Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BLD20121134.pdf
�� OF ED,t,�O� IIII�lIII 'y MICROPI CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 ���. t ayo PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 STATUS: ISSUED 05/16/2013 Permit #: BLD20121134 BUILDING' Expiration Date: 05/16/2015 Project Address: 16115 75TH PL W, EDMONDS Parcel No: 00513105800900 THOMAS MCDONOUGH ROB MICHEL 16115 75TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026-4525 EDMONDS, WA 98026-4525 BUILD NEW 600 SQ FT GARAGE / ESLHA VALUATION: $29,520.00 BRUCE HARDY CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICES LLC 1005 NE 162ND ST SHORELINE, WA 98155 (425)772-0646 LICENSE #: BRUCEHC884JC EXP:04/03/2014 PERMIT TYPE: Residential PERMIT GROUP: 33 - Garage/Carport GRADING: Y CYDS: 175 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB RETAINING WALL ROCKERY: N OCCUPANT GROUP: U OCCUPANT LOAD: FENCE: N ( 0 X 0 FT.) CODE: 09 OTHER: N------- OTHER DESC: ZONE: RS-20 NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 VESTED DATE: NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 0 EXISTING AREA LOT #: PROPOSED AREA BASEMENT: 0 1ST FLOOR: 0 2ND FLOOR: 0 BASEMENT: 0 1ST FLOOR: 0 2ND FLOOR: 0 3RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 0 DECK: 0 OTHER: 0 13RD FLOOR: 0 GARAGE: 600 DECK: 0 OTHER: 0 FRONT SETBACK SIDE SETBACK REAR SETBACK REQUIRED: W 25 PROPOSED: 25+ REQUIRED: N 10/35 PROPOSED: 25+ REQUIRED: E 5* PROPOSED: 5 HEIGHT ALLOWED:15 PROPOSED:14.26 REQUIRED: S 10/35 PROPOSED: 10 SETBACK NOTES: * reduced 5' for detached accessory structure of less than 600sf per ECDC 16.20.050.0 I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27, THIS A PL TION IS NOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIS/HER DEPUTY,AND ALL FEES ARE PAID.. - - -- n . - . . r-h l / %/ Print Name Date Released Date ATTENTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC109/ IBC110/ IRC1 l0. ONLINE APPLICANT ASSESSOR � OTHER STATUS: ISSUED BLD20121134 CONDITIONS • Approval of this foundation design is conditional subject to inspection of existing site soil conditions. • Retaining Walls must be designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure of the retained material. • Provisions must be made for the control and drainagerof surface water around buildings. • Maximum Height 15 feet. The agent/contractor shall set up the equipment; establish the datum point and the point of average grade. Call for inspection to verify. These items must be consistent with the approved plan. If the proposed height of a building (as shown on the plans) is within 12 inches of the maximum height permitted for the zone an elevation survey is required. • Lot line stakes must be in place at the time of foundation/setback inspection. • Hose Bibbs (exterior faucets) are required to have a permanently affixed anti -siphon device installed. • Obtain Electrical Permit from State Department of Labor & Industries. 425-290-1309 • As required by Ordinance #3632 the geotechnical engineer of record shall monitor this site during construction for compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report including: site excavation, shoring, soil support for _ foundation including piles, soil bearing capacity, subdrainage installation, soil compactions, and other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Specific recommendations contained in the approved geotechnical report must be implemented by the owner. The geotechnical engineer shall make written, dated reports on the progress of the construction and submit the report to the Building Official on a weekly basis until all site grading, drainage, foundation and associated ground work is complete. Omissionsbt deviations from'the approved geotechinical report and/or approved plans or specifications shall be highlighted and immediately submitted in a seperate letter to the City for review. The City shall be advised in writing of work stoppages of more than one week. In addition to the geotechnical monitoring, special inspections based on the provisions of IBC Section 1704 are required when specified on the approved plans. Other special inspections may also be required by the geotechnical engineer, architect, or structural engineer of record (refer to approved plan set). At the completion of final site grading and all permitted structures, a final geotechnical report, prepared by the geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the Building Official. This report shall contain a statement that, based upon his/her professional opinion, site observations, and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and with all geotechnical related permit requirements. Any deviations or omissions in the report, plans, or specifications that occured during construction shall be addressed separately. Occupancy, final approval, or release of the bond for the project shall not be granted until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Building Official. • Final approval on a project or final occupancy approval must be granted by the Building Official prior to use or occupancy of the building or structure. Check the job card for all required City inspections including final project approval and final occupancy inspections. • Any request for alternate design, modification, variance or other administrative deviation (hereinafter "variance") from adopted codes, ordinances or policies must be specifically requested in writing and be called outrand identified. Processing fees for such request shall be established by Council and shall be paid upon submittal and are non-refundable. • Approval of any plat or plan containing provisions which do not comply with city code and for which a variance has not been specifically identified, requested and considered by the appropriate city official in accordance with the appropriate provision of city code or state law does not approve any items not to code specification. • Sound/Noise originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from the noise limits of ECC Chapter 5.30 only during the hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm on weekdays and 10:00am and 6:00pm on Saturdays, excluding Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all other times the noise originating from construction sites/activities must comply with the noise limits of Chapter 5.30, unless a variance has been granted• pursuant to ECC 5.30.120. • Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns, and successors in interests, agrees to indemnify defend and hold harmless -the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance for this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce any requirements of any City ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision. • Maintain erosion & sedimentation control per city standards. • Applicant shall repair/replace all damage to utilities or frontage improvements in City right-of-way per City standards that is caused by or occurs during the permitted project. INSPECTIONS THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT TIME LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) BUILDING (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1333 ENGINEERING (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1326 FIRE (425) 775-7720 PUBLIC WORKS (425) 771-0235 PRE-TREATMENT (425) 672-5755 RECYCLING (425) 2754801 When calling for an inspection please leave the following information: Permit Number, Job Site Address, Type of Inspection being requested, Contact Name and Phone Number, Date Prefereed, and whether you prefer morning or afternoon. may. • E-Erosion Control/Mobilization • E-Storm Tightline • E-Exist Storm Line Cap or Removal • E-Footing Drain Connection • E-Driveway Form & Slope Vera • E-Engineering Final • B-Geotech Fill Special Inspection • B-Setbacks • B-Footings • B-Foundation Wall • B-Isolated Footings/Piers • B-Exterior Wall Sheathing • B-Roof Sheathing • B-Window Flashing • B-Height Verification • B-Framing • B-Building Final :v Ot�,, Inspection Comments BLD20121134 33 - Garage/Carport PEF2MITTRAX Applied: 12/11/2012 Issued: .05/16/2013 Expires: 05/16/2015 Address: 16115 75TH PL W, EDMONDS (INSPECTION;: ,,;: µ— -—^ ^_;� Y:DATE INSPECTOR ACTION 1001 - E-Erosion Control/Mobilization n 07/12/2013 MCCONNELL CMP Comment: TESC adequate. 1013 - E-Storm Tightline 08/07/2013 ZULAUF CMP Comment: mudded and connected—ok to b/f . 1017 - E-Footing Drain Connection 08/07/2013 ZULAUF CMP Comment: footing drain combined with run off drain connection to cb. ok'd per ops. 1044 - E-Driveway Form & Slope Ver. 10/02/2013 ZULAUF CMP Comment: Slope steep at south end of entrance to garage. Discussed with contractor. Slope of road was not level as shown on plans and therefore the slope off the access road was not level into the garage. There was no way to get around this without removing and replacing the access road. Homeowners are using the garage without problems. 1077 - E-Engineering Final 10/02/2013 ZULAUF COR Comment:. remove sock from catch basin and compost amend disturbed soils prior to final. 1077 -. E-Engineering Final 11/07/2013 ZULAUF CMP Comment: ok to final 1104 - B-Geotech Fill Special Inspection 12/06/2013 LAWLER CMP Comment: 1106 - B-Setbacks 07/16/2013 LAWLER CMP Comment: 1108 - B-Footings Comment: K 1110 - B-Foundation Wall Comment: 1112 - B-Foundation Drainage Comment: K 1132 - B-Exterior Wall Sheathing Comment: 1133 - B-Roof Sheathing Comment: K 1135 - B-Window Flashing Comment: 1140. - B-Height Verification Comment: 1142 - B-Framing Comment: 12/9/2013 12:32:30 PM. 07/12/2013 07/16/2013 07/22/2013 10/01/2013 09/05/2013 10/01/2013 09/05/2013 10/01/2013 LAWLER LAWLER LAWLER LAWLER LAWLER LAWLER LAWLER LAWLER CMP CMP CMP CMP CMP CMP CMP CMP Page 1 of 2 1158 - B-Building Final Comment: L r 12/06/2013 LAWLER CMP =o 12/9/2013 12:32:30 PM Page 2 of 2 /7 .cow h� �DF$Dy� O ` ..�} '1O V N Fst. 1890 City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ESLHA BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FORM F 121 5d Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone 425.771.0220 ft.Fax 425.771.0221 PLEASE REFER TO THE RESIDENTIAL B UILDING CHECKLIST FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PROJECT ADDRESS (Street; Suite #, City State, Zip): c 1J - 7s-%f' 'Z w Parcel #: p C?00 9 00 Subdivision/Lot #: 7y.�i7 Project Valuation: $ �oJ %'o © D O APPLICANT: ¢to/0 0-f-Y6t/Gt{ Phone: Fax: Address (Street, City, State, Zip): 1611.r ffooq E-Mail Address: —F7— PROPERTY OWNER: Phone: Fax: Address (Street, City, State, Zip): / E-Mail Address: LENDING AGENCY: Phone: Fax: Address (Street, City, State, Zip): E-Mail Address: -CONTRACTOR-* Phone: Fax: Address (Street, City, State, Zips: License #/Exp. Date: *Contractor must have a valid City of Edmonds business license prior to doing work in the City. Contact the City Clerk's Office at 425.77775.2525 City Business License #/Exp. Date: DETAIL SCOPE OF WORK: PROPOSED NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THIS PROJECT: Basement: s . ft. Select Basement Type: ❑ Finished ❑ Unfinished 1" Floor: s . ft. Garage/Carport: 6 B O s .ft. 2" d Floor: sq. ft. Deck/Patio: s . ft. Retaining Wall: ❑ Yes No Other: sq.ft I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the information I have provided on this form/application is true, correct and complete, and that am the property own or duly authorized agent of the property owner to submit a permit application to the City of Edmonds. Print Name: 7ei C Owner ❑ Agent/Other (specify): Signature: ` 6 v Date: L:\Building New Folder 2010\DONE & x-fen•ed to L-Building-New drive\ESLHAApplication.doc Updated: 9/2010 G. tp DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ESLHA BUILDING CHECKLIST 121 5`h Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Fsr. u g9° Phone 425.771.0220 Q Fax 425.771.0221 City of Edmonds PROJECT ADDRESS: 71r Plq Ct "f Plans shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed, and conform to the provisions of the adopted International Codes and City Ordinances. �a xItz z r)cn dz 04d O SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS y M �' to ^� v =�. o . � " d' � s CD CD co The number indicates the number of copies for �. GQCD y submittal( if applicable). Check marks indicate 19 0 O additional submittal requirement Pr 'o o c � Pre -Application Form 1 1 1 1 1 1 Application Form F 1 1 1 1 1 1 Critical Areas Study Document if applicable) 4 4 4 4 4 ESLHA Ma w/signature block 1 original) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Topographical Map and Survey 4 4 4 4 4 Vicinity Map 4 4 4 4 4 4 Site Plan 4 4 4 4 4 Reduced Site Plan (11 X 14 or 8'/2 x 11) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lead Design Professional Designation and 3 3 3 3 3 Statement (1 original) Applicant/Owner Liability & Landslide 3 3 3 3 3 3 Acknowledgement (1 original Geotechnical Hazard Identification/Declaration & Mitigation Statement .of Risk from Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer of Record (1 original) 3 3 3 3 Structural Engineer Declaration (1 original) ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify & Hold Harmless (1 original) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Building Construction Plans (structural plans stamped by Structural Engineer) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Structural Calculations 4 4 4 4 4 4 Energy Code Compliance (shown on plans) 4 4 4 4 Site Classification Worksheet (storm water). ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Civil Plans (Grading, Storm Drainage, TESC, Utilities) stamped by Licensed Engineer 4 4 4 4 4 Right -of-Way Permit Application ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Geotechnical Report 4 4 4 4 4 Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan 4 4 4 4 4 Affidavit of "Notice of Application Posted at Job Site 1 1 1 1 1 Washington State Contractors License ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Contractor's City of Edmonds Business License ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Plan Check Fee (due upon submittal) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ SEPA (grading, fill, excavation > 499 -cyds. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Peer Review Fee ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ L:\Building New Folder 2010\DONE & x-ferred to L-Building-New drive\ESLHAApplication.doc Updated: 9/2010 `na dz o SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Cap a °_M �� CDd The number indicates the number of copies for CrQ osubmittal(if applicable). Check marks indicate ffQCrQCD additional submittal requirement f9 0 O r Administrative Review Fees ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Special Inspection & Testing Agreement Form ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ General contractor Public Liability Insurance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Handouts and Standard Details may be found on the City's website www.ci.edmonds.wa.us or can be obtained at City Hall during normal business hours. • Plans/calculation/reports prepared by state licensed architects or professional engineers must be stamped and signed by the design professional. • Seasonal Construction Period: limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the drier season (normally between May 1" and the end of September). • During all work periods special inspections shall be performed after storm events as defined in ECDC 19.10.020(0). •. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated, reports on the progress of the construction and submit the reports to the Building Official on a weekly basis until all site grading, drainage, foundation and associated ground work is complete. • At the completion of final site grading and all permitted structures, a final geotechnical report, prepared by the geotechnical engineer of record, shall be submitted to the Building Official. '• OF E D'V O DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FORM F City of Edmonds 121 5 h Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone 425.771.0220 Q Fax 425.771.0221 Equipment Type Appliance/Equipment Information (new and relocated) Total # Furnace #_Gas # Elec #_Other: BTUs: <100k_>100k_.Location Air Handler/ACNAV #_Gas #_Elec #_Other: CFM: <100k_ >100k Location Boiler/Compressor/ #_Gas #_Elec #_Other: BTUs: <100k, 100k-500k, 500k-1Mil Heat Pump/Roof Top Unit HP: <3, 3-15, 15-30 Location Hydronic Heating #_Gas #_Elec —in-Floor, Wall Radiant, Boiler BTUs: Location Exhaust Fans (single Location: #_Bath #^Kitchen # Laundry # _Other: duct) Fireplace #_Gas #_Elec #_Other: Location Other Number of Outlets Fixture/Appliance Type AC Unit ----------- ---BTUs: Location: Furnace --------------- BTUs: Location: Water Heater -----BTUs: Location: Boiler —------- —----- BTUs: Location: Fireplace/Insert BTUs: Location: Stove/Range/Oven: Dryer Outdoor BBQ: Other: TOTAL OUTLETS PLUMBING FIXTURE C Number Fixture Type Number Fixture Type Water Closet (Toilet) Refrigerator water supply (for water/ice dispenser) Sink (kitchen, laundry, lavatory, bar, eye wash, etc.) Water Service Line Tub/Shower Drinking Fountain Dishwasher Bidet/Urinal Hose Bib Pressure Reduction Valve/Pressure Regulator Water Heater Tankless? Yes No Backflow Prevention Device (e.g. RBPA, DCDA, AVB) Expansion Tank for Water Heater Hydronic Heat in: Floor Wall Floor Drain/Floor Sink Other: Clothes Washer Other: L:\Building New Folder 2010\DONE & x-ferred to L-Building-New drive\ESLHAA}iplication.doc Updated: 9/2010 • Y C opy �1 of ED,yl0 SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT 341 Permit #: Fs1• cs9°. Protect; Q A Prior to issixance of a periW4 ilxis form niust ba completed in- its emYrety and.returned to Me City fors approval. the completed form must have signatures of acknoWedgtttent by all parties DUTIES AND REESPONSIBI71iTIES Special Insnectioti;firm and SpedalInsnectors: The Special Inspection firth of _ !! % i ,A . 4 �ff will perform special inspection for the following types of work (separate.forms must be'submitted if more than one firm is to be employed):. O1 Structural Fill All individual:inspeetors.to be employed on this project: will be WABO certified far the type of work they are to ` inspect .If inspection is -for work that is not covered by the WABO categories, or tha inspector is not WABO certified, a detailed resume of the inspector and. i1rm must be submitted.- Theresuane must show that the inspector and the firm are -qualified by education and experience to perform the work and testing required by the project design and specifications. The work. shall be inspected for conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Revisions and addenda sheets will notbe used for inspection, unless they have been approved by the City. Inspection records shall include: A daily record to be maintained on site, itemizing the inspections performed• Any nonconforming work shall be brought to the immediate attention of the contractor for resolution. A weekly report shall be submitted to the City, detailing the inspections and testing performed, listing any nonconforming work and resolution of nonconfom iiiig items.. A final report shall be submitted to the building department prior to.the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. This report will indicate that inspection and testing wars completed in conformance with the approved plans, specifications and approved revisions or addenda. Any unresolved discrepancies must be detailed in the -final report. Contractor: The contractor shall provide the special •inspector•or agency adequate notification of work requiring inspection. The City approved plan and specifications must be made available, at the iobsite for the use of the special inspector and the City inspector. The contractor shall maintain all daily inspection reports, on site, for review by all parties. The special inspection functions are, considered to be in addition to -the normal inspections performed by the City and the contractor is responsible for contacting the City to schedule regular. inspections. No concrete shall be poured or other work covered until approval is given by the City inspector. 11F.DMSYR-DEFTFSlBuildinEkHandouts lnformWon by ChucMinspeclionslspecial inVecdon.and testing sg<ssmati COEdocM0t201} BuUding Denartment:. The building department shall review any revisions and.addenda. The City inspector viill monitor th special inspection functions for compliance Ivi h the agreement and 1e approved plans. The Gity inspector shall be responsible for approving various stages of construction.to be covered and for -work to -proceed. Design Professionals: The architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate the plans and specifieations the specific types of special inspection required and shall include a schedule for inspection and.testing. The architect and/or engineer will coordinate their revision and addenda process in such a *ay as to ensure that all requiredCityapprovals are obtained, prior to work shown on the revisions. being performed in the field. Owner: . Tne project owner, or the architect or engineer acting as the owners agent, shall employ the speci:al,mspector or agency. E1�FORCEMEN'): . A failure of the special inspector or fum to perform'in keeping with the requirements of the nC, the approved plans and this document; may void this agreement and the Building Official's approval of the special inspector, In such a case a new special inspector and/or firm would need to be proposed for appraval..A failure of the design and/or. construction parties to perform in accordance with this agreement may result in a STOP .WORK . notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been. resolved. ACRNOWLEDGAMNTS I have; read and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreeme t. ate l3 Owner: j G-S 1✓onlU Signature ..r Contractor, f �._. g. �r ArchdEn rlex�,� Signature, Date �' .. Special Insp. Agency. ACCEPTED OR THE ary, OF ED1140NDS BUILDING DEFT.. Dy. Date: 1NEDMSYR-DEPTFS%utlding'J*.douts Id o n stlon by Chucklintpeati0a-s%ipeaial inspection and testing agr==t. COEdoc2t2=013 Building Department: The building department shall review any revisions and.addenda. The City inspector will monitor the special inspection functions for compliance with the agreement and the approved plans. The City inspector shall be responsible for approving various stages of construction to be covered and for work to proceed. Design Professidnals: The architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate on the plans and specifications the specific types of special inspection required and shall include a schedulg for inspection and testing. The architect and/or engineer will coordinate their revision and addenda process in such a way as to ensure that all required City. approvals are obtained, prior to work shown on the revisions being performed in the field. Owner: The project owner, or the architect or engineer acting as the owners agent, shall employ the. special inspector or agency. ENFORCEMENT A failure of the special inspector or firm to perform in keeping with the requirements of the IBC, the approved plans and this document, may void this agreement and -the Building Official's approval of the special inspector. In such a case a new special inspector and/or firm would need to be proposed for approval. A failure of the design and/or construction parties to perform in accordance with this agreement may result in a STOP WORK notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been resolved. . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have read and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. Owner: Signature Date Contractor: ri S�2v`iC�`.� L-LC� Signature f Date: t -t`7- vb��lN�iQ' MEIAf+ Arch./Eng: Signature Date: Special Insp. Signature Date: Special Insp. Agency. ACCEPT FOR THE CIT OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPT. By: Date: s' /k 7 3 \\EDMSVR-DEPTFS\3uildinoNIandouts Information•by Chuck\inspections\special inspection and testing agreement COE.doc3/19/2013 CRY COPJL OF E D,yt SPECIAL NSPECTION AND TESTING XGREEM ENT 34 13 LD ]Permit #: .AAAQ.11.1 S9° Project.; � � � �� � � � � it E ' anct.retzcrned to the City far ' Priorto issuance of a permit, tlt"is form must ba completed i7r its en &ety E P approval. 37re completed forrtl rnzcst leave signatzu'es of ackreoyvledgr�tent by allparties, DUTIES AND RESPONSIMUTiES S ecial inspection Firm and 5beclallnspectors: will perform special The Special inspection firm of Q / 1�`' es of work se arate.forms mustbe submitted if more than one firm is to be types inspection for the following t P employed): i U Structural Fill All individual: inspectors td. be employed on this project will be WABO certifiedOrie,r th mspe for is not WABO are to must show that inspect ,if inspection is -for work that is not covered by fhe WABO g or certified, a detailed resume ofthe qunspect,... -gud, firm mustalified by education nd experiencebe to Perform thew° k and testing quired by the inspector and the firm ar., project design and specifications. eoifications approved by the City. Revisions 1. The work shall be inspected for conformance with the plans and beVti approved by the City. Inspection and addenda sheets will not used for inspection, y records shall include: A daily record to be maintained on site, itemizing the inspections performed. Any nonconforming work shall be brought to the immediate attention of the contractor f esolution. x performed, listing A weekly report shall be submitted to the City, detailing the in ections and testing pe s any nonconforming `stork and resolution of nonconforming items.. A final report sball be submitted to the building department prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being e that inspection and testing. was completed in conformance with the issued. This report will indicat revisions addenda. Any unresolved discrepancies must approved plans, specifications and approved be detailed in the final report ` Con�r= c adequate notification of work requiring inspection. The contractor shall provide the special inspector or agency q The City approved plan and specifications must be made available, at the jobsite for the Use of the special inspector and the City inspector. The contractor shall maintain all daily inspection reports, on site, for review by all parties. -t normal perforrmed by The special inspection functions are. considered C additionin dole regular inspections. No concrete shall be he City and the contractor is responsible for contacting ins eotor. poured or other work covered until approval is given by the City p . . 