9305 OLYMPIC VIEW DR.PDF9305 OLYMPIC
VIEW DR
R
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: t'7� �1�1��%�// rG/�c7 C/C/
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): 2��5'0Z :74 J�
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: 6kee?( i
CRITICAL AREAS':- DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver • tudy Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: I/%///%��
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
AloeO !'
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST D%ATED: L
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: fj LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: �- /�0 '9 Z LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT D2
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #
GEOTECH REPORT DATE'.
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
wft.,,. 'YI-.m.•'''+-� � J � �.h n.-i yJ,.n�1 -.... - .0 •yya Y•�;'YYr.r-✓^J u''.�-.: j .f`^ .. _. � ,..�Y__ .. ne � . � � ... w r-N ...� � y.-.,��.. ��Lu...., 0, .
14 90
City of Edmonds
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
� STREET FILE
PERMIT NO: 10096
PERMIT EXPIRES
l
Address of Construction: qq io y b LID #
Property Tax Account Parcel No. ® 5W J
Attach copies of all access and utility easements Pa Verified and Approved by
Owner and/or Contractor:r--
Contractor License #:�/ °(OMM Building Permit
ingle Family,
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units _)
❑ Commercial (No. of Units )
nD..1,1;,
Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes 10
*RW Construction Permit, #,
Cross other **Private Property: ❑ Yes luxo
** Attach lPoal rlPerrrintinn and r.npy of recorded easement.
Owner or contractor signature and acknowledgement statement:
By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
�ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein.
Date
,9 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-425555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION .
9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extensions w
24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS
::.. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Permit Fee $ Repair'Fee $ Issued. By:
Trunk Charge $
Assessment Fee $
City Permit Surcharge Fee . ua V
Date Issued: �l
Receipt No:
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: �,zQ (Z 1` wlol.dll° 9C m & : hgt Date: %fInitial:
Partial Inspection: — Date: to o nitial: J4
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: did IO(o Initial: As -built to Street File: ❑
t� PERMIT MUST 8E POSTED ON JOB SITE t�
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
L;temp;bl dg forms;sspermitj lg4/00
•
« ak j
EDlir_ I CIT Y OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT
r
ADDRESS:
9305 OLYMPIC VIEW DR
PERMIT
NO. 10096
CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE:
CRITCHLOW HOMES INC. I UNKNOWN NTS
DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
12/08/05 1 J. McCONNELL 8/01 1 I. ABILA
. r.
CornerAone
17625-130tl Ave. NE, �'i02, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: 425-844-1977
Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: 425-844-1987
January 10, 2005
Mr. Jeff Critchlow
Critchlow Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 13400
Mill Creek, WA 98082
Water Feature Letter
Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1801
Dear Mr. Critchlow:
This letter presents our geotechnical evaluation of the proposed water feature behind the planned
residence at 9305 Olympic View Drive in Edmonds, Washington. You have recently received a
"Plan Review Corrections" letter from the City of Edmonds, dated December 15, 2004. In this
letter, The City of Edmonds has stated that the planned water feature extends over the 15-foot
building setback line from the current steep slope buffer. You have asked us to provide our
geotechnical opinions regarding the steep slope and the impact to slope stability of the planned
water feature.
For our use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with a faxed version of a plan showing
the proposed location and layout of the water feature. This plan shows a rectangular
pond/fountain area bounded at each end with a low flight of concrete steps on grade. The
footprint of the planned water feature partially extends over the building setback line shown on
the provided plan. This encroachment ranges from approximately 5 feet at the north end to 8 feet
at the south end.
Site Conditions
We visited the site last year to evaluate the existing site conditions in the vicinity of the steep
slope area. During our visit, we observed that the west side of the property led to the top of a
steep slope that extended downward to the west, toward Puget Sound. The slope was v"'E 1
VED
S4AN 11 2005
�°�T FILE PERMIT COUNTER;,
J-
Water Feature Letter •
Single -Family Residence
January 10, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 2
with brush, deciduous trees, and an old growth stump near the top of slope.. The large evergreen
trees stood vertically and did not show signs of slope movement.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on our review of the provided plan and evaluation of the surface conditions at the site, it is
our opinion that the water feature can be constructed as planned without adversely impacting the
stability of the steep slope. We recommend that runoff from the concrete steps and overflow
from the pond/fountain area be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water . discharge
system. Sheet flow from the steps should not be allowed to flow directly into the surficial soils
near the top of the slope. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins. and drain
lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system or in pipes that extend down the slope. The
best measure would be to slope the entire exposed surface to a place where water can be collected
and discharged into the storm system. This will reduce the risk of storm water flowing over the
slopes.
We recommend that temporary erosion control measures be implemented. These measures
include erosion control fences placed to the west of the water feature during construction to
protect the steep slope as much as possible. Permanent erosion control measures should be
implemented as soon as possible and should consist of directing surface water away from any
steep slope. All exposed areas should be planted with vegetation and properly maintained until
fully established.
It shall be understood that our evaluation is limited to our surficial observation and review of the
provided plan. Subsurface explorations were not performed as part of this study, and our
opinions, conclusions, and recommendation shall not be construed as a warranty of subsurface
conditions.
RI
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Water Feature Letter
Single -Family Residence
January 10, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 3
We trust this letter meets with your needs at this time. If there are any questions concerning this
letter or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Geotechnical; Inc.
of AS
30530
�tss �CtS7FA���G
NAL
EXPI]tES 081161a
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal .
JPL:RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
r
Geotechnical Evaluation
Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
For
Critchlow Homes, Inc.
Cornerst a 17625-1301^ Ave. NE,002, Woodinville, WA 98072
• . Phone: 425-844-1977
SQL; Geotechnica, Inc. Fax: 425-844-1987
February 15, 2004
Mr. Jeff Critchlow
Critchlow Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 13400
Mill Creek, WA 98082
Geotechnical Report
Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1801
Dear Mr. Critchlow:
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation and plan review for the new single-
family residence located at 9305 Olympic View Drive in Edmonds, Washington. We understand
that special geotechnical conditions have been placed on your building permit (King County
Permit #13021,1414), and a special inspection was .required to address these geotechnical
conditions. We have been provided with a site plan showing existing topography and planned
residence location.
' We previously prepared a letter dated January 10, 2005, which provided an evaluation of site
conditions and recommendations for site development. Our plan review was based on a
' geotechnical report prepared by Mr. Dale Hemphill, who is now deceased. The City has
requested a new geotechnical report because the patio slab and steps encroach within the setback
' recommended in the Hemphill geotechnical report. The City has requested that current standards
apply to the new geotechnical report. It is our understanding that non -critical structures such as
' the concrete steps can be constructed within the building setback area, but not within the steep -
slope buffer zone.
Geotechnical Report
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 2
You plan to construct a single-family residence with a patio and concrete step. The water feature
has been eliminated from the planned improvement. You have asked us to provide our
geotechnical opinions regarding the steep slope and the impact to slope stability of the planned
patio and steps as specified in-lBC 1802.
SCOPE
The purpose of our services was to evaluate site conditions and to provide recommendations for
development. Our scope of services included the following:
1. Review available geologic maps and geotechnical reports for the site.
2. Explore subsurface conditions with shallow hand explorations
3. Provide an evaluation of the steep slope portion of the site.
4. Provide recommendations for support of the planned foundations, including
recommendations for slope setbacks.
5. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading.
6. Prepare a report summarizing our conclusions and recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The site- is an irregularly -shaped parcel with maximum dimensions of approximately 240 feet in
the east -west direction and 78.5 feet in the north -south direction. The site slopes gently down to
the west before reaching the top of a steep slope. Based on the provided site plan, there is an
elevation difference of approximately 12 feet between the east and west sides of the site in the
building portion of the lot. A foundation remains where the old house was demolished, but the
remainder of the site was clear and free of vegetation. The west side of the site consists of a
bluff and a steep west -facing slope that slopes down to the Burlington Northern rail road tracks.
The bluff is approximately 130 feet in vertical relief with an average slope of 13 percent. We
did not observe indications of surface water or silt layers, or slope movement, including the
leaning of trees on the steep slope at the time of our site visit on February 3, 2005.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 3
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The last
period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ended approximately 10,000 to
11,000 years ago. Many of the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and
overriding by glacial ice. During the Vashon Stade, the Puget Sound region was overridden by
over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice sheet were compacted to a much greater
extent than those that were not.
The geology of the site is shown on the Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East
and Edmonds West Quadrangle, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington, Mackey Smith,
1975. The geologic unit mapped in the project is the Whidbey Formation (Qw). Transitional
Beds consists of a clay, silt and fine to very fine sand. The Whidbey Formation is older than the
Transitional Beds and generally consists of cross -bedded sand deposits, and also silts. While our
explorations did encounter Whidbey Formation, we expect these soils core most of the hillside.
