The URL can be used to link to this page

S-06-144 Staff Report.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File No. S-2006-144 From: ennifer Mac , Planner Date: January 17, 2008 File: S-2006-144 Owner(s): Greg Hinkel and Steve Miles Applicant: Fred Brown TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2 A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2 B. Decision on Subdivision................................................................................................................... 2 II, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................4 A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.................................................................................... 4 B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................6 C. Compliance with the Zoning Code.................................................................................................... 6 D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions...............................................................6 E. Environmental Assessment............................................................................................................... 6 F. Critical Areas Review....................................................................................................................... 7 G. Comments......................................................................................................................................... 8 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS.. ...... ................................................................. 8 A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 8 B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 8 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals.................................................................................. 8 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................8 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR, ................................................................................. 9 VI. ATTACHMENTS...............................................................................................................9 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9 Hinkel/Miles File No, S-2006-144 Page 2 of 9 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide two existing lots addressed as 7005 and 7027 174th Street Southwest into a total of four lots (Attachment 1). See the Zoning and Vicinity Map for reference (Attachment 2). The subject site is located in a Single -Family Residential (RS -20) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 20,000 square feet. The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map and the preliminary development plan (Attachments 3A and 313). The existing residences are proposed to be retained on Lots 2 and 4. A. Application I. Applicant: Fred Brown for Greg Hinkel and Steve Miles 2. Site Location: 7005 and 7027 170 Street Southwest (see Attachment 2) 3. Request: To divide the subject site with a total area of approximately 2.15 acres into four lots in a Single -Family Residential (RS -20) zone (see Attachment 3A). 4. Review Process: Following the comment period, Planning staff makes an administrative decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030, site development standards for the RS -20 zone. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, public works requirements. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, subdivision requirements. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 23.40 and 23.80, critical areas requirements. f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.90.040.C, native vegetation retention requirements. Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the City's website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. B. Decision on Subdivision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The subdivision as proposed is APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans, you must address the following: (1) Pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.C, a vegetation management plan must be submitted. The plan must be created by a qualified professional and must identify areas of existing native and nonnative vegetation within the Native Growth Protection Area, indicating which portions of the Native Growth Protection Area are proposed to be retained and which portions will be removed and replanted with native species. The management plan must also describe how the Native Growth Protection Area will be maintained and must include a proposal for construction fencing as well as permanent signage and fencing installed to delineate the boundary of the Native Hinkel/Miles File No, S-2006-144 Page 3 of 9 Growth Protection Area. For further direction, see section ILF of this report. (2) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to Recording" on Attachment 4. b) Follow Fire Department requirements provided in Attachment 12. c) Remove the portion of the existing shed that encroaches onto the northeast comer of Lot 1, as indicated on the preliminary plans. d) Make the following revisions to the plat: (1) The vegetation that is to be retained in order for the project to comply with ECDC 23.90.040.0 must be shown on the plat as part of a Native Growth Protection Area. Language approved by the Planning Division for maintenance and protection of the Native Growth Protection Area must also be provided on the plat. (2) Delineate the slopes that are steep enough to be considered Landslide Hazard Areas on the documents to be recorded. (3) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right." (4) Add to the face of the plat: "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in File No. 5- 2006-144 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division." (5) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and Planning Division and Engineering Division staff's approval blocks. e) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink. f) Submit an updated copy of the title report (short plat certificate) with the documents proposed to be recorded. Note that the updated title report must be prepared within 30 days of submittal. g) Submit copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division's and Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the applicant must record the documents with Snohomish County Auditor's office, 2. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. The City will not consider the subdivision to have been completed until this is done. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Attachment 4. c) Development of the site is subject to the requirements of ECDC 19.10, 3. Any tree removal must meet the requirements of ECDC 18.45 and 2390.040.C. 4. Follow the recommendations of the geotechnical reports by Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated March 14, 2007, August 3, 2007, September 28, 2007, and December 17, 2007 (Attachments 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10) as well as all future geotechnical reports for the subject site. 5. Follow the recommendations of the technical memorandum by Landau. Associates dated October 19, 2007 (Attachment 9). Hinkel/Miles File No. S-2006-144 Page 4 of 9 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance 1. Introduction a. Setting: The subject site at 7005 and 7027 174" Street Southwest is located in the Single -Family Residential (RS -20) zone (Attachment 2). Refer to the Zoning and Vicinity Map (Attachment 2) for the zoning of adjacent properties, which are zoned a range of RS -20, RS -12, and RS -8. All surrounding properties appear to be developed with single family residences. b. Topography and Vegetation: The subject site slopes downwards generally to the north, with some slopes that are steep enough to be considered Landslide Hazard Areas. The site contains typical residential landscaping surrounding the two existing residences, including grass, shrubs, and trees. The majority of the site, particularly the northern portion of the site contains more natural vegetation, including numerous large trees. C. Lot Layout The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary subdivision map (Attachment 3A). Lot 1 will be created on the northwestern portion, Lot 2 will be created on the southwestern portion, Lot 3 will be created on the northeastern portion, and Lot 4 will be created on the southeastern portion of the subject site. The existing residences are proposed to be retained on Lots 2 and 4. Lots 1 and 2 will be accessed via a shared easement along the existing access drive to the property addressed 7027 174`h Street Southwest, which also currently provides access to the adjacent property addressed 7107 174`h Street Southwest. Lots 3 and 4 will be accessed via a shared easement along the existing access drive to the property addressed 7005 174"' Street Southwest. 2. Environmental Resources a. The subdivision chapter, ECDC 20.75.085, states that a proposed subdivision should be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts where environmental resources exist (such as trees, streams, ravines, or wildlife habitats). The existing trees are an environmental resource on the subject site. The majority of the trees on the subject site are located on the northern portion of the site. ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires the retention of a minimum of 30% of native vegetation on subdividable properties that are zoned RS -12 and RS -20. Since the subject property is zoned RS -20, the applicant will need to show how the proposal complies with ECDC 23.90.040.0 prior to final approval. A condition. of approval has been added requiring the applicant to provide a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) and to submit a vegetation management plan indicating which portions of the NGPA are proposed to be retained and which portions will be removed and replanted with native species. The plan must also describe how the NGPA will be maintained. Additionally, construction fencing and permanent fencing should be utilized to further protect this vegetation. See Section 11.17 of this report for further discussion on this topic. b. The proposal minimizes grading because Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 will share access, portions of which is currently paved. Additionally, no grading will be permitted within the required Native Growth Protection Area. C. A drainage plan must be submitted to the Engineering Division when a building permit is applied for on this site. Any proposed development on the site must be designed to code in order to minimize off-site impacts on drainage. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to a detention system. Hinkel/Miles File No. S-2006-144 Page 5 of 9 3. Lot and Street Layout a. This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section, staff agrees that a four -lot short plat is a reasonable use of the property. Lot sizes and dimensions: Lot Area: Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS -20 zone is 100 feet. All proposed lots meet this requirement. 4. Setbacks and Lot Coverage a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the RS -20 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows: Since all of the proposed lots are considered to be flag lots, required setbacks are side setbacks from all property lines. The RS -20 zone requires a minimum side setback of 10 feet, and all side setbacks for each lot must add up to a minimum total of 35 feet. Note: No structures are allowed to be located within the Native Growth Protection Area. Therefore, the setbacks stated above are superseded by the boundaries of the Native Growth Protection Area. Existing Structures I Encroachments: The existing residences are proposed to be retained on Lots 2 and 4. The proposal will not reduce the setbacks of the existing residences below the minimum required for the RS -20 zone. The portion of the existing shed shown overlapping the property line onto the northeast corner of proposed Lot I must be removed prior to recording in order to clear the potential title issue of the shed overlapping the property line. b. Corner Lots: None of the proposed lots are considered corner lots. C. Flag or Interior lot determination: All of the proposed lots are considered to be flag lots. d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -20 zone 2) According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing residence addressed 7005 174s' Street Southwest covers 1,416 square feet and the attached garage covers 594 square feet, which would result in a lot coverage for Lot 4 of approximately 10%. Also according to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing residence addressed 7027 174a' Street Southwest covers 1,879 square feet and the attached garage covers 928 square feet, which would result in a lot coverage for Lot 2 of approximately 10.6%. Lots 1 and 3 will not contain any structures and will, therefore, have a zero percent lot coverage. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20, any future buildings or structures on any of the proposed lots will be permitted to cover no more than 35% of each lot. 5. Dedications a. None required, per City Engineer's Requirements (Attachment 5). Required Lot Area Proposed Gross sq. ft Proposed Nets . ft Lot 1 20,000 20,569 20,569 Lot 2 20,000 29,320 26,438 Lot 3 20,000 20,002 20,002 Lot 4 20,000 23,880 20,017 Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS -20 zone is 100 feet. All proposed lots meet this requirement. 4. Setbacks and Lot Coverage a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the RS -20 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows: Since all of the proposed lots are considered to be flag lots, required setbacks are side setbacks from all property lines. The RS -20 zone requires a minimum side setback of 10 feet, and all side setbacks for each lot must add up to a minimum total of 35 feet. Note: No structures are allowed to be located within the Native Growth Protection Area. Therefore, the setbacks stated above are superseded by the boundaries of the Native Growth Protection Area. Existing Structures I Encroachments: The existing residences are proposed to be retained on Lots 2 and 4. The proposal will not reduce the setbacks of the existing residences below the minimum required for the RS -20 zone. The portion of the existing shed shown overlapping the property line onto the northeast corner of proposed Lot I must be removed prior to recording in order to clear the potential title issue of the shed overlapping the property line. b. Corner Lots: None of the proposed lots are considered corner lots. C. Flag or Interior lot determination: All of the proposed lots are considered to be flag lots. d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: 35% maximum lot coverage is allowed in the RS -20 zone 2) According to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing residence addressed 7005 174s' Street Southwest covers 1,416 square feet and the attached garage covers 594 square feet, which would result in a lot coverage for Lot 4 of approximately 10%. Also according to Snohomish County Assessor's records, the existing residence addressed 7027 174a' Street Southwest covers 1,879 square feet and the attached garage covers 928 square feet, which would result in a lot coverage for Lot 2 of approximately 10.6%. Lots 1 and 3 will not contain any structures and will, therefore, have a zero percent lot coverage. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20, any future buildings or structures on any of the proposed lots will be permitted to cover no more than 35% of each lot. 5. Dedications a. None required, per City Engineer's Requirements (Attachment 5). Hinkel/Miles File No. S-2006-144 Page 6 of 9 6. Improvements a. See Engineering Requirements (Attachment 5). 7. Flood Plain Management a. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. S. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development that apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. 6.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. 6.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. 6.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal will retain the existing residences that were constructed in 1952 and 1984 according to Snohomish County Assessor's records and would allow for construction of two new residences. C. Compliance with the Zoning Code 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections II.A.3 and ILAA of this document. D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions 1. The proposed project is not located in a Flood Plain. E. Environmental Assessment 1. Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget Sound)? No. Hinkel/Miles File No, S-2006-144 Page 7 of 9 2. Is an Environmental Checklist Required for this application? No. If more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be required for the subdivision improvements, an Environmental Checklist is required. At this point in time, the applicant has indicated that the total amount of grading for the subdivision improvements is not anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards. If through the review of the civil plans, it is determined that more than 500 cubic yards of grading will be required, the City will require an Environmental Checklist to be submitted and will issue an Environmental Determination. F. Critical Areas Review 1. Critical Areas Review number: Critical areas reconnaissance was conducted under File No. CRA -1999-0298 for the property addressed 7005 174`h Street Southwest and File No. CRA -2000- 0020 for the property addressed 7027 174a' Street Southwest. Results of Critical Areas Reviews: During initial critical areas review of the subject properties, staff issued a waiver from the requirement to complete a study. However, after reviewing the survey submitted with the short plat application and a subsequent site visit, it was noted that the site contains slopes that are steep enough to be considered Landslide Hazard Areas as defined by ECDC 23.40 and ECDC 23.80. As a result, the critical areas determinations were changed, and the requirement to complete a study was issued. The applicant submitted a memo from Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated March 14, 2007, which stated that the proposed subdivision is feasible, subject to a future geotechnical report providing findings and recommendations for the development (Attachment 5). These future findings and recommendations were provided in two separate geotechnical reports by Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated August 3, 2007. The report for the property addressed 7005 1741s Street Southwest is provided as Attachment 6 and the report for the property addressed 7027 174"' Street Southwest is provided as Attachment 7. Staff requested additional geotechnical information from the applicant, which is provided as Attachment 8. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090.8, the geotechnical reports listed above were provided to the City's consultant, Landau Associates, for peer review (Attachment 9). The applicant's geotechnical engineer submitted a response to the peer review (Attachment 10). These reports concluded that as long as the recommendations set forth in the reports are followed, the proposed subdivision will result in four buildable lots. A condition of approval has been added requiring the applicant to follow the recommendations of these and any future geotechnical reports related to the subject site. 2. ECDC 23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: ECDC 23.90.040.0 requires all subdividable properties in the RS -12 and RS -20 zones to retain or create an area of native vegetation equal to 30% of the total area of the site. This is meant to provide additional protection for fish and wildlife habitat throughout Edmonds. As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit a vegetation management plan showing how the requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.0 will be met. To make sure that the vegetation that is to be retained will survive, a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) is required. This area will protect the vegetation from excavation, grading, impervious surfaces and other construction activities. It will also establish ongoing maintenance activities that are allowed and prohibited (i.e. tree toping is prohibited, pruning to eliminate hazardous branches is permitted). A construction fence around the NGPA is required throughout both subdivision and home construction. After construction is complete, the construction fencing may be removed from around the NGPA, but it must be replaced with a permanent split -rail or equivalent fence providing protection of the NGPA into the future. No impervious surfaces should be allowed in this same area without having the plan reviewed by a certified or consulting arborist to ensure that the trees and other vegetation are being protected to the greatest extent possible. Prior to recording of the subdivision, a qualified professional must identify areas within the NGPA as areas of existing native and existing nonnative vegetation. The nonnative vegetation must be removed and replanted with native vegetation. Pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.C, a vegetation management plan must be submitted. The plan must be created by a qualified professional and must identify areas of existing native and nonnative vegetation within the NGPA, indicating which portions of the NGPA are proposed to be retained and which portions will be removed and Hinkel/Miles File No. S-2006-144 Page 8 of 9 replanted with native species. The management plan must also describe how the NGPA will be maintained and must include a proposal for construction fencing as well as permanent fencing to protect the vegetation both during construction and into the future. G. Comments One public comment letter was received during review of the proposal and is included as Attachment 6. Penelope Jones commented that she does not want the proposed subdivision to be approved. Ms. Jones is concerned that the subdivision will increase traffic and that 174`x' Street Southwest is not wide enough to support increased traffic. City's Response: The proposed four lot subdivision is allowed as long as it meets all requirements set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code. These requirements are discussed in further detail throughout this staff report. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed subdivision for compliance with the City's engineering and traffic standards. A traffic impact fee is required for the two new lots as mitigation for any potential traffic impacts from the future homes. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20,100.010.G allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.040 and 20.105.020 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for reconsiderations and appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period." HinkellMiles File No. S-2006-144 Page 9 of 9 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Vicinity / Zoning Map 3A, Preliminary Subdivision Map 3B. Preliminary Development Plan (for reference only) 4. Engineering Requirements 5. Memo from Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated March 14, 2007 6. Geotechnical Report by Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated August 3, 2007 for the property addressed 7005 174t' Street Southwest 7. Geotechnical Report by Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated August 3, 2007 for the property addressed 7027 170 Street Southwest 8. Geotechnical Report by Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated September 28, 2007 9. Peer Review Technical Memorandum by Landau Associates dated October 24, 2007 10, Geotechnical Report by Soil and Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated December 17, 2007 11. Comment letter from Penelope Jones received June 12, 2007 12. Fire Department Requirements from Fire Marshal John Westfall VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Engineering Division Planning Division Fred Brown 1013 --- 140`h Street Ct. NW Gig Harbor, WA 98352 Greg Hinkel 7517-172 n1 Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Steve Miles 7005 — 174'h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Penelope Jones 7210 — 173rd Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Cd CONDITIONAL USE PER RECEIVED ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION NOV 13 2006 �. SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PERMIT COli.1NT1=R ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIALI)EVELOPMEN ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION rr� fU'-ZDO(o-pl tj ZONE FILE # DATE i I I l_J f D (0 _ RFC'D BY 61 M :r1 FEE '� 0 9 0.00 RECEIPT # 0Lk3V14 HEARING DATE 0 HE STAFF 0 PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ REZONE $ Ira' bLVrt) )aVq? ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT j l 5D - 61 0v) q0 y0(19 41 so, oo 0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION q g 5 -- `'tea vt �o di vi 5 �Dri ❑ OTHER: - D� c,a�aa-Z 8 ~i d PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION �y PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) �!'iM&&fft- PROPERTY OWNER 1G 11.C�J �_ PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRS �I, FAX # �+.. �6l31G+ooi3l�� (�OLIiVT#_OOWSEC.TWP. RNG. 005 tfj 600 4%4h09b ]DESCRIPTION Of PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE- �MD�o APPLICANT r44 ADDRESS tot' E-MAIL ADDRESS PHONE # wv? 0-9Q%q FAX # ts ass.2• CONTACT PERSON/AGENT off . PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees, By my signature, I certify that the info ion and its herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authori to f. is app 'c�tio on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT J�.DATE Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes o inspecti and stin ttendant to this application, SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE This application for4was revised on 1127100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220, Attachment 1 L:UdHRARYIPLANNINGSFarms & Handwts\Public Handouts\Land Use Applicadondoc Zoning and Vicinity Map File No. S-2006-144 0 125 250 500 Feet A Attachment 2 fill AiqmR A'- � �8 �7'IQ� � s� g ,, $'M �? car' x n�� 131 P; i 4RONS124 11Z,bx rn ti RNi. c F4 a Ix x r•wa.10Nl �� m ..•• A,�i, -� sats - - R 11 li \ r a; \\l° f1�1�•` \ In s-vl C! N l\Zi�`��-��_,• \lg1'�'-'11 o a �'r i 'N As"Lt.laN �l'dl>I. ^� v �} // j� �/ / / ri Rj1rm f �\ h a� I f a ! '�Q<!"'i •pp pt., m b, 1h ,i a■ ��rf i !/7 � / (y.aanasF ti � � ! .tLtAC a 4 ~ � g, -� o �7R }4 ` ?4 ry xx fi{!- \ ��'��g —_ ,tee[— &M."Aw ,x2 o z - _ \ 7 \\' � `-fs ;,�I�I,lil 5r4: i � !fi „° � � � 1 �� 6 s t• 6 � •fes 'y I-/J rf r.,�Ltt� \• ,-,---�77 I'f��"�` 1 ` ! Till a$�•g.Zll �' �� f R a W. >- ,1 N1u4,10 x_'�� I J J,�1 �3 Esc[, r f r N.roylcr W.sr'r[r .J� I Il !g f� Ogg is $ -- 1 Sig o' 1 ?333 CL _ - R _ M d►,c[.[o x -ern° _ .Wazc 'AiM�iglidQll�z,r ------- I I r [ I ! I 1 f ► Attachment 3A w� mo NOm� a ww v7 \ 1mPo!+wi r;�0 �w aim '�OFO� upf U ni z U �1 wf dw 4 of r U; jQO r -p of 329.65' r A _ N Ot'3]'30- r+ ! • • Ste: � v --1 ". v _ - —_.�-- :n° r a :1 1 �1 \ _ _ �\ \~5 �`\� lV II I �`` \�\�`,\ \ �♦ \\ $mac lb �� • _` I I l 1 � r� � �i I V 1 1 i }' \t \l q 1� r Cx � lb Xi 1 J! � 1 i " `' a� a Y 7 I' /i^ Kyr 1 9xq�'.IlsEsc,} Y N oo.a'�3' 0 - Nt. 7.36 w \ oa �..✓ pl w ,T� Z/,1 9. Jx(uEaS} ot Er €u 1\\�ppp�`J`�57=•�� `_1� � �03 Cf ' - � /� }• i a'l I5 ♦5 I l�l l w �\\� �� \ 5 U Zwi � n K DE r;� 3�.00 Y~-1- Tib •� ! i� �/' ' �• \� \ Ir i }jl �r 1lE I l I.! u~fa w d) r iiv aiD �{ID, ..li � �2- � m6 :� ,1� I! 1+t8 1 $�!!i I `1 1.Yi,,t a �z� w V af., .•r, w�40 _ i I abo�I9 r \\ 1 / r + f \- `�__g� 5 w �- i � •, lit �� pft l .. a l ik q.Ik-o I f _ � _�— / f - _ �... � •��Y 1-. �, f 4 I N x,17'47 w ]tayri{�+s.l z Ci M <� �of ' dim w w �ILlfj W Q Z --- - - ---�— m i5oF w m ° = O O LL1 g1uin ¢1 QS W, o jf 2 1f C3. .0 lu V R i� AL CD t Attachment 3B CITY 0f �t?MONJ5 MINETO% k WUII�Y-MM5 FM 5HOkf PLA5 Name: HINKLE/MILES File No.: PLN -2006-144 Reviewed by: JAIME HAWKINS Vicinity: 700517027174TH ST SW Rnq,ineerinu Division date http:lledmondspmtweblpermittraxlPermitTraxMain/Attachments)LivelPEAMITIPMT-56579112112006131639906.doc revised: 11/15/05 Attachment 4 keci' d prior to keq' d w/ bldq€ Bond posted Complete recordirg Permit for uHlc 5treet5, € f€{ n ,s&ht6-of-wa .. TV No dedication required per official street map _ X € a5emelTt5tC1 utllltle5, prlvat,-aCCe55,otherutlhtie5) Provide all easements as needed. -. ---TT T-_ -- X W ------------------------------ All lots shall share.a-private access road X - -- ----- - _ _ -_ -- - - - - - -- _ w_ Private access easements shall be 15 feet in width- - ._ -. _ _ X -- -- -- - -- - - - - - -- ---- - - - -----------.............................._ .-. - - ----—.-...------------------------------------------------- for for 2 lots, 20 -ft for 3 lots. 5. Street lm (ACP j F ovementh with curb and utter) ; No street improvements required on 174 _ ST SWX -------------------------------------------------------------..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-......-....-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Private access road shall be paved a minimum of 12 -ft wide for X ----- X 2 -lots, and 16 -ft wide for 3 -lots plus 18" asphalt thickened ---- edge. 6" concrete extruded curb may be used:-.-.-. - - -- .-....-.. - - --------- - -- ---- --- -- _ Slope of private access road/driveway shall not exceed 14%. X — X— _ _ _ — 4, SF,reet turnaround; li<€� l' 3' kt ill Provide ----- on-site turn around to City.standards........................................_...............-.---.---...---...---------- --- ---X----- -- ---- -- -.........-------------- 5€ Sidewalks € and/ or walkwa s; €t - -- Insufficien# pro-perty frontage, no sidewalks are required. ....... ............. ................................ - -... -..... --... ................ - --- -X ---- 6 , 5treet li Fts, NIA 7. I'lantl € � g ll� €f�i��4�€s=i��' ��`�`��Iii'i`� `¢��i9i9FF �' }7...�,k � _ € ; sir) € >�, ,'•� .€�33s�, � N/A B. Water system ImprovemeC pipelines, fire hydrant, pump nts �� Aglon5, etC) Fire sprinkler system required by FD, Backflow required at X meter __-_ . _.-.._-.-.-_.-.-. - -- ---- ---.....-.._..---------- - ------ --- ---- - - - -- - - - ------- ---------- ........ -.---___ __ _ - _ Provide water service to each lot. __ _ ._.-.-_-.-.-..--._........................... X ... - - ------ ... -- X ---------------- - --------- -- - ------------ ------ ----- _ _ _ ----Connect to public water systems - _.-. ....... ......................-X-.--._-.-.- - -X _ -- 9, 5anita�I sewers Stem ImProvemen&C lpenes, pump StlOn5, etL.) j _ i% i;a f l NP!",: €� ; Provide new sanitary sewer service -to each lot .-.-_.-.-.-.-X -.