1\EDiviSVR-DEF'rFSiBuildingUia outs tnformat on by Ciiuck�inspections\special insp�don•and testing agcecmcn4 CaEdo�u?o o13 enb p ecial Building Denartm revisions and.addenda. The. City ins ector vti11 moriteoc Slsll be The building department shall review anY inspection functions for compliance"with thcoagree c�o becovered and fo wok to -proceed. responsible for approving vanous stages of pe5i n Professionals: specific es of special The architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate on the plans and. speoiiic The a hitec and/or engineer will inspection required and shall include a sehedule for inspection and.testing. City approvals are coordinate a their revision and addenda process in such a way as to ensure That all required Ci a p riot. to work shown on the revisions, being performed in the field. obtained, p Owner: as the owners agent, shall emgloythe speeial,irispector or The project ovcmer, or the architect or engineer acting " agency. •. EI�IFdRCEMENT approved special inspector or frrm to perform"in keeping with tlhe requirements of the SAC, the appr A failure of thep Official's approval of the special inspector. plans and this document; may void this agreement and the Building ector and/or firm would need to be proposed for approval..A failure of the In such a case a new special insp Bement may.result in a STOP WORK. design and/or. eonstruotion PaThes to perform in accordance with this agreement notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been resolved. AGSNOWLEDGMFNTS 7 have read and agree to campy 1 with the teens and condiiaons of this agreeme t :. - r. z �/3 ate 40AIO Signature Owner: Date: e - Contractor: / Date: l� ! Signature. ArchiEng: tore ✓f,��� L�G��� Date' �-25 Special Insp. �.AJ2 rE�x.� �-Ag Signa Special insp. Agency ACCEPTED OR THE C _ OF BDA40NDS BUILDING DEBT.. Date: By: 11EDMSVR-DEP rFStBuildingdauts Tn;oci►ta@on by Chucklsnspxtiosis�SF&{peelion and tesCn6 agreetneat COSdoc2RO1Zo 13 Building Department: The building department shall review any revisions and addenda. The City inspector will monitor the special inspection functions for compliance with the agreement and the approved plans. The City inspector shall be responsible for approving various stages of construction to be covered and for work to proceed. Design Professionals: The architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate on the plans and specifications the specific types of special inspection required and shall include a schedulefor inspection and testing. The architect and/or engineer will coordinate their revision and addenda process in such a way as to ensure that all required City_approvals are obtained, prior to work shown on the revisions being performed in the field. Owner: The project owner, or the architect or engineer acting as the owners agent,. shall employ the special inspector or agency. ENFORCEMENT, A failure of the special inspector or firm to perform in keeping with the requirements of the IBC, the approved plans and this document, may void this agreement and the Building Official's approval of the special inspector. In such a case a new special inspector and/or firm would need to be proposed for approval. A failure of the design and/or construction parties to perform in accordance with this agreement may result in a STOP WORIC notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been resolved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have read and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. Owner: Signature Date -� Contractor: F S2v'iGir `� i�L,Cy Signature Date: 'f M0'ly.ACIIKj Arch./Eng: Signature Date: Special Insp. Signature Date: Special Insp. Agency ACCEPTE FOR THE CIT OF EDMCrNI DS BUILDING DEPT. By: Date: S — 4' 13 \\EDMSVR-DEPTFS\Building\Handouts Infarmation by Chuck\inspections\special inspection and testing agreement COE.doc3/19/2013 GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC. n u f ®otochn/co/ Enp/n®adnp and Eorth Sc/Bncoa (425) 391-4228 DEC � b� ?013 D'EVEIOPNjENT FOOTING, EXCAVATION OBSERVATION REPORT( j COUNTtR RV/CrS DATE: 74 Af PROJECT NO: CONTRACTO V C- `�` a vim/ PROJECT NAME: c, ckt �a �) REPRESENTATIVE: P � C'�� PROJECT LOCATION: ! ��_ VV , DESCRIPTION OF FOOTINGS COVERED BY THIS REPORT: IE�4 w-tk :5, WA — FOOTING LOCATION FIELD CONDITIONS NOTED Exc►ra*we,,5 2 5 dv 3+ ' . 5'6AA S e4 vi 1T NOTES Our representative has observed only the footing excavations listed above. tlf dny change in the subgrade conditions curs, we should be promptly notified. All loosened or disturbed soils In foundation excavations t be rem ed prio o co placement. COPY TO: ;IGNAT�URE rL Owner Liability & Landslide Acknowledgement I have reviewed all the material submitted by Geospectrum Consultants, Inc., Structural Systems Services, Donna Breske, PE and drawings by Michel Design. The accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by me as such to relieve the City of Edmonds and its staff from any liability associated with.reliance on such permit application submittals. While the application submittal may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City of Edmonds, all conclusions shall be mine and those design professionals mentioned above. I understand and accept the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and understand the requirement for temporary and permanent erosion control and site maintenance issues associated with specific geologic hazards or conditions of the site that may affect slope stability over time. I will advise, in writing any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures on the site, of the; slide potential and on -going maintenance issues of the area and on the property. �/- IF-eZo iZ /l-ZDIZ Owner Date . RECEIVE® NOV 21 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Leonard Yarberry, Building'Official LANDAU ASSOCIATES NATUM RESMAM City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. %) Rece1 DATE: November 30, 2012 6, 3 10'1 OEVEtOPUE IV RE: COMPLETENESS REVIEW cotJN rT��SnnERVICES SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FOR EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD.XW MCDONOUGH SFR DETACHED GARAGE-1611575Tu PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides our assessment of the completeness of the geotechnical portions of the permit submittal package submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed McDonough detached garage within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. This completeness review was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 12-04 of Landau Associates" On -Call Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Services Agreement with the a City. The completeness review is not intended to be a thorough review of the permit submittal package; instead, it is intended to be a cursory review to assess whether the submittal appears to contain the necessary information in order to complete a geotechnical peer review in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.10. As a guide in assessing the completeness of the package, we referred to the ESLHA Permit Submittal Checklist. The submittal package contains a letter from the geotechnical engineer dated November 12, 2012 that references a geotechnical report dated August 28, 2012. The August report wase not included in the submittal package, but a report from the same consultant for a different development on Soundview Lane dated September 28, 2012 was included instead. We assume that the Soundview Lane report was mistakenly submitted instead of the report for the subject property.. On the basis of our cursory review, and assuming that the August 28, 2012- geotechnical. report will be a part of the submittal package subject to review, it appears that the submittal package contains the geotechnical, architectural, civil, and structural drawings, and other supporting documents appropriate to assess the planned construction within the ESLHA. Our cursory review did not identify other missing items that are required under ECDC 19.10. Of course, once the more detailed geotechnical peer review is underway, there may be specific items within the submitted documents that need to be clarified or addressed in order to complete the geotechnical peer review. 130 2nd Avenue South 9 Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this completeness review and when you are ready for us to commence our geotechnical peer review. DRS/rgm 11/30/12 P:\074\173\FileRoom\R\CompletenessReview_tm.doc 2 :p LANDAU ASSOCIATES 14 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �I�� TO: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official (RECEIVE® City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. r JAN 2 9 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE: January 29, 2013 COUNTER . RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA — BLD2012-1134 MCDONOUGH SFR DETACHED GARAGE —16115 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides our geotechnical peer review for the permit submittal package that was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. We previously performed a geotechnical completeness review (summarized in a technical memorandum to the City dated November 30, 2012). The purpose of the current geotechnical .peer review is to review portions of the submittal package and assess its compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and 23.80. This geotechnical peer review was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 12-05 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have received the following information forwarded by the City for review: • Architectural Plan Set (6 Sheets, including Vicinity Map and Project Information, Plot Plat, Elevations, Garage Plan, Details, and Roof Plaits prepared by Robin W. Michel dated October 15, 2012. Includes Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement by Robin W. Michel; dated November 11, 2012, • Structural Plaits (Sheets S1 through S3) prepared by Sound Structural Solutions, dated November 9, 2012. • Structural Calculation Packets by Sound Structural Solutions (packet date: November 9, 2012). Signed and sealed by Ronald V. Skinner. • Structural Engineer's Disclosure Letter, prepared by Sound Structural Solutions and signed by Ronald V. Skinner, dated November 9, 2012. • Civil Plan Set — Grading, TESC, &Proposed Drng (1 Sheet) prepared by Donna L. Breske, • P.E., dated October 25, 2012. • Civil Engineer's Disclosure Letter, prepared and signed by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated October 30, 2012. • Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Garage, 16115 75``' Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Report -from Geospectrum Consultants, Inc., dated August 28, 2012. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinb.com • Hazard Identification and Mitigation Statements, Proposed, Garage, 16115 75`h Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Letter from Geospectrum Consultants, Inc., dated November 12, 2012. • City of Edmonds Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report, prepared by Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds, dated August 14, 2006. • Plot Plan, dated October 15, 2012. • Topography Survey for Thomas and Monica McDonough, prepared by C & C Surveying, dated August 7, 2012. • Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Plan (statement of no trees to be removed). By Robin W. Michel dated November 12, 2012. • Covenant of Notification and Indemnification/Hold Harmless. Assessor's Tax Parcel ID 005131105800900 signed by Thomas and Monica McDonough, dated November 20, 2012. • North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas Map (with property location noted and signed certification as to property location), by Robin W. Michel, Lead Design Professional, dated November 12, 2012. • Applicant/Owner liability and landslide acknowledgement signed by Thomas and Monica McDonough, dated November 19, 2012. • Affidavit of Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area Permit Posting. Dated and notarized November 21, 2012. The documents submitted appear to meet the minimum required application submittals identified in Section 19.10.030 of the Development Code. The following sections provide our specific geotechnical peer review comments. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT The geotechnical report provides a good discussion of site conditions and risks, and provides geotechnical recommendations appropriate for design. The report appears to adequately document existing site conditions based upon field reconnaissance and subsurface explorations, and acknowledges the occurrence of landsliding within the ELSHA and the risk potential for future landsliding at and in the vicinity of the subject parcel. _ CIVIL PLANS AND STORM DRAINAGE STUDY Inspection, maintenance, and regular reporting of TESC measures by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record are required [see the City ESLHA Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Requirements]. The pre -construction meeting needs to include the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (see City ESLHA TESC Requirements). We recommend that the notes be revised accordingly. 1/29/13 P:\074\173\FlleRoom\R\PeerReAeo_tm.docx 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES General Note 15 states: "See architectural drawings for perimeter foundation drains." The architectural drawings do not show the perimeter foundation drains and the details of the foundation drains as recommended by the geotechnical engineer are not incorporated into the plans. We recommend .41 that the perimeter foundation drain details be provided on the plans (either architectural or civil). General Note 15 also states: "Foundation drains shall be independent of other site drain lines and shall be tightlined to the storm drain system where indicated on the plans." We agree with this requirement and this requirement is consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. In the event that the roof drain should become clogged or blocked, it is important that water not be allowed to back up into the footing drains and inadvertently allow the footing drain to act as an infiltration trench. However, the civil plans suggest that the roof drain and footing drain come together at the SE corner of the proposed garage and cross the road in a single PVC pipe. It is not clear that this design provides the required separation of drainage. Please review the drainage system and call out a separate tightline pipe or provide other means to maintain separation of drainage flow. STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS Some of the recommendations of the geotechnical report have not been explicitly incorporated into the structural plans.(or alternatively the architectural plans). • The geotechnical report and the hazard identification and mitigation statements letter prepared by Geospectrum Consultants recommends that the footings be supported on a zone of compacted structural fill (e.g., see the first paragraph of page 3 of the November 12, 2012 letter from Geospectrum Consultants). This requirement is not mentioned on the plans. • The geotechnical report and the November 12, 2012 letter from Geospectrum Consultants (e.g., see the last paragraph of page 3 of the November 12, 2012 letter) recommends -Pat. the foundations on the west side "be deepened as required to provide a horizontal setback of at least 8 ft or two footing widths (whichever is greater) from the existing slope surface." It is not clear that this recommendation has been incorporated into the foundation design. It has been our experience that the contractor tends to build what is specifically shown on the plans and simply making a general reference to the geotechnical report is often not sufficient to achieve the intended result. We recommend that the plans specifically include the requirement for 2 ft of compacted structural fill beneath the foundations and that a specific bottom of footing elevation be shown on the drawings for the footings on the west side of the building as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 0 1/29113 P:\074\173\FleRoom\R\PeerReview_tm.docx 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS We reviewed the submittal package and confirmed that the statements and declarations from the design professionals as required by the City for development within the ESLHA are included in the submittal package. This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the adequacy of permit submittal documents related to the proposed McDonough Garage at 1611'5 751h Place West. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC 23.80 and ECDC 19.10 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical consultant to serve as the project's Geotechnical Engineer of Record and other design professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/CTM/rgm 1129/13 P:\074\173\F leRoom\R\PeerReview tm.docx 4 :p LANDAU AssocIATES GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS., INC. Geotechnicai Engrineerin_p and Eurth Sciences r August 28, 2012 crry Thomas and Monica McDonough COPY 16115 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Proposed Garage 16115 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Project No. 12-130-01 Dear Thomas and Monica, SEP 0 4 2012 NOV 21 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER This report presents, the results of our geotechnical evaluation of your proposed garage site. Our work was performed in accordance with the scope and conditions of our proposal dated July 27, 2012. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the site and provide recommendations for foundation construction within the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) a hazard area that affects your property. Your builder, Rob Michel has provided us with a current topographic map of the property and the approximate garage footprint location which we used as a references for our evaluations. Review of the site plan indicates that the proposed garage will be located within the upper southeastern corner of the lot adjacent to 74th Place West. No detailed plans for the garage were provided but based on discussions with Rob Michel we understand that the garage floor will be at approximately the existing pavement grade or about elevation 84 to 85. For the purpose of our evaluation we have assumed that maximum bearing wall loads will be about 1 to 2 kips/ft or less. If actual structural loads exceed this estimate our office should be notified. P.O. Box 276, lssoquoh, WA 98027-0276 • Phone: (425) 397,4228 Fox.* (425) 391-4228 McDonough August 28, 2012 SCOPE OF WORK Our geotechnical reconnaissance included site reconnaissance, site explorations, review of data, engineering analyses .and evaluations and the preparation of this report. The scope of work included the following specific tasks: o Reviewed geologic mapping and reports prepared for Edmonds by Dames and Moore (1968), Roger Lowe Associates (1979) and Landau Associates (2007) regarding the existing landslide(s) in the site area. o Performed a site reconnaissance to observe conditions on the site. o Site explorations were performed via trackhoe dug test pits. Two test pits were excavated at locations outside of existing pavement around the proposed building site (see Figure 3). The depths of the explorations ranged from about 6 toll 0+ feet. o Performed engineering evaluations of the surface and subsurface conditions observed. o Evaluated the existing landslide and the potential for future movement. of the considering potential triggering mechanisms. o Evaluated possible landslide hazard mitigation measures. o Prepared this geotechnical report summarizing our findings and recommendations for site development. DATA REVIEW & RESEARCH Geologic Mapping :v The geologic mapping of Figure 1 indicates the site is located within landslide deposits (Qls) which are about 3200 feet wide and extend from the very steep head scarp slope about 300 feet east of the site down to the shoreline in the site area. The mapping indicates soils exposed in the head scarp slope include the silt and clay interglacial deposits of the Whidbey Formation (Qw) in the lower scarp below about elevation 225 and Esperance Sand (Qe) that was deposited ahead of the last glacial advance into the Puget Sound area, approximately 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. Project No. 12-130-01 Page 2 August 28, 2012 McDonough Previous Studies in the Site Area As we have indicated, the site lies within the North Edmonds d eo ds Earth ut Subsidence ub i ence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESH)within which the ancientdes a landslideghat have been reported to be ancient landslide and areases in historically active. There have been several studies regarding ofstability issu a periodof area performed by geotechnical consultants for Y several decades documenting the ancient landslide s as es andell .Mooreas lstoric movements dated September dating from 1947. We have reviewed a report by 23, 1968, a report by Roger Lowe Associates dated October 16, 1979 and a more recent report by Landau Associates dated March 114, hose7The reports.following .present a brief summary of some of the relevant information Previous Dames and Moore Report,.1968 This earliest report included an discussion of the geologic history as The report well as a description of know historic episodes of slide oz mate locations of major historic slides included a site vicinity. map showing the app including one that occurred in 1947 and two that extending occurredfrom about 1 62de Street slide occurred near your site affecting an area exte gfeet southward about 800 feet and extending from the shoreline tenland an aoeabout angog+from upslope of 75th Place West. The 1955-56 slides approximately 500 to 1900 feet north of your site oand of the historic slides directlyextening inland about affected400+ feet. Based on the map included in the report, affected or involved your property but the slide limits indicated are within about 300 to 600 feet from your proposed garage site. Roger Lowe Associates Report, 1979 This report included subsurface explorations and an extensive discussionand f the regional geology as well as the site area geology, land history They concluded that the original ancient slide is about 3200. ffe t d soils (slide debris) art wide and e indicated occurred within the past 7000 years. The slide a area. They to extend to depths of 20 to 50 feet belowthe surface had o e slid dewith n a zone concluded that active historic slide movements generally extending inland (easterly) approximately 400 feet from the, Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, a zone that includes your property. This report also documented two new historic landslide movement areat s that occu it e, ed in 1973-74. These included a southern area slide thatas abo urrenty Medowdale) wharf and centered about 350 feet north of the Laebf 75th Avenue IWesta(currently 76thh Place extended eastward to about 80 feet east o West) as well as a. northern slide centered about 1200 feet north of the wharf and 200 Page .3 Project No. 12-130-01 McDonough August 28, 2012 feet east of the railroad tracks. Based on the.description provided, it appears that the 1973-74 southern slide was only about 300 feet northwest of the garage site. The Lowe report concluded that the stability of the general landslide area was very sensitive to ground water levels and indicated that ground water levels could be reduced by a system of sewers, storm drains and subsurface drains but that even with drainage improvements,' movements of the slide area would likely occur for a period of decades. Landau Associates Report, 2007 This latest report summarized the previous reports and provided a brief description of site area geology and landslide history. They reported that drainage improvements were made to the site area in 1984 and that the risk of large scale slide movements have been substantially reduced. and that no major movements have occurred since. The report indicates that sites within the ESLHA still have a substantial risk of being affected by future slide movement and indicates that the risk has been estimated to range from less than 10 percent