We encountered sand deposits that appear to be advance outwash. The outwash has been
compacted by the weight of the glacier.
Explorations
Subsurface conditions were explored at the site on February 3, 2005, by excavating a total of four
hand augers. Hand augers were excavated to depths ranging between 3.0 and 5.2 feet below the
ground surface. The explorations were located in the field by a representative from this firm who
also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the hand
augers. The approximate locations of the hand augers are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The logs of the hand augers are presented in
Figure 4.
Subsurface Conditions
We encountered a sand with gravel and silt in our explorations underlying the topsoil layers. We
expect the Whidbey Formation silt underlies the sand deposit. Specific soil conditions can be
viewed in our soil logs.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 4
Hydrologic Conditions
Shallow ground water seepage was not encountered in our explorations. The dense soil
interpreted to underlie the site is considered poorly draining. During the wetter times of the year,
we expect perched water conditions will occur within the upper sand on top of the dense soil
layer. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water "table" within the upper soil
horizons. Volumes of perched ground water vary depending upon the time of year and the
upslope recharge conditions.
Seismic Hazard
The site is classified based on its overall soil profile using Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003
International Building'Code (IBC). Site conditions best fit the IBC definition for Site Class C
("Very dense soil and soft rock"). The IBC provides parameters and coefficients to be used in
seismic design based upon this site class.
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
' motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high
ground water table. The underlying dense soils are considered to have a very low potential for
' liquefaction and amplification of ground motion.
SLOPE STABILITY
The core of the site is inferred to be comprised of advance outwash underlain by the Whidbey
Formation. We, did not observe signs of deep-seated slope failures. We did observe one
indication of a shallow surface failure on the slope. This is the typical shallow failure that occurs
on these types of bluffs. We expect most of the shallow failures would be less than 10 feet thick,
but based on the history along this bluff of Puget Sound, this distance could be more. For this
reason, building setback recommendations have been provided in this report.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the site is compatible with the planned development. The underlying
medium dense or better soils are capable of providing adequate support for the proposed
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report •
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 5
structures. We recommend that the foundations for the structures extend through any water -
loosened or disturbed soils, and bear on medium dense or better native soils, or on structural fill
extending to these soils. We anticipate that these soils will generally be encountered at typical
footing depths.
The soils likely to be exposed during construction may be moisture sensitive and will disturb
easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months.
If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be
expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need to place a
blanket of rock in the footing areas to minimize disturbance to the prepared footing subgrade.
Building Setbacks
Uncertainties related to building along the top of steep slopes and, in particular, unstable or
actively backwasting slopes, are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose
of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure areas and the top of the slope
so that ample room is allowed for normal slope recession during a,reasonable life span of the
structure (usually taken to be 50 to 100 years). In a general sense, a greater setback will result in
a lower risk to the structures. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on
the slope's physical characteristics, such as slope height, surface angle, material composition, and
hydrology. Other factors, such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and
desired life span of the development, are important considerations as well.
The planned building should be located at least 30 feet back from the top of the slope. The
building could be located closer to the slope, foundations would need to extend deeper
into the hillside. The patio slab and steps may be located no closer than 15 feet from the slope.
The steps are considered a non -critical structure and could be removed if the slope recedes.
We recommend that no significant fill be placed within 30 feet of the west slope without a
specific geotechnical review. We are available to consult with you on the amount of fill
acceptable.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 6
Structural Fill
General: We do not expect a significant amount of fill will be placed on site. However, all fill
placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features should be placed as
structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and
standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician.
Field -monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -
place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction.
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining granular soil,
free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3
inches. Imported, all-weather structural fill should contain no more than 5 percent fines (soil
finer than a Standard U.S. No. 200 sieve), based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve.
The use of on -site soil as structural fill will be dependent on moisture content control. Some
drying of the native soils may be necessary in order to achieve compaction. During warm, sunny
days this could be accomplished by spreading the material in thin lifts and compacting. Some
aeration and/or addition of moisture may also be necessary. We expect that compaction of the
native soils to structural fill specifications would be. difficult, if not impossible, during wet
weather.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed.
Fill should be placed in 8- to 10-inch-thick uniform lifts, and each lift should be spread evenly
and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying
building areas, and within a depth of 2 feet below pavement and sidewalk subgrade, should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this
report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure. Fill
more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soil to be compacted should be
within about 2 percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be
necessary to overexcavate and remove wet surficial soils in cases where drying to a compactable
condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and
size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report •
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 7
Temporary and Permanent Slopes
Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of
soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains
open, and the presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable
conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the
responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is
continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to
monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the near -surface weathered soils
and outwash be no greater than 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H:1V). Cuts in the dense
unweathered soils may stand at a 0.75H:1V inclination or possibly steeper. If ground water
seepage is encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary.
We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering
cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We
do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is necessary. We
recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to local and WISHA/OSHA
standards.
Final slope inclinations for structural fill and the cuts in the native soils should be no steeper than
2H:1 V. Lightly compacted fills or common fills should be no steeper than 3HA V. Common fills
are defined as fill material with some organics that are "trackrolled" into place. They would not
meet the compaction specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered
with straw or jute netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established.
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be founded on undisturbed, medium dense to
very dense, glacial soils, or be supported on structural fill extending to those soils. If the soil at
the planned bottom of footing elevation is not medium dense to very dense, it should be
overexcavated to expose suitable bearing soil, and the excavation should be filled with structural
fill, or the footing may be overpoured with extra concrete.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report . 0
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
' Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 8
Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for
' frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 16 and 20
inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. Standing water
' should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be
removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
' For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design. International
' Building Code (IBC) guidelines should be followed when considering short-term transitory wind
or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing
pressure is estimated to be less than 1-inch total and 'h-inch differential between footings or
across a distance of about 30 feet. Higher soil bearing values may be appropriate for footings
' founded on the unweathered drift/till, and with wider footings. These higher values can be
determined after a review of a specific design.
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive
soil resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation
must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soil or backfilled with clean, free -draining, compacted
structural fill. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure
distribution. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 225 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
be used to calculate the allowable lateral passive resistance for the case of a level ground surface
adjacent to the footing. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and soil of 0.45
may be used, and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. A factor of safety of 2.0 has
been applied to the passive pressure to account for required movements to generate these
pressures. The friction coefficient does not include a factor of safety.
Slabs -On -Grade
Slab -on -grade areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading
subsection. Slabs should be supported on medium dense to very dense native soils, or on
structural fill extending to these soils. Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that
slabs be underlain by 6 inches of free -draining coarse sand or pea gravel for use as a capillary
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report • •
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 9
break. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the
capillary break.
Drainage
Surface
We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs, driveway and access
roadways, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site
grades should allow for drainage away from any buildings. We suggest that the finished ground
surface be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from
the buildings. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and
be discharged into a storm drain system.
We recommend yard drains be placed in strategic locations to collect surface water flowing from
the impervious patio and stairs. It is important that these drains function and are periodically
maintained. It is best if all surface runoff should be directed away from the steep slope and into
storm drains.
Subsurface
We recommend that footing drains be used around all of the structures where moisture control is
important.. The underlying soils may pond water that could accumulate in the crawl space. It is
good practice to use footing drains installed at least 1 foot below the planned finished floor slab
or crawl space elevation to provide drainage for the crawl space. At a minimum, the crawl space
should be sloped to drain to an outlet tied to the drainage system. If drains are omitted around
slab -on -grade floors where moisture control is important, the slab should be a minimum of 1 foot
above surrounding grades.
Where used, footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is
surrounded by free -draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into
tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point. Crawl spaces should be sloped
to drain, and a positive connection should be made into the foundation drainage system. For
slabs -on -grade, a drainage path should be provided from the capillary break material to the
footing drain system. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report •
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 10
Pavement
' The performance of roadway pavement is critically related to the conditions of the underlying
subgrade. We recommend that the subgrade soils within the roadways be treated and prepared as
' described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. Prior to placing base
material, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory roller
' compactor and then proof -rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully -
loaded dump truck. Any areas with excessive weaving or flexing should be overexcavated and
' recompacted or replaced with a structural fill or crushed rock placed and compacted in
accordance with recommendations provided in the Structural Fill subsection of this rep ort.
MONITORING
We should.be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations,
and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed during the
work differ from those anticipated. As part of our services, we would also evaluate whether or
not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications.
