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE (with ( � SC CLAYEY SANOS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES 12% 'A' LINE fines) with P.I. MORE THAN 7 SILTS Liquid Limit ML INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, SANDY SILTS (Below A•Line < 50% OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY 60 1 on Plasticity I PLASTICITY CHART A•Line i Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR Chao Negligible FOR SOIL PASSING FINE-GRAINED Organic) > 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOIL , NO. 40 SIEVE ' II SOILS I Cl-or OH-- INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, 40 CLAYS Limit Li LiquidW CL GRAVELLY, SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, CLEAN 1] 1 j ' (Above A -Line on < CLAYS Z Plactci y.Chart, > 10 - +--- - - —• - - -= — - - — More Than Hat Negligible Liquid Lhmd I - CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT 1- U I L or by Weight Organic) > 50% CLAYS I 20 1 IQn Smaller Than No 200 Sieve ORGANIC Lpuid Limit OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS Of nJ I i H of PH SILTS 8 CLAYS < �% LOW PLASTICITY. 10 7 (Below A -Line 4 OL.XM.I on Plasticity _ Chart) Liquid Limit > 50% --OH— ORGANIC CLAYS Of HIGH PLASTICITY--- 0 _ _ _ _ __ -- 0 10 20 70 40 SO 60 70 BO 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SOIL PARTICLE SIZE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE Passing Retained SANDY SOILS SILTY 3 CLAYEY SOILS FRACTION Sieve 4 Sieve Size Blew Relative Friction Blow Unconfined (min) (min) Counts N Density % Angle 0, degree Description Counts N Strength qu, fit Description SILT / CLAY KZ00 0.075 SAND 0-4 0.15 Very Loose < 2 40.25 Very soft FINE a4D 0.425 0200 0.075 4.10 15.35 26.30 Loose 2.4 0.25.0.50 Soft MEDIUM 910 0 040 0.425 10.30 35.85 28.35 Medium Dense 4.8 0.50. 1.00 Medium Stiff COURSE 04 4.75 010 2 30 - 50 > 50 85.85 85. 100 35 - 42 38 - 48 Dense Very Dense 8.15 15 - 30 1.00.2.00 2.00.4.00 Stitt Very Stilt GRAVEL FINE 19 a4 4.7.5 > 30 1 > 4.00 1 Hard QX13 Group Northwest, Inc. COURSE 78 19 COBBLES 7emin to203min BOULDERS > 203 min Geotechnical Engineer, Geologists, A Environmental Scientists ROCK > 78 min FRAGMENTS 13240 NE 20th Street Suite 12 Bellevue. WA 98M5 PhoneW 649-8757 Fax (205) 649-8758 •( PLATE 4 ROCK >0 78 cubic meter in volume M BRING NO. B-1 Logged By: SH Date Drilled: 4/7/98 Surface Elev. 189 feet +/- Depth USCS Soil Description SAMPI E SPT Blows SPT p� Blows Water Content other Tests a per per % Comments Type No. & 6. inches foot SP/ Brown SAND with gravel and trace of silt, medium dense, moist T S 1 2,5,7 12 7.9 SM Drill rig studs ® 2.5 feet due to rock, added water in hole to ease drilling 1 I S2 10,11.35 . 46 3.9 Brown/gray gravelly SAND with pebble and trace of silt, very dense, damp 5 SP/ to moist SM IS3 30.32,33 65 5.9 10 Note: Total depth = 6.5 feet. There was no water seepage encountered. 15 20 25 30 35 40 Using 6"0.D portable rig, standard 140 lbs hammer and 2"O.D. split- sampler = BORING LOG ELIZABETH NELSON RESIDENCE roup Northwest, Inc. 18318 OLYMPIC VEIW DRIVE -Caar- Geoteehnical Enpineers, Geologists, a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists DATE 4/22/98 JOB NO. G-0907 PLATE 5 i f • BO G NO. B-2 Logged BY: SH Date Drilled: 4/71998 Surface Elev. 180 feet Depth Soil Description SAMPLE SPT Blows SPT tM Sims Water Content Other Tests a Comments I USCS � Per y, 6 inches tootSM Brown SAND with some sift and gravel, loose, moist (Fill) 11.9 Drilling gets slower at 4.5 fed TN 1,2,1 3 16.0 5 I S3 3,4,10 14 8.7 light brown SAND with some gravel and silt, medium dense, moist SM/ at 7 to 8 fed, drill rig gets stuck, added water to ease drilling SP ---- Sp/ ------------------------------------------------ Brown gravelly SAND with pebble and trace of sift, dense to very dense, T 1 S4 15,21,24 4S 11.5 10 SM moisa Is5 13,13,17 30 16.4 T 1 S6 15,50/3" 50/3" 12.6 15 Note: Total depth = 13.5 feet. 20 There was no water seepage encountered. 25 30 35 40 Using 6"O.D portable rig, standard 140 lbs hammer and 200.D. split- sampler BORING LOG EL17ABETH NELSON RESIDENCE 18318 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE I roup No hwest, n1C- Geotechnicai Engineers, Geologists, a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists DATE 4/22/98 JOB NO. G-0907 PLATE 6 Logged By: SH Depth USCS ft. 10 15 20 25 1 30 35 BORING NO. B-3 Date Drilled: 4/7/98 Surface Elev. 189 feet +/- SPT SPT (N) Water Soil Description' SAMPLE Blows Biows content after rests a per Per % Comments Type No. 6-inches foot IS1 4,7,5 12 no SP/ Brown SAND with gavel and trace of silt, medium dense, moist recover SM hard to drill ® 2 feet due to rock T S2 9,9,11 20 9.9 SP/ ' Light brown gravelly SAND with pebble and trace of sift, very dense, damp 14,17,39 SM to motet' I 56 11.1 Note: Total depth = 6.5 feet. There was no water seepage encountered. 40 1 1 Using 6"O.D portable rig, standard 140. lbs hammer and 2"O.D. split- sampler BORING LOG roue O wes r i1C. ELIZABETHNEILSONRESIDENCE •� 18318 OLYMPIC VEIW DRIVE �- Geotechnkal mentaera, Geologists, sts, a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists DATE 4/2. /M JOB NO. G-0907 JPLATE 7 Slope to drain Basement Wall Rflt Vertical Drain Mat (Miradrain 6000 Relative Impermeable Free draining material, (Washed rock or Crushed rock) Geotextile (mirafi 140 AIL: or equal) 4 or 6 inch diameter slotted or perforated PVC pipe COMPACTED ONSPPE BACKFILL MATERIAL (IF USABLE) NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. 4.) Backfill should be compacted to 90%of maximum dry density based on Modified Proctor. The top one foot should be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density if backfill is to support sidewalks, driveway, etc. Bak TYPICAL BASEMENT WALL BACKFILL Group Northwest, Inc. AND DRAINAGE DETAIL •�� Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, d Environmental Scientists SCALE NONE wl DATE 5M98 MADE SH CHKD WC JOB NO. G-907 PLATE 8 BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED NATIVE, RELATIVE IMPERMEABLE SOIL. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI 140 NL, AMOCO 4535, 4545, OR EQUAL FREE DRAINING BACKFILL--- CONSISTING OF WASHED ROCK OR CRUSHED ROCK MINRVIUM 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE WITH POSITIVE GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated'or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN (! Group Northwest, Inc. ...�2=21F Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, 3 Emdronmental Scientists SCALE NONE DATE 5/7/98 MADE SH CHKD WC .908 No. G-0907 PLATE 9 REVISIONS BY N Data 21, scale Drawn Job Sheet Of I Shoots rno CE M :z 0 C) o ril m Cie ril CD it mm