probability in 25 years up to about 30 percent probability in 25 years. Figure 1 of the Landau report indicates that your property lies within risk zone B which includes the majority of the North Edmonds ESLHA. Hazards within this zone include localized small scale failures of weakened soils as well as ground movements and displacements resulting from large scale slide movements. LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS :e Our observations of the site were made on 817/12. The property is located within the ancient landslide limits in north Edmonds as approximately shown on Figure 1. The property is located between 75th Place West on the west side and 74th Place West on the east side and the proposed garage site is at the southeast corner of the property adjacent to 74th Place West. - The local site area topography is approximately represented on the maps of Figures 1 and 2 and topography of the site is shown on Figure 3 and a generalized site section is presented on Figure 4. Topography in the site area includes a generally flat lying area at the east side of your property and within the 74th Place West ROW at about elevation 85 which is . located within a moderately steep slope extending down to the west and up to the east. Based on the topography of Figure 2 the slope to the east rises about 20 feet at gradients averaging about 2.5 percent to the toe of a steep (50 percent) slope that is about 35 feet in height extending to about elevation 140 (this appears to be a secondary scarp slope within the ancient landslide). The toe of the very steep (near 100 percent) primary slide scarp slope of the ancient landslide lies about 300 feet east of the site at about elevation 120 to 160 (see Figure 2). The primary slide scarp slope extends up about Project No. 12-130-01 Page 4 McDonough August 28, 2012 120 to 140+ feet to about elevation 240 to 300 at gradients of about 85 to 90 percent. Areas above both the primary and secondary scarps generally have gentle. gradients. Topography on your property is approximately represented in Figures 3 and 4 and includes the relatively.flat asphalt paved area at the east side of your property adjacent to 74th Place West and a moderately steep west facing slope which drops down about 12 feet to a gentle slope that extends down to 75th Place West on the lower side of the property. The proposed garage site. at the southeast corner of the property will be within the flat pavement area. Based on the topography of Figure 3, the .slope gradients within your property range from about 12- percent up to about 25 percent. The onsite slopes drop down a total of about 18- to 20 feet to the 75th Place West ROW at the west side of your property. The slope below 75th Place West drops down an additional 45+ feet to the railroad ROW at moderate to steep gradients. We did not observe any evidence of current landslide activity such as ground cracks or fresh slide scarps or scars on or near the property or on the slopes adjacent to the site. The building site area was paved and the adjacent slopes were generally well vegetated. The vegetation on your property included lawn grass, shrubs and ornamental trees. Vegetation on the slope above the site included a landscaped residential development with natural vegetation areas and mature fir trees to the northeast. Subsoils Shallow subsoils were explored with two test pits excavated at the approximate locations shown in Figure. 3. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A.. Soils observed in the test pits included about 1 to 1.5 feet of fill which included decayed wood,. rebar, plastic and .sawdust at the TP-1 location. The .underlying soils were generally classified as silt or sandy silt and were generally loose. Notable exceptions were a dense sand strata encountered at about 5 feet in TP-1 and a thin layer of very. hard siltstone-like material encountered at about 5 feet in TP-2. Ground Water No ground. water was observed in TP-1 but water was encountered in TP-2 at a depth of about 5.5 feet. Soils above the water table were classified as moist to very moist with measured moisture contents ranging from about 13 to 46 percent of dry weight. No seeps or.springs were observed on the general site although we expect that ground water is. near the surface in the lower western area of the property as approximately depicted in Figure 4. Project No. 12-130-01 Page 5 McDonough SITE EVALUATIONS August 28, 2012 Lar a Ancient Landslide Hazard in see in see Figure 1), topographic mapp 9 Based on our review of the geologic mapping ( site is located 2 and the referenced reports, combined with our own observations of Figures 1 and ) rah it is our opinion that theas shown the site conditions and the site area eo topography, deepyseated ancient landslide (Qls) within the limits of an existing very g deposits and the soils on Figure 1. Th e results of our explorations indicated loose and eclectic soils as would be expected within deformed and edn{ w with the geologic mapping. P encountered are considered consist Your property is dfrom situated in the southern half of the ancient slide area that boundary of mapped to extend from the south as included ylace West to the ourr property thin the North Edmonds Edmonds. The City of Edmonds has Sites within the ESLHA are Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA)• future slide movement and considered to have a substantial risk of being affected by potential is area due to the there fore we caution you about the risk of development in hthat the City hasallowed for property damage and loss of value. We understand he development 'developmen t in this area but they require considerations a existing landsl'desesign to help mitigate the effects of potential future movements oft A have in the referenced reports which we reviewed indicate tastbeen esites timated d t Sange from The future slide movement that h risk of being affected .by 10 percent probability in 25 years up to about 30 percent fined by probabilityin 12007 less than p ro ert lies within risk zone years. In our opinion your p P y . of the North Edmonds ESLHA. Hazards Landau report which includes the majority eakened soils as within this zone include localized small scale failures of Cale well as slide movement ground movements and displacements resulting from large s slide moveme Our observati ons of the site revealed no evidence of current ha tdrainage systems for fresh scarps or scars or ground cracks dace s nce about 984 to reduce ground water the general landslide area have be P and remove subsurface water to increase t h historic sliding epesodes affecting rechargeand all of However the referenced reports reviewed documentrty large areas near your site locand south of our prope ated both to the nodicated the landslide to to be active wyth a substantial risk of ;i the City,s consultants have in future movement. we noted that the referenced reports did not discuss ure slide nsider strong movements. In addition otential triggering even earthquake shaking as a p t for future Earthquake shaking would temporarily add inertial loadwateh ever s and the intensity of de mass which could Earthq ending upon ground exceed the available strength (depending kin and result in slide movements. We abtimat 0that the sit0e area based the shaking) earthquake likely caused a peak site acccelleaationsfdocumerted by the University of on regional recorded peak ground Page 6 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough event for which we can infer that the slide mass apparently Washington and is the only is environment of Puget (no reports of t for 1 slide movements in the 2007 Landau report . remained stable ( p at the site (see However, the 2009 IBC seismic criteria indicates nd accelerations of 0.33g in Sound is capable of generating peak n the mated Seismic Conside rations), a level more than 5 times higher he reported Imarg naI state level caused by the. Nisqually earthquake. Considering t pround motion levels levels would very likely trigger new landslide stability of the' ancent landslide, is our opinion earthquake g approaching the IBC design cuter movements. roe may be you Consideringbe all of the above, it is our opinion that thedesedat that Cr hehigh endof the affected by future slide movement should probability in 25 years. In our opinion slide estimated range which is about 30 percent p opinion r s feel it displacements at the site resulting from increased ground wat�nlouelop and/or seismic ground shaking could range from a few inches to several fee . assume for design that there will ean landslide is reasonable and co nservative to fee duringf the differential movements of the site on the order of inches to structure. Local Stability Hazards upper flat lying the thinr We understan d that your proposed garage would be Figu a 13 and 4. The proposed area at the southeastern corate to r of the site as shown gentle west facing 1slope within your property. site is adjacent to the mode 9 bill analyses of the slope section shown inFigure4acame ers.g the he co performed stab ty 1.5 for conservative ground water assumption stability Factor exceeding )• es results of our analyses indicate adequatethCi West. Considering that static condition s We also evaluated the potential for debris impact from shallow slides initiating on the steeper and higher is located about 100 feet east of the site slidedebristhat as the nearest steep slope above the existing residence is located at the toe of that Slopeeistcons'dered low and the an ex 9 impacting the site from a shallow slide on that slide scarp slope which is more risk from slides originating on the very steep primary than 300 feet east of the site is considered very low. Landslide Hazards Mitigation size of the ancient landslide mass, it is not practicale slide. or Ible for an You must Due to the large sifuture individual property owner to mitigate the landslide risk by stabilizing damaged by be willing to accept the risk that the proposed garage may of the existing ancient landslide. It must be assumed for design that future movements the life of the structure and that movements may slide movements may occur during sal ycur during of the site. In our opinion, the only reasonable result in differentdisplacements Page 7 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough iti ation against the risk of future movements is by providing a sufficiently method of m g foundation system adequate to withstand differential displacements oft e stiff found Y subgrade and minimize distress to the structure. withstanding In our opinion theIt in loss of support foundation system should be designed to be capable ndea f portion of the differential subgrade offsets that would rade offsets should be assumed to undermine structure footprint. Thesu e differential subgrade 1 /4 of the structure in the north -south (longitudinal) dire Flexible utility connections ons should be included in the east -west (transverse) direction. the design as well. t the proposed garage is not an occupied structure hat of structuraland therefore hdamage e risk of We note that personal injury is low and the highest risk would be primarily fffoundation value. Even with a properly designed stiff foundation system there could and loss of following a slide be some structural damage and the structure u d also designed to withstand re -activation event. The structure itself s from subgrade offsets. the effects of sustained tilting of the foundation resulting ions for foundation design are presented later in this report. Specific recommendat anal ses indicated adequate stability for a rot ti ate nal failure al for thelocal el Although our Y slope on your property, we consider your slope to have a mo ons or the proposed shallow failures and therefore we recommend that foud 81 foot horizontal garage hor zontal setback should be deepened as required to provide a minimum the face of the existing slope below the site. the site from shallow slides Our evaluation of the risk of slide debris ro impacting (100 to 300 feet east) concluded originating on the steep slopes above your p p �Y ation that the ri sk is low to very low and therefore in .our opinioot warmitigranted against debris impact from shallow slope failures above the garage site is n In addition, as indicated in Table 1 of the 2007 Landau Associates report: commend that be placed on the o New no new site fill should be minimized. We rebl e limited less than 1 foot existing western slope and new fills in the garage above existing grades. 