USE OF THIS LETTER
We have prepared this letter for Critchlow Homes, Inc. and its agents, for use in planning and
design of this project. Our services were performed to evaluate the presence of perched ground
water and provide an estimate of the rate of flow of the ground water
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care
our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this
area at the time this letter was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be
understood.
Sim
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report
Critchlow Homes — Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
February 15, 2005
CG File No. 1801
Page 11
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this
letter or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
�L 'J�� Z!f
Owen Lawlor
Staff Geologist
36530
(EXPIRES 08/16/06
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal
OL:RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted
Four Figures
Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Vicinity Map-
N
c D E F G H J A B c D E F
7
434��.,-'
4361 '
�sarH
,
Ina Lj
1
454.. 45 1�
Y -' Z
LL
�. TH
w
2
—
Project;,°�.-�
r Site
CP
�n r - 188T
4,,.
`�
A t L r"
. ,.. f 1..,(F t: ERT?96
wr _ FTC 1I' x
5
-_ �. iT _
_
6
i s '0Ir
212' H
_
_ — J
W `` , _I
— �ZJ r f
�
7
T. MI U _ Aq
;...w::i ' �- ! 1' l J'EL'M, is—�_ :�_� - i220T
, t "It vl
y1 (-�L'I
I
-
,I�
-I 'I.
�r�
.I_
rr_ _ 1-_,� 'f^
yI -�.1-� .t
1�-� _.__ ' _
_;_ )_ It
01995 Thomas Bros. Maps
Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Critchlow Homes SFR
Fax: (425) 844-1987
Geotechnical, Inc. File Number Figure
17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 1801 1
pm�MEI'Ml
Cl)
r
l 1
Unified Soil Classification System
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE -
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS
RETAINED ON NO.4
SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORE THAN 50%
RETAINED ON
number 200 SIEVE
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50% OF
SAND
COARSE FRACTION
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
SC
CLAYEY SAND
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
FINE -
CL
CLAY
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50%
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
MORE THAN 50%
PASSES NO. 200 SIEVEMH
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
50% OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS
1) Field classification is based on Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
visual examination of soil in general to the touch
accordance with ASTM D 2488-83.
2) Soil classification using laboratory Moist- Damp, but no visible water
tests is based on ASTM D 2487-83. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,
3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil is obtained from
consistency are based on below water table
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977
Unified Soil Classification System
Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987
17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA* 98072
Figure 3
'
DEPTH
USC
• LOG OF EXPLORATION •
SOIL DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER ONE
'
0.0 - 2.4
ML
BROWN SANDY SILT WITH ROOTS, GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) TO( PSOIL)
2.4 - 3.7
ML
REDDISH -BROWN SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, TRACE ROOTS AND ORGANICS
'
(LOOSE, MOIST)
3.7-4.2
SM
BROWNISH -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST)
'
4.2 - 4.8
SW-SM
GRAY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
4.8 - 5.2
SP
GRAY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL TO COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE TO
DENSE, WET)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.4, 3.7, 4.2, AND 4.8 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST HOLE CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
'
HAND AUGER TWO
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 5.2 FEET ON 2/3/05
0.0-2.3
ML
BROWN TO REDDISH -BROWN SANDY SILT WITH ROOTS, GRAVEL, AND ORGANICS
(LOOSE, WET) (TOPSOIL)
. 2.3 - 4.1
ML
BROWNISH -GRAY SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
4.1 -4.5
SM
GRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL TO COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE,
WET)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.8, 2.3, AND 4.1 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
'
TEST HOLE CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 4.1 FEET ON 2/3/05
HAND AUGER THREE
0.0 - 2.2
SM
DARK BROWN SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL)
I'
2.2 - 5.0
5.2 - 5.4
SW-SM
SP
BROWNISH -GRAY SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE, MOIST)
GRAY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL TO COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.5, 3.5 AND 5.0 FEET
t
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST HOLE CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 5.4 FEET ON 2/3/05
HAND AUGER FOUR
0.0 - 1.6
ML
BROWN SANDY SILT WITH ROOTS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL)
1.6 - 2.3
ML
LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST)
2.3-3.6
SM
GRAY TO BROWNISH -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST)
3.6 - 3.8
SP-SM
GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL TO COBBLES (MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 0.5, 1.7, 2.3 AND 3.6 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST HOLE CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED -
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.8 FEET ON 2/3/05
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FILE NO 1801
FIGURE 4
r— GeolechnIC81 Engineering Report ---)
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable: A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers,can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Engineer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.aste.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M
PLANNING DATA
NAME: ` r=R- DATE: 12. 1(4-0fI
SITE ADDRESS:_{ C9 . 14. !7 _ PLAN CHK#: =v - S21
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ►�,�,� �F�z
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: es / No
MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: es / FLAG LOT: es / No
ZONING: 24�>- 1 2 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #{gip, , - I C
❑ Waiver
❑ Conditional Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION:
❑ Fee � \St�•L-�'�l.wd��� �
❑ Checklist O4- aW
❑ APO list w/ notarized form _ v�
❑r'(Needed for NO cubic yards of grading, Shoreline AV�a- site wi within 20PL of uSound or L*6 Ballinger)
/a Exempt
SETBACKS:
—Required Setbacks: j
l Street: 12 . 4; Left Side: 16 Right Side: I O Rear:-ZQ 'D �
Actuel Setbacks: / O
Street: 2 ?. Left Side: l Right Side: 10 Rear:
Street map checked for additional setback required? Yes / No
❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES:
ROCKERIES:
❑ FENCES/TRELLISES:
❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION:
❑ STAIRS / DECKS: -
PARKING: Required: 2' Actual:
LOT AREA LI
LOT, COVERAGE
Calculations: -7 Q
BUILDING HEIGHT: q O
Datum PointE f atum Elevation: GQ Q 0
Maximum Allowed: ( L Actual Height:
A.D.U. CREATEon /Yes
SUBDIVISION: RL42s
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: es / No
OTHE,1
Plan Rev ew By. � �' e "t� —
` c;&04.t-C C'h kaxA
C N�e�w lamm�g aormDO
C
/ ✓ OIL) �DV P QU 4- p•� S l i-.s �Q C.��.. .
a
. code- O ci S
+
k-tX CA�
ellr2 L
IFIN la
JL
z to •
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
W z
z �
t9 J N
a w
0 3 z
c� ?
>- z w
x ? Q
Q
O iu <
a a O
N
W o SLOPE EVALUATION
5 1'( mw
�ujU
w
J Z a
'u FOR THE PROPOSED
a
fA J
w 0 a
O z O
-j
to MURPHY HOUSES
w
i;
�Nz
o o LOCATED AT
Q N Q
3 w
z z W PARCELS A and B
a r 9305 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE
a cn EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
tN
z
O O z
a w w
w w w
w a o
z rn
z o
z z f-
w O z
x }u
a Cu
a
o
'i w
wc0i3
cn
z
z O O
w W ~
w u
z ed 0
z
0.
w PROJECT NUMBER 2336
zp z a 5 May, 1998
w
z f- N (rev. 26 July, 1998)
:) ! m
O O
tL V1 to
4041 WEST LAKE SAMMAMISH PARKWAY SOUTHEAST BELLEVUE WASHINGTON 98008
. . . PHONE 425 644 1080 FAX 425-957-1877 dhemphill@cse-nef.com
RECEIVED
NOV 1 '0 2004 --
PERMIT COUNTER
STROVE` FILE
•
FIGURE 'I
C0I411101_ AND
DOUNDA11Y LOCATION MAID
.1 •
I-IEIIIDIA14 - 1111CU110 OF SUIIV[Y, V-30/250
E50 0 50 10U
LINE 01_M1ING D1S1'AIICE
Li 11 36'nO'!3G" 1: (3.01
L2 S 53'50'22" [ 00.39
PLAN of EXISTING SITE
Irl 34' I!)' ° r_
i .ups' 75.0
Iv o 0
O U.
O
O O UI (7
Z W In
111 -1 _1
U IV 1'1 UI
bl r� O alm
1; .v U
UI O 0 '.• (it'.•
1 . al UI
lull OF SI-1011c
0 111 v
1)� I INl O
lu fV
.1 Irr Iv
111 1�1 IV
1� IV
QI lJ
PAFICLL U PARCEL A
24, 437.34 SF 10, 410.55 SF
b
Ili U
u) o
vl /
1-3
ul :�
1 '
/
51=1' rlI=UAN 7; CAP (rYP)
!;Er P.IC. NAIL
�. to��� �� �g� ' 11/rAG 114 ASPHALT
Ol > O
/ bIUN C1 CASE (fl'I') ul �0
s:
lo
5'
\!' 1,11111, ME 13-27-
�1.
\a �
i
a��>
M.
PROJECT NUMBER 2336 26 July 1998
CLIENT James H. Murphy
9305 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, Washington 98020
REFERENCE : Stability of slopes for house placement
SUBJECT : Geotechnical investigation
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to
present the results of a geotechnical
study of the stability of the slopes
located at 9305 Olympic View Drive.
The property has been subdivided into
parcels A and B, as shown in Figure 1. A
new house will be constructed on each
parcel.. The existing house will be
removed.
The purpose of the stability study is to
page 1 of 6 pages
determine the potential slope loss
during the lifetime of the proposed
houses in order to determine the safe
locations of the houses relative to. the
top of the slope.
The investigation and report were
authorized by James Murphy (owner)
in a letter dated 24 February 1998
and addressed to Dale C. Hemphill of
HEMPHILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS
(HEMPHILL).
INVESTIGATION
HEMPHILL had conducted a slope
investigation on the adjacent
properties to the north of the site in
1990. There is no evidence that any
significant sliding has occurred on
those slopes in the past eight years,,
even though Puget Sound has
experienced the worst conditions in
recorded history with the greatest
rainfall for a 5 day period in February
1996, and the greatest number of
slides in January 1997 from a
combination of melting slow (as much
as 30 inches) and heavy rainfall.
•
•
PROJECT NUMBER 2336
26 July 1998
During that period many slides
occurred on the slopes adjacent to
Puget Sound in the vicinity of
Edmonds. Most of the slides were thin
sloughing (skin slides) of the outer
weathered portion of the very hard
and strong glacially compacted soils
that are exposed in the slopes. Most
of the slides included less than 2 feet
depth, and sometimes only 1 foot.
Even under those extreme conditions
less than 5% of the total slopes
actually had a thin slide. Any deeper
slides occurred in fill that had been
placed on the slopes, or in areas that
had unusual conditions. According to
some owners slides had not occurred
DESCRIPTION of VASHON TILL
Vashon Till is very dense, massive,
gray, and composed of various
combinations of clay, silt, sand, and
gravel, with scattered cobbles and
boulders. The aggregates in Vashon
Till are generally cemented together,
and they have a texture similar to
concrete. Sometimes exposures of
Vashon Till have the appearance of
concrete.
page 2 of 6 pages
on their slopes for 15 or more years.
There was no evidence that any
slides had occurred on the property to
the north in the past 10 years. Any
slides were minor sloughing of the
weathered soils. There is a small spot
on the Murphy property that exposes
glacial till that might have been the
result of a recent slide. Based on the
lack of evidence of slide debris on the
lower slope, that slough was very
minor. Because of the great strength
of the slope soils, a deep slide is
unlikely. The slope soils are known as
Vashon Till.
The Vashon Till was deposited
beneath the last glacier that occupied
the Puget Sound area. That glacier
was estimated to be 3000 to 4000
feet thick in the Seattle area. The
heavy loads imposed by the glacier
(150,000 TO 200,000 PSF)
consolidated the Vashon Till to a very
dense, fairly impervious, very strong
soil.
PROJECT NUMBER 2336
26 July 1998
Undisturbed and unweathered Vashon
Till is difficult to excavate, and to a
pick and shovel it feels like concrete.
Undisturbed Vashon Till has been
tested to be capable of supporting
loads in excess of 20,000 psf with no
compressibility.
Undisturbed Vashon Till is very stable
on slopes, and can stand vertically for
great heights. The outer surface on
slopes steeper than 45 degrees will
slowly erode from weathering and will
DESCRIPTION of WEATHERING
Although glacially compacted soils
are very strong and can stand at
steep slopes, the exposed surface of
those soils eventually becomes
loosened and/or softened by the
weathering processes. The
weathering processes include wetting
and drying, freezing and thawing, root
action, direct rainfall, groundwater
seepage, and erosion from
uncontrolled or concentrated surface
stormwater runoff.
Root action is the most damaging to
page 3 of 6 pages
eventually slough off. The depth of
slough can range from a few inches to
a few feet. Each slough might require
many years for weathering to cause
the outer soils to loosen and soften
enough to slide off the slope, but
uncontrolled surface runoff can
increase that rate. The sloughing soils
will pile up at the base of the slope at
an approximate angle of 35 to 45
degrees until the slope is completely
covered. The undisturbed soils are
then protected from further
weathering.
the deeper strong soils on steep
slopes, usually from trees breaking up
the strong soils by forcing their roots
into relief cracks, or creating new
cracks. The tree roots also break up
the soils as the upper trees wave in
the wind. Sometimes when the deeper
soils are too strong, the trees will
spread wide very shallow root
systems. The roots will hold the upper
weathered soils together, but if the
soils become too saturated the soils
and the trees will slide off slopes on
the deeper strong soils.
•
•
-fr
O
D �
O
Z
).
'I.
no
_o .. 140 _..-..-..
cn
f
•
PROJECT NUMBER 2336
26 July 1998
Also when shallow rooted trees blow
over they carry the upper weathered
soils with them. Trees are like
battering rams and destructive to
downslope buildings.
Uncontrolled stormwater runoff is the
most damaging to soils on steep
slopes. Great damage can occur in a
short period of time as the result of
fast moving water eroding the surface
and creating gullies. Stormwater that
infiltrates the more permeable
weathered soils can break the
capillary bond between the soil grains
that "glues" the grains together, and
can also increase the weight of the
upper weathered soils. The loosened
and softened heavier soils then slide
or flow off the slope on top ,.of the
stronger unweathered soils.
The soils that slide off the slope then
pile up at the toe and build back up
the slope at the natural angle of
repose until they cover the slope and
protect the underlying strong soils
from further weathering.
Deep seated slides do not normally
occur in strong glacially compacted
•
page 4 of 6 pages
soils, therefore stability studies are
usually not appropriate. The stability
of a slope depends on the extent of
weathering, the type of vegetation,
surface and groundwater conditions,
and the natural angle of repose of the
weathered soils under the normally
occurring conditions. Slopes that have
been stable for years can become
unstable as the result of unusual
weather or seismic conditions; and
often from conditions created by man.
Therefore the stability of a natural
slope is determined by the upper
weathered soils rather than the
deeper unweathered soils. Because
of the many variable parameters that
effect the weathered soils, stability
studies in glacially compacted soils
based on experience are more
appropriate than mathematical
studies.
Erosion due to groundwater seepage
is usually a slow process that occurs
on top of the more impervious soil
layers. The seepage will erode the
outer surface grain by grain. The
seepage erosion is a slow but
continuous process, and therefore
relentless.
I
E
O
•
`
..........
...................................................
. . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
..................................... .
D...
.... :�:.:......... .........
... ........
...
m
w
m
0
O
z
O
X
G)
v
a
T
O
-1
m
z
D
r
r-
O
`o
m
PROJECT NUMBER 2336 26 July 1998
Slides usually occur during or after a
heavy rainfall when the excess water
has increased the weight and
softened the already loosened
weathered soils. The excess water
includes uncontrolled and/or
concentrated surface runoff from the
properties above the slope.
page 5 of 6 pages
Concentrated surface runoff often
erodes the weakened weathered
soils, causing flow slides that can be
the most damaging to downhill
properties because of the velocities
achieved, and the distances that flow
slides can cover.
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS
Figure 2 on the previous page shows
the contours of elevation of the slope
for the property north of Parcel A. The
south property line for that property is
also the north property line of Parcel
A, therefore the contours of elevation
for Parcel A are. similar. Figure 2
shows the location of a section .on the
north property that would be similar
for Parcel A, and would be
representative of the slopes of
Parcels A and B.
Figure 3 shows the section of the
slope. The average slope is 550.
HEMPHILL anticipates that the final
slope resulting from the worst
conditions that could occur, including
uncontrolled runoff caused by man,
would be approximately 450.
If the worst natural.. conditions (100
year rainfall, VII intensity earthquake)
occur in the lifetime of the houses (50
years), then a maximum of 30 feet of
slope might be lost. If the future
owners become uncomfortable with
the slope conditions, they can protect
against further weathering and
erosion by several methods, or
possible new methods in the future.
Feasible present day methods of
underpinning foundations are also
available. One method of slope
protection presently available is
shotcrete with anchors. The
underpinning, the shotcrete, and the
anchors can all be installed with
portable equipment.
PROJECT NUMBER 2336
26 July 1998
If it is desired to place the proposed
houses closer than 30 feet to the
present top of slope, then deep lateral
resisting foundations properly
designed for probable future
conditions can be installed. Also slope
protection can be installed during the
construction of the houses.