9 o All discharge from roofs and area drains must be tightlined to the storm drain system. o No storm water infiltration is allowed. o No permanent irrigation systems are all o Swimming pools are prohibited and hot tubs are restricted. Page 8 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough Structure Support Options potentialanning subgrade offsets The structure support system must be capable rolostatic sett ements. The shallow soils due to landslide movements as well as con pressures our ex lorations were generally loose and compressible. Our analyses encountered in o P foundations with normal bearing p indicate that conventional spread footing offsets and control static high static settlements under thoeffsxpected design loads. would have unacceptably an potential subgrade Foundation settlements ''include the system. options to following: foundation Our analyses dation bearing pressure of 500 psf could limit o rade beams on s read footin n with low bearin ressur . indicate that a spread footing fou potential foundatio n settlements to about 1/3 to 2/3 inch for the h eeu. de o: span ap trange. Stiff grade beams above the footings would monoliths as nt ace subgrade offse t Along the west side of the structure colncrete to the existing slope, footings could be . nde foundation -slope on slope leand down using setback. necessary to satisfy recommend This would be a continuous stiff concrete mat (slab) extending o mat foundation. footprint. As with spread footings, the mat must be under the entire building P along the west side of the designed to span potential subgrade offsets. g could be extended down using structure adjacent to the existing slope, bearing to monoliths to satisfy our recommended foundation -slope setback. lean concre minimized by driven pile ven ile foundations: Static .settlements could I beeequired to span potential o dri grade beams would borings near foundations however stiff g offsets. The Roger Lowe report were atdabout t he same elevation as subgrade Meadowdale Road and two of the borings site. Those borings indicated about r o e Weeeexpe tlt thatbris pile the garages Therefore g adequate overlying hard Whidbey Formation clay. foundat ions might extend to depths of 40 to 50 feet before achieving adeq resistance. Your final selection of a foundation system should be based on consideration of damage risk versus cost. `:;: � Erosion Hazard Assessment explorations and observations the surface soils the onsite soils are Based on our provided I siltlsand soils and are considered to have areaseraHeoweve9hperosion predominate y potential when exposed in un-vegetated or disturbed slope recommendations for surface water control are followed an foeerosion disturbedby that our . construction are planted as n°our opinion theon as eeros on hazard will be mitigated. during and after construction, Page 9 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 201.2 McDonough sm is Considerations Sei!. you should be aware of the � The Puget Sound region is a seismically active area. ry effects. About 17+ moderate and associated secondary et Sound and northern potential for seismic shaking + have occurred in the Pug i to large earthquakes (M5 to M7) including the 2/28/01 M6.8 Nisqually 140 years) like) experience Cascades region since 1872 ( ro osed structure will very Y p earthquake and it is akin opinionur during its useful significant ground sh 9 miles southwest of the mapped fault zone of the South Whidbey The site less than 2 Whidbey fault (SWF) is as a postulated maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 7.0 0 Island fault which h p 7.5. The recurrence intervals of large ea tc eethquake ontheorder of M6.5 to n 0 not known but recent data indicates SWF about 3000 years ago and smaller ttributed to that fault. tly occurred on the2; 1 ggg which wa as evidenced by the 5.3 event on May published study by the. USGS, the site is wh which passes ed bout 21 through Based on a recently p postulated maximum miles north of the in east-westtrending he Seattle fault has a p as been Seattle and trends along the 1-90 corridor. rth earthquake magnitude on the order of 7.0. The Seattle ault 1000 to 1100 credible ea q been do cumented to have moved at its west end (Bainbridge east9 end ahas also recently years ago and evidence of movement a ears but our documented. So me calculations experts feel that the recurrence interval of between large events on the Seattle Fault may be on the or 200 to 1400 yearr of several s indicate it may be on sands o y the order of 1 resents evidence for the 2004) of the Vashon-Tacoma area p the south end of Another recent study ( ass through east -west trending Tacoma Fault which is indicated to p ' le of Maury Island about 36 miles south of the of depth. The study Vashon and the middle be link suggests that the Tacoma Fault and the Seattle fault may M8 to .M9+) has a great earthquake event In addition to Puget Sound seismic sources, along the northwest Pacific been postulated for the Caocadia San da. The current risk of a future CSZ event SZ coast of Oregon, Washington. and C + ears and the time Z not known at this time. Published reports have indicated recurrence 1000ncye intervals forof event to range from as little have e as 0-200 bout 312 years ago. ye the last event is reported Edmonds requires The 2009 International Building Code (IBC) adopted by probability of exceedance of 2 ral design. This corresponds to about a 2475- consideration of a spectral cpstructuion level with P period spectral percent in 50 years for seism year recurrence interval earthquake ground motion. Based on the she p of the 2009 IBC, adjusted as per Y we estimate the IBC response accelerations and factored as per section (1803.5.12(2), lease note that equations 16-36, 16-38 and peak round acceleration for soils design at thissite �edOction factor of section p g the 0.33g peak ground acceleration includes Page 10 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 nou McDo h g considered a Site 1803.5.12(2). and is not intended for structural analyses. This site is Class F for structural design. I. Considering the presence of the.ancient landslide, ovementsit is our p' rupturnion es thepotential onsets for, s f damage due to seismically induced ground moderate to high depending upon the level of ground motion as discussed above under f "Large Ancient Landslide Hazard" evaluation.. RECOMMENDATIONS Shallow Foundation Design Properly designed shallow foundation systems consisting obear bearingfoowith stiff grade beams or a stiff continuous maff t foundation with l0 9 pressure are considered feasible foundation systems that could rade offsetsacrossosstthe site (f om lements and minimize structure distortions due to differential g landslide movements). It should be noted however that even displacements resulting fromerly gned stiff foundation system cannot prevent all structure qualified offsets under the site. All foundation systems should be designed by a q licensed structural engineer. Due to the potential for landslide movements at the site, the foundation systemsubgrade offsets D P ortin the structure with differential be designed to be capable of sups 9 that would result in loss of support under portions of the structure footprint. The differential subgrade offsets should be assum td to t structure int he eastermine 1/4 of hwest (transverse) structure in the north -south (longitudinal) direction and 1/3 of the stru direction along the west side. When designing for the recommended subgrade offset conditions, bearing pressures may be asoffsetlocation shoulco .dto vary ly and the not exceed maximum500 psf. bearing pressure adjacent to the assumed in Structure tilt resulting from subgrade offsets should equation en this Becton to estimate may be estimated using the subgrade modulus differential vertical displacements across the bearing portion of the foundation which would be additive to the structural deflections of the cantilevered foundation. Foundations adjacent to the existing slope should be deepened as rquired res greater) from the provide a horizontal setback of at least 8 feet or two footing widths existing slope surface. As an alternative to satisfy depthPe setback requirement, for adequate setback by foundation loads may be extended to the recommended. a monolith of lean concrete having a minimum compressive strength of 1000 psi. The width of an un-reinforced lean concrete monolith should be at least as wide as the footing or at least one-third of the monolith height, whichever is greater. Page 11 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough be supported on a zone'of compactedstructural randfill. gravel Shallow foundations shouldimported selectpercent structural fill zone should be constructed using acted to at least 90 p percent fines and should be comp materials with less than density as deteunined by the ASTM D1557 test method in of the maximum dryhe d for structural fill feet below The zone of the base of the accordance with the recommendationsat compacted structural fill should extend. verticallyto ealn concrete monolith) and should comps or base foundation (base of structural footing edge at least 2 feet or a distance equal to the extend horizontally beyond the footing greater Greater excavation and rep structural fill zone thickness (whicent hever is greater). cordance with the foundation performance and reduce potential static differential will improve general fou laced and compacted in settlements. The st feseunted'Ibe ow should underp"Site Grading". recommendation p f foundations supported on a properly constructed structural fill Estimated settlements o loading may be based on a zone with static (non -slide movement and non action Ks as defined below: Coefficient of Vertical Subgrade Re Ks = K2 - (DK) (B-2) Where: Ks = pounds per cubic foot (for B = 2 ft to 4 K2 = 18,000 pcf DK = 4,200 pcf g =footing width or effective mat width, feet (2 ft min) Vertical deflection of the subgrade may be estimated by: Dv = Q Ks Where: Dv =_vertical displacementressure, psf Q = foundation bearing p resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction For lateral design, passive earth pressure on the sides of the acting at the base of the foundation and by p be assumed with the dead load forces in foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may ions poured against site soils or structural fill. An allowable stftfounpassive earth pressure o contact with on be used for the sides o 33% for wind 150 psf per foot of depth may ressures may be increased by existing soils. Allowable lateral passive p and seismic forces. . Page 12 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 I :: McDonough Driven Pipe Piles files are considered a feasible alternative foundation systbearing Properly constructed pipe p could transfer foundation loads through the 2 tlnch oeC3- 3-inch Idiametels to esteel pipe which co )port is constructed by driving of supp j soils. This typebearing soils below existing unsuitable soils. Depth b be i at depths to refusal into the typically penetrate unkno wn but based on the Lowe report revi o e experience,tpiles typ y p ranging from about 30 to 40+ feet. ils before encountering refusal. about 5 to 15 feet into the bearinlie hammer Pile installation should be accomplished with a tractor mounted hammer mmerra size and the ammer weight in the range of about 650 to 850 system. Refusal penetration rates for piles will depend on the tractor - pounds y esults. For 3-inch piles a load testing r uld be used. Refusal penetration rate forea n the pileranerlof about 15 to 20 should typically should b mounted 6501b hydraulic hammer typ y file driven with atractor- seconds per inch. Refusal penetration rate for a 2-inch P e of about 8 to 10 mounted 6501b hydraulic hammer typically should be in the rang seconds per inch. 2+ may be of 4 kips (Factor of Safety of Safety = An allowable vertical downward capacity installed as recommended to assu med for 2-inch diameter piles and capacitiesiaeter piles i 5 kips 2+) can generally be achieved for 3-inch and refusal criteria. No allowable downward capacities must be confirmed based on a site above but actual a files for the specific hammer size specific load test of 3-inch p e piles. Resistance to or lateral support should be assumed for driven pip p passive earth uplift capacity battered piles (compression only) and by lateral loads can be provided by poured against the sides of the grade beams. An allowable of foundations p h pressure o pressure on be used for the side 33% for 150 psf per foot of depth may be- increased by existing fill soils. Allowable lateral passive pressures may wind and seismic forces. presentative 3-inch pile should be performed for theor o3inchcpile size A load test on a retion pile p allowable vertical capacity to the ASTM quick test installation to c verify the appropriate and refusal criteria. Testing should be1143-811testdmethod according for piles under static f 1/4 