The current owner's proposal to
construct the houses on Parcels A
and B outside the 30 foot buffer and
setback from the slope on normal
spread footings, or closer to the slope
on properly designed and constructed
foundations, will have no adverse
impact on the site or adjacent
properties.
The worst conditions that can cause
slope failure is uncontrolled water
flowing over the slope. Natural
stormwater runoff presently runs off
Dale C. Hemphill P.E.
Registered Engineer No. 14.777
State of Washington
page 6 of 6 pages
the existing lawns, and has not
caused any significant erosion.
Control of future runoff will reduce the
natural runoff erosion and will improve
slope conditions.
The drainage design for the proposed
houses should include control of roof
and driveway runoff, and interception
of any surface runoff from front and
side yards, and adjacent properties.
The usual worst runoff erosion results
from uncontrolled water from man,
such as concentrating roof and lawn
runoff onto the slope, forgotten
sprinklers, broken pipes, etc. The
future owners should be informed
of their obligation to protect the
slopes from uncontrolled water.
G. H1�119
GI
14777
Cs��ONAL
EXPIRES 17 FEBRUARY 2000
13'-E ri VEE?EIIIE�.FII
FILE NO. 9 �—
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/Location: 30 S --Aw!/
2. PropertyTax Account Number: a — — D2y 0664
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): J° `" V
4. Is this site currently developed. yes, no.
.If yes; how is site developed? '
5. Describethegeneral site topography. Check all that apply.
VetFlat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise
of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 104eet 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:
E
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodwayfloodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-
round? %% D 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.
DETERMINAT N---
- STUDY REQUIRED
WAIVER j
Reviewed by:L S l
Plann
`J-b-
R.ViW2*" (�D i S L1/3o
ay0.199-
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Checklist
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on
this form is to be filled out by any person
preparing a Development Permit
Application for the City of Edmonds prior
to his/her submittal of a development
permit to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable
City staff to determine whether any
potential Critical Areas are or may'be
present on the subject property. The
information needed to complete the
Checklist should be easily available from
observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps,
or soil surveys).
An applicant, or his/her representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it,
and submit it to the City. The City will
review the checklist, make a precursory site
visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a
development permit application.
With a signed copy of this form, the
applicant should also submit a vicinity map
or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel
with enough detail that City staff can find
and identify the subject parcel(s). In
addition, the applicant shall include
other pertinent information (e.g. site
plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in
conjunction with this Checklist to assist
staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site.
I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant:
Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP Phone
Signature
Date
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP Phone
Signature
Date
*ILE NO. �—
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information
(soils/topography/hydrology/vege
t
ation)
1. Site Address/Location: 30 S v _ =-A'�
2. Property Tax Account Number: 3 2 n 3 — — D 2 y 00 A �` .� [`
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): l�;.e�� • '
4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed? `
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
- etFlat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise
of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ,/f�¢/; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-
round? %% p Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ).
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed ;
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is resent on site:
P
DETERMINAT
Rev 00/20/03
al90 199".
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas, Checklist
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on
this form is to be filled out by any person
preparing a Development Permit
Application for the City of Edmonds prior
to his/her submittal of a development
permit to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable
City staff to determine whether any
potential Critical Areas are or may be
present on the subject property. The
information needed to complete the
Checklist should be easily available from
observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps,
or soil surveys).
An applicant, or his/her representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it,
and submit it to the City. The City will
review the checklist, make a precursory site
visit, and make a determination of the
-subsequent. steps necessary to complete a
development permit application.
With a signed copy of this form, the
applicant should also submit a vicinity map
or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel
with enough detail that City staff can find
and identify the subject parcel(s). In
addition, the applicant shall include
other pertinent information (e.g. site
plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in
conjunction with this Checklist to assist
staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site.
I -have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant:
e �1
Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP Phone
Signature
Lille
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP Phone
Signature Date
CITY of EDMOIDS S#E SEWER PERMIT
For Inspection Call 771-3202 PERMIT NO. -
STREET FILE
Address of Construction: S�.�DS' O�Ci/���i /��G✓ �2.�%�'�-
Property Legal Description (Include all easements):
Owner and/or Builder: V
Contractor & License No:
Single Family Residence
EDMONDS
• Multi -Family (No. of Units
TREA7MENi PLANT
Commercial (No. of fixture Units )
a-
00
0
r
41
(A
•r
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No X Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way
Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before.any
excavation.)
Cross other Private Property: No Yes (If Yes, easement required',
attach legal description and county easement number.)
PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK
d _ r_ $r9
I ceiftify that/I ad and shall comply Date
with the items listed on e back.
.All 1!510A
Permit Fee:
�Issued
Trunk. Charge: IDate Issued:l /
Assessment Fee: Receipt •
Partial Inspection:
Comments
Final Inspection Approved: 6 iu
Date Initial
Rejected:
Reason
** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE **
Date Initial
Date Initial
White Copy - File Green Copy -`Inspector
Buff Copy - Applicant
0
CD
m
V
T 4-
G
a
A' J
us
0
a
N
m
d
O
3
a
W
z
o
•
L tb
� �
o
W
I�
v
----------------
/ ' //�%c-l!/t,/ �'�.�'y� — '�j/ .`'`/ c----..� //r--'-7 '�/1��%^ tJ%J. L-�c"G>✓/b-sr49
�'.,�' l arc-•'` %O / �� '""-- •� M r
0
/21) �c�' Y ✓ �J�NG O // i I
e. z- 27 Dom"
ilvi4�/ ZivCF-
3
"
w
N
N
U2 Q °°
Of
�c d o v o
�
AA
aqi O�
W
m m C b
O
q
m "
0
n
C
0. q ti eo
q
O
O
Ul
ON
•J;
N F•
n
�•I
A;
:
Oi :A
00 OVO 09
O A M
N
r4 N 00
yP.
y�y
•r1:
O
❑ oA yT 3q
04
Qm
zLu
W
�E
d
o
E�iD D `� o 'oG d
a
W
Up
m!
Ib�;
of i „ "o x
LU
CoeW
m m 2o
GwFC
1L
O
Ey
d
o
: U
-$ d b 9 H o"
O o
F o" m� mo d
rA
uLU
W®
E
..i O
U d a
ti O E,Z .�
..
H ®
iA �w
I
Q
N
W
W
vp
zz zz z zi
M•I
WW (W�
F o �^ .O
U
d
0
OF
C z 4 z z
`4A
kC�c 1C.
Coq C,
Irv.
w
1:5
A
° ? o 0
§ @ 2
0 k
@ 'a
$ k
c 2
CL
E E $
0
co
�
/
CD
2
_
0 �
m CL
o
§
$ c
l<
-
■ =
CL
]
o
■ g
k \CD
F $
■
$
CL a
Q
(D
S ■
E
m ■
n
0 2
a
■
� w�� " �� �
CL �.
Z a
o �
0 J
«
o a
) 2
]
�a
■ 2
a
g 7
§ (
C.
o �
\3
]
¢0
g
0
/
"U
m
�
z
�
m
;
2
� O
| mm
.@
k�
) Z q
�
E 0v
FL 02
2 /m cn
�J®
#± m
pri
. -1
2
| X 0
w
'
890.199
STREET FILE
CITY OF E D M O N D S LARRY S NAUGHTEN
250-51h AVE N. e EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN f°
Public Works o Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR/
June 2, 1989
Mr. Jerry Schei
Western Yacht Sales
2412 Westlake Avenue N.
Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Mr. Schei:
During routine inspection of our sewer system, it was brought to my
attention of a possible hazard. Upon viewing this site with the Fire
Chief, Jack Weinz, we found that this deck is a public nuisance and
should be removed or fenced to prevent the public from getting on this
deck. Attached is a plat map showing this property.
Please call me at 771-3202, extension 314, to further discuss this
matter. Your cooperation would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bobby R. Mills
Public Works Superintendent
BB/lk
Attachment
OVDDECT/TXTLMK41
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
w
14
890.199 .
STREET FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
250-5th AVE N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (2061 771-3202
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Public Works • Planning i Parks and Recreation a Engineering
May 23, 1989
James Murphy
9305 Olympic View Dr,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. Murphy:
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
PETER E. HAHN i
DIRECTOR r
During routine inspection of our sewer system, it was brought to my
attention of a possible hazard. Upon viewing this site with the Fire
Chief, Jack Weinz, we found that this deck is a public nuisance and
should be removed or fenced to prevent the public from getting on this
deck.
Attached is a plat map showing this property. Since it is difficult to
tell which lot the deck is located, I have sent a letter to both
addresses.
Please call me at 771-3202, extension 314, to further discuss this
matter. Your cooperation would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bobby R. Mills
Public Works Superintendent
BB/lk
Attachment
Letter Sent To:
9309 Olympic View Drive
9805 Olympic View Drive
OVDDECT/TXTLMK41
Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
= Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
? 3 o
13 /8
JI
roy ! STWET FILE
C CITY• OF EDMONDS .'
RECEIVED
SEWER DEPARDIENT - JUN IQ 1984
STOPPAGE OF SANITARY SEIVER MAIN REPORT PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: 8 '8� TIME CALL RECEIVED: 2;r
1.5PM
LOCATION OF STOPPAGE:
TINE OF ARRIVAL ON THEJOB SITE: 2.36 PM
TINE NORTIAL FLOW OF SANITARY SEWER REESTABLISHED: Jr 15 pM
CAUSE OF STOPPAGE: Qp7s kN GLA�:t TI LE
APf �cl MATF� 1 O FR®M i�Ali�l
r
ACTION REQU I RED TO CLEAR MAIN AND/OR LATERAL:
CITY CREW ON STOPPAGE CALL OUT (Personnel Involved) : _i�i�1RT `j Q� RrJS ,
r
LOCATION OF RESIDENCE AFFECTED: �3� ►� Q(_`-i�/�,P �Cy� p(a VC—
NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNER: Aim Muepq,4
DESCRIBE DMiAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY: a N 2� 2iEC�
RF."IARiCS : nppf N D rKIC l 'C'M k EASe me wr
8 L.Y1AAc-3E WAs I N -P R1 VAVZ \.A-TG(AL-
i
K('.75:"3!13:9T!FS�31''Csrx.�'.9r4s-a^^m*�r"mt�-^"+•�*�--i>-•.sr. .•,.^�.:r. n.,.•.:.,.•r.- ,--:. .- �.-.......<....-�..-..•....-,M....,.���.n,�-,.........,..-....�...-�.-.s...tss
E A S E I I E N T
. For a good and valuable consideration, the grantors���AT�
.. hereby grant
to' the owners, Sohn V&—Sg1 -ghi
and to future owners of:
(DESCRIPTIORTi OF SALSBtRY PROPMTY ON REVESE SIDE
e
An easement for the installation, operation and maintenance of a sanitary
sewer line over, across;' through, under and upon the following described
property, situated in Snohomish County, State of.tdashin¢ton,.to-wit:
Beginning Northeast ,corner of Section 130 T? 27 N, Range 3E,
�f(.M. thence ,S 89' 38t 08tT :17. 260.82 feet; thenco S 34 19 i, 1374.09
feet!"thence S 534151E 179.70 feet;, thenc6 .S 5" 02136«E 40 `feet
to ti�,e point of beginning thence; contin„e S.5 . 02136"E27.05
feet; "thence X 53` 15!?1 30feet;' thence easterly in -straight line ?
to tr„e point of beginning.
DATED this 27th day of April 19 70 --
�� • 1 ( �l Wes/ \ +i�
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
On this day personally appeared before me Alice N. Meyer
to me known to be the individualt.
described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and
:voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal .this 27th day of
�t,Apri 1 19 70
. h
ee
Note v Pub is `_in and f r the
Q
LUCC
r
D
C>W0
P
J
l
St to o.f a�.ington, i ing
at Seattle, 14ashington
0
DESCRIPTION OF SALSBURY PROPERTY
That portion' of lots. 18 19- and -20*`.w.Block 2
I s-90'.records' ing to plat ther6of recorded' in voillme. 9-- of plats; page ' 'of
Snohotmish ornty; %Vashington*, described as follows:
Beginning atothb northeast corner of Section 13 Township-,27 North-.
Range 3 East, VIO: x4 nning thence so„ 0*"211521 east 634*46 feet;
M .01 "L
thence so.,.,,th . 66'�'441 west 327*60 feet; thence north 6`,012136" west 280o62
feet'to the tnie point of beginning-. thbnce north 53*1151 west 222s0.5
feet*,, mqre.or. less to a point on the solltherly line of Great Northern
Railway Company is right "of way; th6nce along said right of way south
34"191 west 150ole feet; thence south 5a"151 east 279e43 feet;
thence north 39('02"east 74994 feet; thence north 5`02136" west 100071
feet to the trile-point of,boginning-.-,,
tBeing known: as Tracts: 20`21and 22. Maple' Manors according;- to: the
unrecorded ..:plat :thereof)
Beginning at, the northeast corner of Section 13:' Tovnshlp-27 North;
Range 3 FAst. Wo%,; ri - j ' nning thence south 61121152'° east 634e46 feetf,
thence 'solith 66-441 test 327*60 feet;' thence -north west
80091-feet to the ti;'Te point "of beginning; thence-contirtiing north
Vt02136" west 99'feet; then . ce south 39',02T'viest 74� e94-fee t; thence*
SO'tltheast6rly 67975 feet more or less' to the truepo 'int Of
beginning;
tBeing known as a portioh of Tract 300' Maple Manor, 0 according to the
.-Unrecorde-d plat thereof)'®
01
•
.. � Via+
r ATE RECEIVED
%i
PERMIT EXPIRES
6r
CITY OF EDMONDS
USE iE ::
PERMIT T.-
Z - 017
NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB
S ITEEAAP�T�#
ADDRESS
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
inyu ° T
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION
NO.
LO
LID NO.
f40.
LID FEE $
W
MAILING ADDRESS
3
O
a0
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER
OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP Approved
RW Permit Required
f✓
.'.rr
-.��^"'
Street Use Permit Req'd tO]
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
EXISTING PROPOSED
�,,.�.,
InspectionRequued p
Sidewalk Required 0
Mill
1-CISOK1425`74314L447REQUIRED
_.,+
. DEDICATION FT
underground
.Wrong required 0
NAME
METER SIZE
LINE
SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
�� +
2r
YES CINO ❑
z
�ucot
t
REMARKS
W
Z
..ADDRESS
.11/1
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
8
�iV
s ` 0 2 Tgfq
C TY-11 ZIP TE
EPHONE
))
G.
I >l i t
NAME
°
CBL#
iC) NA4.
,!
E INEERING REVIEWED 15Y DATE
CC
ADDRESS
�, y.•
E
Qd
-`
%n
V
IRE .REVIEWED BY
DAT
m
CITY ZIP.
MW
LL
c1
Un4N4
VAT CFI CI;uja
7t A'ir r,
I RELINE OR ADB#
INSPECTION
REQ'
BOND
POSTED
STATE LICENSE NUOSER EXPIRATION DATE
CHECKED BY
A
❑YES AO
$ ...........+°
SEPA REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
R
PROPERTYTAX, ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
uJ
I
_r
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING/MECH
EXP
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
FRONT SIDE REAR
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
FRONT URSIDE REA
PROPOSED
❑'"ADDITION
❑ COMMERCIAL
❑ COMPLIANCE OR
I
i2 •�j IOr ',�
I^�
�T A i(a'r IQ�
REMODEL
❑ MULTIFAMILY
CHANGE OF USE
❑ SIGN
PARKING, LOT
REQ'D PROVIDED
AREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
/�
Z
M
a
'Z
.ti :..
3 %
REPAIR G-� FENCE
..
❑ DEMOLISH t�T TANK ❑ OTHER
>§s yy
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
❑ ❑
ARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
E OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: '
CH
TYPE OF NSTRUCTION
CODE
OCCUPANT
ct
GROUP
G
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
CRITICAL
OF
DWELLING
AREAS
SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA
OCCUPANT
OSTORIES.,,
UNITS
NUMBER .,
REQUIRED ES..
LOAD'
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS
O
nrn q'
PROGRESS IINSPEC71ONS PER UBC 108 / IBC109 / IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ D„
.5
VALUATION
yy�
C�
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
420
Plop Check
1
State Surcharge
HEAT SI1UhCE GLAZING
LOT LOPE
..
•I
Building Permit
City Surcharge
/
PLAN EC
VESTED DATE
Plumbing
Base Fee
...
✓
Mechanical
D ,�-
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONL THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
.�.-
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
s
Engr. Review
W
PERMIT APPLICATION: ISODAYS
d
PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTEDPWITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection
ReceiptCC
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
9
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscape Insp.
Total Amt, Due
IAZ
=
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
Recording Fee
Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
APPLICATION
APPROVAL
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.