procedure described in the ASTM D should .be based on test pile settlement . compressive load. Allowable capacity inch or less for the design load and a Factor of Safety of 2.0+ of ultimate capacity. limited by the structural capacity of the pipe and connection must Capacs which ity may be a which forms the pile, should be determined by the structural engineer. The pip quality schedule 40+) and must be provided with a corrosion. re be of structstant ural qu ty ( grade beam to n alvanizedj. Couplers should also be galvanized or wi h minimum provided coating in The pipe pile supports should be capp with a zinc coating. transfer struct ural loads to the piles. The pile/grade beam system should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. Page 13 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough the pile foundation system Due to the potential for landslide movements thehst structure with differential subgrade should be designed to be capable of s under portions of the structure footprint. The offsets that would result in loss of supporteast-west (transverse) differential subgrade off sets should be assumed to undermine 1/4eof he structure in the esi nin for the recommended subgrade offset north -south (longitudinal) direction and d /3 of the structure in a increased direction along the west side. Wheng be temporarily in condition, capacities of the piles above the offset location may from subgrade to support the undermined structure. Structure tilt resulting a proportional by 50 /o p be estimated by p P offsets should also be considered in design and may increase in settlemen is of the piles with increased loads which would be added to the f the cantilevered foundation. structural deflections o Sitgo =e J&ad in to consist primarily of excavation and fill ilriouscement to material may be Site grading is expected subgrade areas. Excavated onsite natural soils free o site soils may used for general struc tural fill, however moisture contents of theof the on countered in n d. a proved imported sand and gravel should our explorations were above optimumandtherefore compac ion for be very difficult except when properly support Zones. Recommendations be used for structural exlcavat ons,te oundin fastrueturation pfill, slab subgrade preparation and utility preparation; temporary trench backfill are presented below. and soft or loose soils should be vegetation, debris,. fill a rough grading, excess soils may Site Preparation: Existing be graded. ingweight of organics may stripped from the areas that So Isocon ain ng morerthan 1% by or avement be stockpiled for later use: used in planter areas, but should not be used for fill beneath building should be be plus rocks and rubble over 6 inches invsiize ary from those areas. Stumps, debris and trash, p-site may n the removed from the grading areas. Subsoil conditions engineer should observe e prepared encountered in the test pof any filets the soils areas prior to placement Y be used ora construction excavations may Temporary Excavations: Sloped tempor should where planned excavation limits will not undermine structures horingh othershould construction. Where there is not enough room for sloped excavations, l be provided. Sloped temporary excavations may be made vertically to depths less than 3 feet. a excavations that workers will enter should oever itbe shouldbe noted Deeper tempor ry slope gradients no steeper than 1 : 1 (horiatmainteriance of construction slopes. that the contractor is responsible for safety retard ravelling Soils exposed in cut slopes should be kept moist, but not saturated, to . edge of cut Surface drainage should be directed away from the top and sloughing. of cut slopes. loads should. not be allowed within 5 feet of the top slopes. Surcharge Page 14 -130-01 Project No. 12 August 28, 2012 McDonough be used for general structural fill provided St "r �tu'ralwFill:,Excavated onsite soils may reduced for compaction. However, that moisture conditions can be adequately imported sand and gravel should be used for structural fill in foundation approved p well -graded sand and gravel support areas. Imported material for fill should be clean, materials free of organic debris and deleterious material with less than 20 percent fines based on the sand fraction. Y—A., am-rianCA-soils-and�deb.r s _.should Abe-� oved'fror by -the A D 15557 test,e or rnetho .�c Slab/have ment Sub de Pre aration: Existing fill, topsoil and loos ches below disturbed nal subgrade should be excavated to expos t subgrade atural Iareasls at least 12 and 18 inches below final subgrade elevation in slab and pavement 9 elevation in driveway areas. Structural fill should st a or be pted well -graded sand and Structural fill should consist of approved onsite so gravel materials free of organic debris and other deleteeri us material. Subgrade structural fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 me al fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in Subgrade structural o density as loose thickness and compacted to at least 90 /o of the maximum dry tY determined by the ASTM D1557 test method. cracking can be reduced by placing 2-way reinforcement steel. If a floor Risk of slab cr g a polyethylene lene vapor barrier of covering is to be used, the slab should be underlain by p Y Y at least 6 mil thickness. ed around the Trenches: Buried utility conduits should be bedded and conduit crolsses pavement Utility specifications. Where conduit in accordance with the project laced and compacted in subgrade areas the backfill ab ve the pipe for structuhal fill.be p accordance with the recommends Drainage Control rains be All dra ins including roof drains, subsurface drains and surfaceobe eaovided away from tightlined to the storm drain syeflow ovm. er theve raslopes and help reduce stability and d the slopes to prevent any water erosion hazard. A desirable slope for surface drainage is 2% in landscaped areas an 1 % in paved areas. permanent perimeter drain, independent of the roof drai s system, A pe P The drain should consist adjacent to the base of the foundations and or grade beam Page 15 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough r of a four -inch diameter perforated PVC drain pipe placed in at feast one cubic foot of vel drain ravel per lineal foot along the base of the foundations. of M rafi 140 filrain geafabric nor g around the pipe should be encapsulated with. a mein equivalent between the drainage zone material and onsite silty soil backfill. rain addition if conditions exposed during construction warra ant, f om the upslope aceptor reas. In add round- water migration system may be required to intercept 9 per side of the developed area but down The subdrain should be placed along the up' t of c lined hould slope from any surface drainage control berm and soratedPVCsd a n pipe rata he base. trench filled with clean sand or drain rock with a perforate The drain trench should at least 18" wide, and should penetrate at least one foot into n impermeable (silt/clay) layer. Six inches of native soil cover should be placed ray p over the drain to reduce surface water infiltration. Dischargedischarge. from of ground water be conducted via tightline to the storm drain sys excavations forthe proposed garage to conditions should be completed during minimize the ground water seepage occurring during construction. Erosion Control O nsite materials are expected to be erodible when exposed to heron �annfalland ewater siltation in slope areas. Soil stockpiles should be covered dur g he ded fence s or other detention devices should be provided around the lower edge oflower side of grathe silt as required to control the transport of eroded material. fen ce fabric should have "J" shaped embedment in a trench extending at least 12 inches below the ground surface. osed Surface drainage should be directed away from slopes a l area nd rass and deep rooted plantsXt' o help �educeSshould erosion be planted immediately with g potential. e of the building area) Tree cutting should be minimized on the slope areas ce to(outslthe existing ng slope pe surface Pruning or trimming of trees with a minimum of disturbance and vegetation is preferred as opposed to felling. If fellingshallow slope soils. mps should be left intact where possible to reduce disturbance to the Plan Review This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation is site of owners and their consultants in the design and const he proposed requested to development. It is recommended that this office bmendatio sreview f this report have ec drawings and specifications to determine if the omlemental design recommendations been properly implemented and to make any supp which may be required. Page 16 Project No. 12-130-01 August 28, 2012 McDonough Observations and Testinq Dudn Construction resented in this report are based on the assumption that hat soil Recommendationspany conditions exposed during construction will be made. Subgradel preparation for necessary design changes or supplements may shallow foundation systems should be observed by our office to verify our, ub rade preparation procedures. Installation and load testing of all acities and recommended s g . driven pipe piles should be observed by our should be confirmoffice. to observed Itocverify proper refusal criteria. Drainage control systems construction. Proper fill placement and compaction should- Drainage. l rain genand erosionecontrol laboratory density testing by a qualified testing laboratory 9 systems should also be observed to verify proper construction. CLOSURE r the exclusive use This report was prepared for specific application to this esentat reprproject and esentatives. o The findings and of Thomas and Monica McDonough and the p conclusions of this report were prepared with the skill andion care actci 9lyunder exercised semi ar members of the local geototheewarrantychnical peither express or implied. conditions. We make n may exist in site conditions between those described in this reportencountered actual durrig Variations y conditions encountered duringrent from those indicated inonstruction. if dth s report, our office should construction appear to be diffe be notified. Respectfully submitted, GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC. James A. Doolittle Principal Engineer Encl: Figures 1 through 4 Appendix A Dist: 1/Addressee (via email) 2/Rob Michel Page 17 Project No. 12-130-01 r2 ml Mod111ec pls Landslit Qvr Yashon Qvt Yashon Qe Esperar Cw Whidbe pdb Double 100 0 too 2 r.c� SCALE IN Contour tr ® Boang Loca' SITE VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP Proposed Garage 16115 75th Place West Bdmonds, Washington Proj. No.12-130I Date 8/12 I Figure 1 GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC. GaotBchnlcol EnGlnaarinG and EvrM Sclancas LOCAL SITE AREA TOPOGRAPHY Proposed Garage 16115 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 12-130I Date 8/12 a rPE Figure 2 J HWgS Q ;6 m M m r p -ih ai d m CD S �d s* + s ore m r CD Q J Y E / N �� ] d ?� 9'*z %CGIS�) 08 + f i I ei N + `a v�3 n Z8 -- U co, s� oa N 8 r +� p U N `0 F o A Yr . N Q N P4 N l `r I ao Ck, D rs S Q+, n +I 'o ZZ� iu + ti , c ro .O 0�r r '� Q N OL �n + p0 + +ID C c) rVi O 68 m r OL 89 N m }0,j 9 `+4 0 Z.SL N s9 to + SF. 00'0c 8� - :� ;i SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLORATION P Proposed Garage GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC 16115 75th Place West Edmonds,.Washington Geotachnlco! Figure 3 En®lnaaring ano.12-1Date 8/d Earth SClancas 12 ' Proj. N30 z 0 U W C/ W N � II Cf) 0 N CO Q rr W z W 0 „ MOH 1saM a021d u19Z O O O O O O CV O 00 C0 It CV -11 °U01112naJ::� W, GEN1?i2ALIZED SITE SECTION GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC . Proposed Garage 16115 75th Place West Edmonds .Washington Gaotachn/co/ En8/nBa�lns and Eorth Sc/encaa proj. No. 12-130 Date 8/12 Figure 4 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION and subsuace exploration Our field exploration included a site 'reconnaissance a cond t onsrfwere noted, and program. During the site reconnaissance, the surface the locations of the test pits were approximately determined. The test pits were approximately located using the existing features as a reference. Elevations at the test pits locations were estimated based on the topographic map provided. Kubota ►(examt Test its were advanced using a in ation, on, i oSoils accordance with the ASTM p logged and classified in the field by visual examination, Soil Classification system.. The test pit test its are presented on the test pit summary sheet ASoil consistency Logs of thep summaries include descriptions of the onnd pertinent fild data. nteepretations based- on the and moisture conditions indicated on the conditions observed in the field. Boundaries between 7soilsttratindcated on the logs ab are approximate and actual transitions between strata y gradual. :0 0 TEST PIT NO. 1 Logged by JAD Elevation: 84' Date: 817/12 Consistency Moisture Color W(%) Comments Depth Blows Class. Soil Description FILL 0 Crushed Gravel ood loose moist gray ark grown OL Topsoil/or a ics & decayed v�+ W%re9ar, plastic,saw ust to 1 very grown 2 ML Sandy Silt very fine moist 24.0 with occ roots to 2" 3 ................. --------------------------------- 4 ML Silt with occ roots Ira rown 412 5 dense moist gray 13.3 Sp Sand, fine 6. Maximum depth 6 feet. No ground water encountered. 