OFFICIALS SIGN
URE DATE
TURE (OWNER 0 AGE
DATE SIGNED
(425)
jjjJ)
11 _ ;
771-0220
M
REFfASED BY D E
A
ENTION
EXT 1333
__
ITI
UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL
2j7
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ACERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/ IBC110 / IRC110..
ORIGIN FILE • YELLOW- INSPECTOR
PINK - WNER • GOLD • ASSESSOR
I Mi�ER�I OUS AREAS
RES I DENGE
PATI O
PARCEL
tt
46-7-7 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL SQUARE FEET
E3,145 SQUARE FEET TO USE EXISTING DETENTION
SYSTEM DESIGNED TO
ciS2 SQUARE FEET �I HANDLE 5000 SQAURE FEET
OF I Mi::>ERV I OUS AREAS
100,
C'1'I;JER/f Cis R"iF r4 IS ��EsPONSIBLE FOR
E�3C�SI �: ► r ;,I �� ;C' : ,ril�sJ DRAWAGL
AS NOTED
�YEI
LEGEND:
2864 SQUARE FEET GI
DRIVEWAY 2580 SQUARE FEET o: 0000'oo°
TOTAL SQUARE FEET
WALKWAYS 204 SQUARE FEET TO USE NEW ONSITE DETENTION R: 00.00,
SYSTEM
TOTAL -7,541 SQUARE FEET (SO%)
I
I
I
I
I r-3#1
I TYPE 11 48"
TOP G0.5-75'
I IE ® &5.675'
I
I
I SDI 35
I SCW 40
I N-1'2 �ppR
I F81�
I
I EXISTING
50 LF 50" DIA.
HEL. ( �ALV. FIFE
I PER SHORT FLAT
I
I FOOTING [TRAINS ROT
TO BE TIED INTO
I bt-TENTION SYSTEM
GB#O
I TYPE 11 48"
I TOP ct 1.25'
I IE a 56.1'
I
I ExISTING
SS -GO LID
I g4.66
EXIST. �Cyy�pp-� �t �y ria
SEWER I INN 1 f � & SEWER.
REO'D
NEW 6" c- ''�'A xx
STORM TER;
TIGHTLIN
I
45" TYPE II CONTROL
GATGH BASIN GBIG
RIM EL. ® A5.00'
IN\/. ELE\/. ® 86.0'
(OUT)
0/4" OUTLET ORIEIGEy� t�
,I
I
N I
o
z I
N I
� I
I
N I
I
-I'ldlulivEERIi'VO I
r � �
An 6v
02510 20 50 50 100
PTO 'M' OVA I NAC-7r= FLAN
SEE GENERAL NOTES 50ALE: I" = 20'-0"
g505 OL-Y-MPIG VIEW DR1VE
7373
�
.N
rZ z 13T
d)
0z
�W
z
iF1 ul
V>
Z�
�I Q
0 K
.n W K
�Q
O
O
� �r 1IQI
LLV�
r
o Vly
dote,- 08-20-04
pe,rmit:
revisions:
01-15-05
RECEIVED
JAN 2 12005
PERMIT COUNTER
drawn by MWJ
�he,c#ce,d by:
Rcelveo
JAN 2 1 2005
PERMIT COUNTER
�r� �uc�ra�rs
ALL PORTIONS'OF BUILDING, STRUCTURES
STEPS, PATIOS, CONCRETE SLABS, OR ANY
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MUST MAINTAIN A
DISTANCE OF.29 FROM TOP OF SLOPE .
AS QESiGNATED BY SITE
P novED SY PLANNING,
&Kos;
88
SILT FENCE PER
CITY STANDARDS
`�579 ao
PARCEL GONGR
STEPS
OQ / � GRA A-. ��qz <v
J
(o
•r ,
v �
/ 6,
0� / �/
0
am
STEPS ON
GRADE
ADDRESS 1:4505 OL-rMPIG VIEW DRIVE
,�
q2'
LE(�AL LINE A NEW
DESCRIPTION: PARCEL "B" OF CITY OF EDMONDS FINISHED GRADE G4
NEW RESIDENCE
FF MAIN
(g) G5.00'
LOWEST FOOTING
ELEVATION
® g0.00'
LNG 1/t-2ir/Oh�W
�T,,��1NG- S�ALL INSPECTION
�'"/ yR-7�C�� ' REPORTS TO CITY BUILDING
INSPECTOR ON A WEEKLY BASS
WATER & SEWdER
INS. PEOTIONS READ
TOW
® q4' 14
BOW
® q2'
Cone,-- ) 2. Corner Flamm_
Setbacks Rewired Actual
Front -_ i2 , s , -7
Sides
Rear
Other tJcrGi O 3d v
Ne,Qht _ 2s
S� IN� � 6 i Izlii'(✓�il`S l i � �i` e "ti+ sii F 1Ytis-ILa-u
Y t�
UTILIT
S PER 5HORTI'1
O' PLAT
TO
B 2' �� SEE SHEET 5-1 FOR
B
g6'
GONGRETE
SITE AREA: 24,45-7.54 SOU�RE FEET LINE OF EXISTING 2j DRI\/EWAY 5`
C�R�4DE S�.s NOTE: APRO
250 YARD TO '
LOT SLOPE 00,, �s�� BE REM /�
NORTHWEST- 5OUTHEA!5T
(FROM ROAD TO TOP OF BLUES)
g6'
248.00 LINEAR FEET 4.09-65 SLOPE2
10.00 VERTICAL FEET
� OR
FOR FLAT PLANER
SURFACE SHHOULDOULD BE
US AND
SLOPEDIt IOTO DRAIN
° G8
HE I C�HT C,- ALGULAT I ON
A/� = rl
'"'''IIO
*`�. I TO 2
`'m �,Z�
° °
° °
FREE -DRAINING BAGKFILL
(MAX. 3% FINES) MIN. 8'
I00
/
B = ci&
I QF
6
° WIDE LAYER OP 2"-4"
QUARRY SPALLS ADJACENT
TO ROCKERY.
Q
F.z �-
°
STABLE GUT FACE IN NATIVE
-7).
D — cl 2
S
°
MATERIAL (SEE NOTE ;
I" (OR LESS) m WASHED
5-7-7/4= �4.25'
I
° °°
OVER GRAVEL UENDER PI E'��L
i
STORM DRAINAGE
AND RETENTION PLAN
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
RE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
O BENCHMARK
OGK SS -GO L I D
A T IRON I g4.66
HOLE
OVE AT
R P. INE I USE EXISTING
SEWER GONNEGTION
PER ASBUILT- INSTALL
I NEW SEWER LINE
I PER CITY STANDARDS
II G6 O I STABILIZED
EX
SA GONSTRUGTI ON
S ER ENTERANGE
TOW ��
�p' Q/
v�f'
PER CITY STANDARDS
4"-8' QUARRY SPALLS
DEPTH
/
'fig � ` ��
TON
N
I
Ap�•��y� �•� �� g
T ?Jtf 4J- f Ali Y VC )!IS RU 1 i';!A
qq,
-
/ 4—DRY SWAY
.
d p D
q4
1
.
Q
I
\
U)
rn
I
TOW
O —1.
V'
I
q/ I
Cn 0
C3 co
rn
I
wo
rn
I
AVERAGE C�R)4DE= c14.25 pi
,4GTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT = 118.-75' Z MIN. 1% CONT NUOUPS SLOPE 5`Q 6191 \ m I
��yy FIRM TO OUTLET, PIPE GUT FACE k I
MAXIMUM BU I LD I NO HE I OHT= 1 1 cf .25' UNDISTURBED LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC. ').QO7 , \
` / /� N SOIL NOR PARKIIROAVHN6S `Jv ' I
LOT GO V ERAOE: IN THI5 AREA II �. � -pr�-� . � ,� -. fie,( I
GENERAL NOTES, �I�— Q��`I��� �p���.rl.� [���1��+` 6�ial.���Y��� /�J' EXIST.