7 TEST PIT NO. 2 Logged by JAD Elevation: 82' f Date: 817/12 Consistency Moisture Color W(%) Comments Depth Blows Class, Soil Description brn FILL 0 SM Silty San, verfine w rav I loose moist to 15.5 brown 2 ML Sandy Silt, very fine very moist a -brn ....... r ......... ............................... ---------------------- a 4422 h 46:� 4 6 ML Sandy Silt loose wet brown $ 10 Maximum depth 10.5 ft. (excavati n to 5.5 ft a d probing to 0.5 ft) Max P 12 Ground water at 5.5 ft. - 14 / GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC. Proposed Garage Place Wes''' 16115 75th -x Edmonds, Washingtr Geotechnical Engineering and Earth Sciences Proj. No. 12-130 ;,% GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnical Engineering anal Earth Sciences November 12, 2012 hov 14 Ml Thomas and Monica McDonough 16115 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION STATEMENTS Proposed Garage 16.115 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington RECEIVE Project No. 12-130-01 -� �, NOV 21.2012 CITDEVELOPMENT SERV Dear Thomas and Monica, COUNTER This letter confirms that we have provided geotechnical review of the proposed garage plans, presents our statements of geotechnical risk and mitigation of risk as required by the City of Edmonds and includes updated recommendations for shallow foundations. Geotechnical Review - Proposed Garage Plans This is to confirm that we have provided geotechnical review of the TESC plan dated 10-25-12, prepared by Donna L. Breske, PE, as well as the structural plan Sheets S1, S2 and S3 dated 11/9/12, prepared by Sound Structural Solutions and the geotechnical design assumptions by Sound Structural Solutions and find them to be in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in our report dated August 28, 2012 and our updated shallow foundation recommendations presented in this letter. Minimized Risk Statement We have prepared geotechnical recommendations for design and construction as presented in our report dated 8/28/12 and in this letter. Provided that the. conditions and recommendations of our report are satisfied in construction and use, in our opinion the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimized subject to the conditions set forth in our report and the proposed development and will not increase the potential for soil movement. P.O. Box276, Issaquah, WA 98027-0276 • Phone: (425) 391-4228 Fax. (425) 391-4228 McDonough November 12, 2012 Risk Probability Statement The previous reports prepared for the city which were referenced in our geotechnical evaluation report indicate that all sites within the ESLHA have risk of being affected by future slide movement and that the risk is estimated to range from less than 10 percent probability in 25 years up to about 30 percent probability.in 25 years. In our opinion the site lies within risk zone B as defined by the 2007 Landau report which includes the majority of the North Edmonds ESLHA. Hazards within this zone include localized small scale failures of .weakened soils as well as ground movements and displacements resulting from .large scale slide movements. Considering the information presented in, the ESLHA- reports and our observations of the site conditions, in our judgment the probability of earth movement on or adjacent to the site within a 25 year period is estimated to be in the range of about 20 to 30 percent. Risk Mitigation Statements Due to the large size of the ancient landslide masses, it is not practical or feasible for an individual property owner to mitigate the landslide risk by stabilizing the ancient slide. In our opinion, the only reasonable method of mitigation against the risk of future movements is by providing a sufficiently stiff foundation system adequate to withstand differential displacements of the subgrade and minimize distress to the structure in the event of slide movements. Mitigation measures recommended in our referenced report included that the foundation system should be designed to be capable of withstanding differential subgrade offsets that would result in loss of support under a portion of the structure footprint. It was also recommended that flexible utility connections be provided. The onsite slope is also considered to have a moderate potential for future shallow. failures. Mitigation of the. risk from onsite shallow slope failures was provided by our recommended minimum horizontal setback of foundations from the face of the existing slope below the site. In addition, we noted mitigation measures included in Table 1 of the 2007 Landau Associates report and included them in our .report: o New fill should be minimized. We recommended that no new fill be placed on the existing western slope and permanent new fills in the garage site be limited to less than"I foot above existing grades. o All discharge from roofs and area drains must be tightlined to the storm drain system and no onsite storm water infiltration is allowed. o No permanent irrigation systems are allowed. o Swimming pools are prohibited and hot tubs are restricted. Project No. 12-130-01 Page 2 McDonough November 12, 2012 You should note that even with a properly designed stiff foundation system there could be some structural damage and portions of the structure may require repairs following a slide re *activation event, however the proposed garage is not an occupied structure and therefore the risk of personal injury is low and the risk would be primarily that of structural damage and loss of value. Our evaluation of the risk of slide debris impacting the site.from shallow slides originating'on the steep slopes above your property (100 to 300 feet east) concluded that the risk is low to very low and therefore in our opinion mitigation against debris impact from shallow slope failures above the garage site is not warranted. Updated Shallow Foundation Recommendations . The updated shallow foundation recommendations presented below supersede the shallow foundation recommendations included in our 8128112 report. Properly designed shallow foundation systems consisting of spread footings with stiff grade beams or a stiff continuous mat foundation with low bearing pressure (500 psf) are considered feasible foundation systems that could control static settlements and minimize structure distortions due to differential subgrade offsets across the site (from landslide movements). It should be noted however that even a properly designed stiff foundation system cannot prevent all structure displacements and damage resulting from subgrade offsets under the site. All foundation systems should be designed by a qualified licensed structural engineer. Due to the potential for landslide movements at the site, the foundation system should be designed to be. capable of supporting the structure with differential subgrade offsets that would result in loss of support under portions of the structure footprint. Two separate undermined conditions should be considered in structural design: 1) subgrade offsets undermining 1/4 of the structure in the north -south (longitudinal) direction and 2) subgrade offsets undermining 1/3 of the structure in the east -west (transverse) direction along the west side. When designing for the recommended subgrade offset conditions the maximum foundation bearing pressures should not exceed 1500 psf. The subgrade modulus equation -in this section may be used'to estimate differential vertical displacements across the bearing portion of the foundation: Shallow foundations should -have a:minimum width and depth_ot_,lu incnes ana snouia -----�`'--—,,,,--`"'s. �,-,±?'nynecSiCYw4`n,a-�-,r - �.K, ,:n=�,`:'°_ �-- be -supported on undisturbed_medium_dense to dense natural bearing soils or on a_zone of compacted_structurorfill. loose -or -otherwise -unsuitable soils : are exposed o mfootn—_h,the-ootingavationshouldpendas,.required_tommimuf ,expose suitable, bea ng.aoilsTor_the ;footing should be supported on,a zone of 'structural-'-- 1 or •on^�a� lein mix monolith_ extending down to "deep=bearing soils. Foundationr-J adjacent to -the existing_westernsl"open'sho'uld also-10.1 eepened as required to provide a**horizontal. setback -of -at- least- 8. -feet or ;two foo mt g widths_(whicheyer is :greater) from tfie existing slope surface? Project No. 12-130-01 Page 3 McDonough November 12, 2012 Id ,be ;cons east 90 percent of-7the maximum drydensity-as-detemined_by the ASTM,D:15,57,test nethod_in_accordance with our -recommendations for§trucfu�al;fll,placement: The -zone if ,Compacted-structu�al�fill should extend Vertically to-atMleast 2-feet-below-the base of�" he foundation{:(base of structural=footing)-and-should extend�honzontallybeyond_;the� (wfiiche�er-s*gfe Q. Greater excavation and replacement will improve general fou datioh performance and reduce potential static differential settlements. The structural fill should be placed and compacted. in accordance with the recommendations presented under"Site Grading" in our 8/28/1.2 report. In areas where spread footings need to be significantly deepened to penetrate unsuitable soils or to satisfy the required western slope setback, foundation loads may be transferred from the recommended minimum foundation depths to the recommended bearing soils or required setback depth by a monolith of lean concrete constructed by excavating trenches along the foundation lines (with a smooth edge bucket) and backfilling with lean concrete having a minimum compressive strength of 1000 psi up to normal minimum footing depths. The width of an un-reinforced lean concrete monolith should be at least as wide as the footing or at least one-third of the monolith height, whichever is greater. Typically the practical depth limit for construction of lean concrete monoliths for foundation support is about 6 to 8 feet for stable soils without seepage. However in areas of soft, wet soils lean mix monolith construction may not be practical due to the high potential for caving of the trench walls. No personnel should enter the lean concrete trenches especially in wet soil areas due to the potential for side wall caving. Estimated static settlements of. foundations supported on undisturbed medium dense to dense natural soils or on a properly constructed structural fill zone with static (non - seismic) loading may be based on .a Coefficient of Vertical Subgrade, Reaction Ks as defined below: Where Ks = K2 - (DK) (B-2) Ks = pounds per cubic foot (for B = 2 ft to 4ft) K2 = 18,000 pcf. DK = 4,200 pcf B = footing width or effective mat width, feet (2 ft min) Vertical deflection of the subgrade may be estimated by: Dv = Q Ks Project No. 12-130-01 Page 4 McDonough November 12, 2012 Where: Dv = vertical displacement, feet -Q =. foundation bearing pressure, psf For lateral design, resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the base of the foundation and. by passive earth pressure on the sides of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be assumed with the dead load forces in contact with onsite soils or structural fill... An allowable static passive earth pressure of 150 psf per foot of depth may be used.for.the sides of foundations poured against existing soils. Allowable lateral passive pressures may be increased by 33% for wind and seismic forces. CLOSURE This letter was prepared for specific application to this project .and for the exclusive use of Thomas and Monica McDonough and their representatives. The findings and conclusions of this report were prepared with the skill and care ordinarily. exercised by members of the local geotechnical profession currently practicing under similar conditions. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Variations may exist in site conditions between those described in this report and actual conditions encountered during construction. If conditions encountered during construction appear to be different from those indicated in this report, our office should be notified. Sincerely, GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC. James A. Doolittle Principal Engineer dist: 1/Addressee (via email) 2/Rob Michel 3/191 'f' �h Project No. 12-130-01 Page 5