I. ROCKERIES 4' AND OVER IN a �I W Y I.-N(31NEIRING '(/ WE
TER I
HEIGHT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT n °11 2 u� IOO I I
RESIDENCE 5,-745 SOU,4RE FEET 2. FOR ROCKERIES BETWEEN 4' AND 6' HIGH
INC. COVERED THE INSTALLER OR CONTRACTOR SHALL
J� PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE BUILDING
PORCHES G,°tRAGE INSPECTOR PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION
CERTIFYING THAT THE SUBORADE AND a NO FOOTING OF STRUCTURES
DRAINAGEPREPARED HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN a � �
AGGORDANANGE WITH THESE STANDARDS CINGLUDIN6 OTHER ROCKERIES)"" .,...J..... .,..,. ,{f.G�.+.6.,..... q8 I
TOTAL
5,745 50UARE FEET (15.5% MAY BEAR IN HATCHED AREA
3. ROCKERIES WAND OVER IN HEIGHT REOUIRE
E1,16INEERIN6 SUPERVISION BY SPECIAL
IN5PECTOR (UBG 306b), WHICH AT MINIMUM PLACEMENT OF NOTE: SETBP.CKS ARE PER
5596 MAXIMUM SHALL CONSIST OF INSPECTION AND WRITTEN \
LOT GOVER�GE CERTIFICATION OF 5UBGRADE PLACEMENT ADJACENT STRUCTURES SETE3 AGK REOU I REMENTS OUTLINED I
FINISHED ROCBASE KERY.ND DRAINAGE, AND IN CONDITION OP APPROVAL I.B.1 (5)
( 8553 SO FT MAX.)
4. ROCK SHALL BE SOUND AND HAVE MINIMUM FILE 5-98-82., PURSUANT TO EC, -DC
Y DENSITOF 160 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT. SECTION 20.I5B.1 IO ANO THE ^�
S. THE LONG DIMENSION OF ALL ROCKS SHALL GEOTEGH I NI CAL REPORT '�If
I MPER\ /I OUJ AREAS
v
BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE WALL.
EACH ROCK SHOULD BEAR ON TWO ROCKS
Ov
IN THE TIER BELOW.
RESIDENCE
5,145 SOU,4RE FEET
6. IMPROVED WALKING SURFACES ABOVE
AND ADJACENT TO ROOKERIES OVER 50"
02510 2O �O SO I OO
PATIO
�
} v15 2 SOUARE FEET
IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A
GUARDRAIL CONFORMING TO UBG 3303.1.2
-7. ROCKERIES ARE EROSION -CONTROL
LEGEND:
DRI ll E_Wt1 I
�y /�
25VO SQUT[R� FEET
STRUCTURES. NOT RETAINING WALLS. NATIVE
MATERIAL MUST BE STABLE AND FREE -
NG IN CUT FACE.
IN DESIGN OR IN PLACEMENT
G (
0011001001'OF
I YT Jl
•(��\ q30✓ OLYMPIG VIEW DRIVE
WAL<NA'I'S
284 SOUARE FEET
8. ANY DEVIATION
el. AN
ADJACENT
KITH THE SEAL O,FUCTURES A CIVIL N61N ER MIGVMUST BEBRRENTLLY
L; 00.00'
LICENSED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
R: 00.00'
SEE GENT=R?:L NOTES SG?.LE: I" = 20'-O"
TOTAL
-7,541 SOU,4RE FEET
SITE EROSI�ON,GF2?.D�NG, 4 UTILITY PLAN
��ri���.� ST�� I����
HPL�4N,
11-10 AZ
J.
o,
OvmN
6O�
Z4-1
u! i�u1
z�u-cv
S aim
d1�I'- O
z
w
z
lu
IU V>
7—
NJ Q
AK<
V/ W K -
VI
V 0
O
O y
O �
L�
r O
m
L
0-
date : 08-20-04
permit:
revisions:
OI-I5-05
RECEIVE®
.IAN 2 12005
PERMIT COUNTER
drawn by MWJ
checked •by:
NO SCALE
0
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
RE5IDENGE
PATIO
DRIVEWAY
WALKWAYS
TOTAL
PARCEL
46-7-7 5OUARE FEET
TOTAL SQUARE FEET
5,145 50IJARF FEET TO USE EXISTING DETENTION
SYSTEM DESIGNED TO
ci52 SQUARE FEET HANDLE 5000 50AUiRE FEET
OF IMPERVIOUS AREAS
2580 SQUARE FEET 2064 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL 5G2UARE FEET
284 SQUARE FEET TO U5F NEW ON51TE DETENTION
SYSTEM
-1,541 5OUARE FEET (5096)
LI=GEND=
GI
L: 00.00'
R: 00.00'
I
i
i CE3#1
I TYPE 1148TOP
I E ® 85.6-75'
I
i
i
i
I
I EXISTING
50 LF 50" DIA.
HEL. (,ALV. PIPE
I PER SHORT PLAT
i
I
I
(fB#O
I TYPE II 48"
I TOP q1.25'
I IE a 56.1'
I
I EXISTING
I c14.66 LID
EXIST. !p�
5,4N. I ; 1 ROVI D AS I' OTIEi.r
SEWER I
BY ENGINEERING
NEW 6"
'STORM TER "
TIGHTLIN
I Data:10
4b" TYPE I I CONTROL
CATCH BA51N CB1Q
RIM EL. ® c13.50'
IN,/. KiE,/. a b9.00'
(OUT)
3/4" OUTLET ORIFICE
QN
I
I
I
I
o
- t
z I
�i
I
I
I
N I
rn
k
REVIsfor
I
1\0 OCT 13 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMEN?
OI7X OF EDMONDS
cv
02510 20 50 50 100
=;) A l NAC-.7r= f=L-AN
5EE GENr=KAL NOTES 5GAL-r=: I" = 20'-0"
cI505 OLYMPIG \/IEW DRI\/E
amp
I Y THOMAS NASH
� Il
N
r N
41
Qamo z�,C�
13 4_
z�u-cv Nmt'- O
O
z
o a
.mow
z
Z
cl
JU 0
A
00
0-o
0
0
0 ,^
o
m
0
i
date : 08-�O-o4
permit.
revislons:
OI-IS-OS
drawn by: MWJ
checked by:
p
q�3�s e ab
w4z
b,1131,1�5-
STREET FILE
8V •
SILT PELAGE PER
GITY ST.0.Mp440>S
TIE INTO
EX 15TI NcG
CATCH _
BA51 N
PARCEL x
0 QVF x
0/ Q ul
Ae 4-0
UTILITY
CIO / PER SHORT W
NEW RESIDENCE / PLAT
FF MAIN
¢ a g5.00'
q� QO / LOWEST FOOTING
9p \ ELEVATION
O�Z G .40E
T1GFiT4
AIX
OD ONGFRETE '
Pe
J�
Z.
r �s
6x,,,,� i !!G 967,1"
IMPERVIOUS AREAS 46-1-7 SaUARE FEET
TOTAL SaUARE FEET
RESIDENGE 5,745 5GUARE FEET TO USE EXISTING DETENTION
5'I'STEM DE510NED TO
PATIO G52 50UARE FEET HANDLE 5000 SaAURE FEET
OF IMPERVIOUS AREA 5
DRIVEW�4Y
i
TOTAL
2500 5aUARE FEET 2564 SOUARE FEET
TOTAL 5aUARE FEET
254 SaIJ A<RE FEET TO U5E NElN ONSITE DETENTION
_ SYSTEiN(
-7,541 SaUARE FEET (5096)
I
I
I
I GB#I
I TYPE 11 45"
TOP gO.3-15'
I IE ® 65.6i5'
i
I
I
I
I
I I EXISTING
50 LF 50"
I HEL. 0AL'v. . PIPE
I PER SHORT
�00TING DRAlAs N,40 6
l 1 1*0 BE TIED INTO
IDE i EN T ION Si(S'I :oE 9
i
I TYPE
11 45"
IE ® 86.1',9r�
II EXISTING
SS -GO. LID
I qa H5
EXIST.
SAN. I
5ENER I
io �' . � � - Or rya - / q� I
v /
J �
Y
✓' /nalvewaY
I _SLOPE
T:— iCOG %if
OWNIER/CUN IS t~•6FLFONSIBLE FOR ~
EROSION c;ca �J i i?{�1., AND DRAINAGE 100
APPROVED AS NOTED
BY ENGINEERING
L /(
Date. 4....
LEGEND:
GI
00'00'00"
L: 00.00'
R: 00.00'
fix. G ' Sr'v�3
Mll
02510 20 50 50 100
u Iu_1
515E GvENERAL NOTES 5G,4LE: I"
c'1505 OLYMPIG VIEW DRIVE
M 00 E
O
16 ' O
O:
Vl Vi U
U
o
•
r
O O
•
1
i?
Z
rw
I� w
E.
E.
�
C7
M
U �
�'
en ao oNOo
a.
I�w
�k3
W0
7�
aQ
�K
V0 l
Vs
l) Q
H
O tu
,n
4-3
� m
i
CL
date: //_z1-za�s-
permit:
revls%tons:
EV
NOV 212005
BJILUING DEPA9-jMEN7-
rlr� r)P EDW) DF
drawn bdy
Gheeke3by:.
his
N 0 v 2 121 0 L'15
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Cirt OF FDP,40nn5
r
tO