-._ -------------- ..........------X . -.-.- .-.....-.............-.........................._...... Connect to public sewer system X X http:lledmondspmtweblpermittraxlPermitTraxMain/Attachments)LivelPEAMITIPMT-56579112112006131639906.doc revised: 11/15/05 Attachment 4 http:I/cdmondspmtweblpermittraxlPerTnitTraxMainlAttachmentsILivelPERMITIPMT_56579112112006131639906.doe revised: 11/15/05 req' d prior to keq' d w/ bldg, 13ond posted Complete recordincl Permit 10. Storm sewer 5q{,nts tem improvemeC pipelines, pump �$pg�t;¢� �, v/s {yam etc 5tation5, 10�, iifr} 7 i i @ € ii a B 4i { :>- ,€ t�,.3 Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots. - - _ X Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. __. Connect to Public Storms stem .. _. ...-._-.-.-.-..- .--_-------------- - ----------------- --- y ---------------_- - -_. ----.-X_._ ----- _.- ------------- 11, On-site drainage ( Ian per Ord, 5015): �_ IIIS. ...t..�t �.,.,,:,. ��=.,3,.,.»_..,, i3-111111 Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention stem. X 12. Underground (per Ord. 1307} wlrin - Required -for all new services X X 13. �xcavation (per IC3C, 02003 and gradirg a pendix] edition) Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. Grading X for foundations to be included with the building permit only__-.-._.. ------------------------------------- ..............-.._.__ _____-.-.-.-.-.-._--.-.-.-.-------.-.---------.-._--_-- _.-- 14, 51 n e Cper G �n Ineer) ; All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen X ............. will be permitted - -_--_-_-.-_.-.-.-.-.------------------------ ----- ------------------ -------- ProvideFire and aid address sigh- ------------ -- ?.... .-..._..y........._........................._.--............................-.-.....-_. Provide " Private Access Ends" X 15 5urve Monumentation (per Ord, 5ection 12.10.120): , NIA fib, As -built drawln 5 C erG Ineer) ; -T MIMI�� i �a ��l.=' .. . �Ft : '"' 1 %$R - --Required for all utility construction _.-.-_------------------- -------------- 17, Other re ulrement5, �. a) Plat showing lots, easements, legais, survey information- X.._..__—__ -- b) Leal documents for each lot _-_- ...................... ---------X X -.-_.-.-.- .-.-.-. _...-__-_-__--_.-__- c)-µ Fxeld stake lot comers�byprofessional surveoz)w _ X --.—..__.... ----. ......................_.-.-.-.-.-.-_.-.-.-.-.. _.-.-.----.-.--.--_.._ -... d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines. X e) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster----------------------------- X I Maintenance X http:I/cdmondspmtweblpermittraxlPerTnitTraxMainlAttachmentsILivelPERMITIPMT_56579112112006131639906.doe revised: 11/15/05 ya, t & re" &M a, W 12-11-2006 ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded. Authorized for recording http:llcdmondspmtwcblpermittraxiPe,rmitTraxMainlAttachmentsILivelPERMITIPMT-56579112112006131639906-doc revised: 11115105 recj'd prior to kcq' J W/ bljq. recording Perm it Pond ported Complete Storm §y access ....... ........ N/A ---------------_ Storm System �T ). -------------- ------- - .............___-.-._-.___X.-.-.-_._-.-.-_-. -_---- - ----------- -------- - -- ----- ------------- ------------- -D-----e-v---e--l--o--pm-----e--n---t----c---h--- _(............$428/1ot Sewer LID fees to be paid in full - - - - ------------ --------------------------------------------- --- --------- ----- - - - - - - - - - - Sewer Connection fee �y $730/lot ---------------------------------------- e) Water meter fee (based on -114") --xm ------------------------------- - ---- x -------- $550/meter Water Connection fee new lots y $908/10t .. ................. I-.-.-.---.----.---��'.) ---------- ---------- - --------- --- ----- -- ------ x ............... .................. __- ___.-.-.-._-_Trafficj!pp!ct $840.72/lot $_-----__--_.. - ------ ---------------- - - Plan Review fee$860 --- ----------- ----- --------------------------------------------------- x - - - - - i) Plat inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs)NIA ya, t & re" &M a, W 12-11-2006 ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded. Authorized for recording http:llcdmondspmtwcblpermittraxiPe,rmitTraxMainlAttachmentsILivelPERMITIPMT-56579112112006131639906-doc revised: 11115105 s�EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way, Suite M 124, Redmond, Washington 98052, (42 5) 868-5868 FAX (425) 868-7427 March 14, 2007 Mr. Fred Brown F.F. Brown Design Y CC: Mr. Steve Miles CC: Mr. Greg Hinkel Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Short Subdivision 7005 and 7027, 17401 Street SW Edmonds, Washington Dear Fred: Per your request, I have reviewed your site plan dated July 1, 2006. The pian shows that the project involves sub -dividing each of the above referenced two properties into two residential lots. The existing houses on the south side of each property will remain and a new lot will be created in the northern portion of the properties. Prior to the preparation of this letter, I have reviewed Edmonds Community Development Code ECDC 23.80. 1 have also visited the site on July 20, 2007. Based on my review and site observation, I am of the opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. We intend to perform a test pit exploration program after the current wet season. We will then produce a geotechnical report documenting our findings and detailed recommendations regarding foundation support and earthwork. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. Miles and Hinkel Short Plats C.J. Shin, PhD_, P.E. President 3- 1'�4 - 0�1 Attachment 5 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MILES SHORT PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON S&EE JOB NO. 622 AUGUST 3, 2007 622Ept Attachment 6 S&EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way, Suite M 124. Redmond. Washington 98052. (425) 868-5868 FAX (425) 868-7427 August 3, 2007 Mr. Steve Miles 7005 174"' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Report Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Miles Short Plat Edmonds, Washington Dear Steve: We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the referenced project. Our services were authorized by you on July 20, 2006, and have been provided in accordance with our proposal dated the same. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any question regarding the contents of this report or require additional information, please call. EXPIRES: r/6'/. ZDor Very truly yours, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. President 622rpt S&EE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................... .................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES....................................................................................................................................... I 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................ 2 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILTY.............................................................................. 3 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 4 5.1 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................................................4 5.2 SLOPE PROTECTION...................................................................................................................................... 4 5.2.1 EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE..................................................................................................... 4 5.2.2 LEAKAGE CONTROL....................................................................................................I—-......__...............: 5 5.2.3 FOOTING NEAR SLOPE............................................................................................................................... 5 5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL.......................................................................................... 5 5.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT............................................................................................................................... 6 5.5 SLAB SUPPORT. ..................................................................................................................... —.— .................. 7 5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES..................................................................................................................... 8 5.7 ROCKERY WALLS........................................................................................................................................ 10 5.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT......................................................................... ...................... 5.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................ 12 5.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES............................................................... .. 12 6.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 3: SURCHARGE LOADS ON SUBSURFACE WALLS FIGURE 4: GEO-GRID REINFORCED ROCKERY WALLS APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS AND KEY 622rpt i S&EE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MILES SHORT PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON for Mr. Steve Miles 1.0 INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development. The site is located to the north of 174'h Street S.W., in Edmonds, Washington. A site vicinity map is included in Figure 1 and a site plan is shown in Figure 2; both are included at the end of this report. We understand that the project will involve subdividing the property into two lots. The existing house in the southern portion of the property will remain and a new lot in the northern portion will be created. An access road for the new house is proposed in the southeastern portion of the new lot. The construction of this road will require about 10 feet of maximum fill. The existing road for the existing house will be widened. About 10 feet of maximum cut will be required for widening the road. We understand from your architect, Mr. hied Brown, that about 20 feet of excavation at the new house will be required to reach the proposed building subgrade. A new storm water retention structure is proposed on both the new and existing lots. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding site preparation and foundation support. Specifically, our services included: 1. Site reconnaissance to observe surface conditions including obvious signs of slope instability and wet and unstable soils. 2. Exploration of the soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site through the excavation of S test pits, TP -1 through TP -5. The approximated exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Details of the exploration program and the logs of explorations are presented in Appendix A of this report. 622rpt S&EE 3. Recommendations regarding foundation support. 4. Recommendations regarding the construction of the new access road. 5. Recommendations regarding seismic design. 6. Evaluation of the stability of the onsite slopes, recommendation regarding mitigations, if needed. 7. Recommendations regarding active and at -rest earth pressures to be used for the design of any retaining structures. 8. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of onsite soils for use as fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction criteria. 9. Five copies of ibis written geotechnical report containing a site plan, exploration logs, a description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The site (the new lot) is located on slopes with inclination varying from about 20% to 40%. The maximum relief across the site is about 36 feet. At the time of our field exploration, the site surface is covered with dense trees and thick undergrowths. We did not observed any signs of obvious slope instability which typically include slumps, cracks or fissures in the ground, wet and unstable soils, and springs. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PUBLISHED SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION Published SCS map of the Snohomish County area indicates that the surficial soil at site consists of Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy foams. According to SCS the erosion hazard for these soils are high. 622rpt 2 S&EE TEST PIT FINDINGS The soil conditions underlying the site were explored by the excavation of 5 test pits on July 3, 2007. Test pits TP -1 through TP -4 were excavated in the new lot. TP -5 was excavated near the north end of the proposed widened road. The onsite test pits indicate that the site is covered by approximately 12 inches of topsoil. Under the topsoil, the test pits encountered a brown silty sand of about 2.5 to 3 feet in thickness. This material was mostly dry and medium dense to dense. Under this layer, a brownish gray, silty sand with various amounts of gravel and cobbles was encountered. The material was very dense and cemented. Based on their appearances and densities, we believe that these onsite soils were glacially deposited and consolidated (till). TP -5 encountered about 4 feet of possible fill at the ground surface. This material was loose to medium dense silty sand and was underlain by about 4 feet of medium dense silty sand. The latter was in turn underlain by very dense till. Groundwater was not encountered in any test pit. 4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILTY Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions underlying the site and slope, and our estimate of the soil parameters, we have evaluated the stability of the slope using the computer program STABLSM. The analyses consider both steady state and dynamic loading conditions. The latter included an earthquake producing a ground acceleration of 0.1 Sg which would represent an earthquake magnitude (M) of about 6.0 to 7.0. The information obtained from the slope stability analyses includes safety factors against deep-seated slope movement. The standard engineering practice considers a slope to be acceptably stable if it demonstrates factors of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1 for static and dynamic loading conditions, respectively. A factor of safety is defined as the summation of resisting forces divided by the summation of driving forces. The following table presents the results of our slope stability analyses for the project. Factor of Safety Type of Slope Movement Steady -State Dynamic (Earthquake) Deep -Seated 1.8 1.2 These results indicate that the potential of a deep-seated movement of the steep slope is low. 62.2ipt 3 S&EE 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL Our explorations indicate that the site area is underlain by competent native soils. Based on our evaluation, the onsite slopes are currently stable and should remain stable provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed. Please be aware that there is always an inherent risk of slope movement for any development near slopes. In addition to natural factors (soil, groundwater, heavy rainfall), other factors that may affect stability include excavations, fills, leaking or broken utility, improper drainage, lack of maintenance of drainage facilities or vegetation cover, unwise actions by adjacent property owners, or similar events or unknown conditions that may cause instability. Therefore, future property owners must be alert of any adverse impacts on the slope and take corrective actions as needed. 5.2 SLOPE PROTECTION 5.2.1 EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE The surficial soils at the site are highly erosion prone. During construction, any exposed area should be covered by visqueen before inclement rain storms or when the area is un -worked for 48 hours during October I through April 30, or un -worked for 7 days during May 1 through September 30. The site surface should be graded so that surface water is directed away from the structural areas. Standing water over site surface and runoff over any slope face should not be allowed. Vegetation on slopes is the key to long-term slope stability. Lack of vegetation cover can result in the development of erosion channels which can in turn cause slope instability. Hence, all permanent slopes should be planed with appropriate species of vegetation and the vegetation should be adequately maintained. Any surface becomes bare should be re -planted immediately. Site surface and permanent slopes should be graded so that no runoff will concentrate and flow over any part of the slope face. Footing and roof drains should be separated and both tie -lined to the storm drainage system. 622rpt 4 S&EE 5.2.2 LEAKAGE CONTROL Based on the current plan, storm water retention structures are proposed for both the existing and the new lots. Since these structures will be located on a continuous slope, leakage control measures should be installed to handle any possible future leakage and to avoid uncontrolled flow over slope. Typical control measures include the installation of a perforated drainpipe at the downhill side of the structure, and connecting the drainpipe to the storm drain. 5.2.3 FOOTING NEAR SLOPE To avoid loading of slopes by building foundations, footings near any slope should be deepened so that the horizontal distance from the outside footing edge to the slope face is at least 10 feet. 5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL Site preparation should begin with stripping vegetation and topsoil of the structural areas including driveway, building and stabs. The subgrade should be thoroughly proof -rolled using heavy construction equipment. if proof rolling is not feasible due to wet condition, the area should be probed using a steel bar so as to avoid disturbance and rutting of the subgrade soils. Areas which are found to be loose or soft, or which contain organic soils should be over -excavated. A qualified geotechnical engineer should conduct the proof -rolling and/or probing to assist in identifying loose soils and evaluating the over -excavation requirements. After stripping, over -excavation and excavation to the design grade, the top 12 inches of the native soils should be re -compacted to at least 92% of their maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D-1557 test procedures (Modified Proctor test). Structural fill can then be placed in the over -excavation and fill areas. The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below. Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen material and should consist of hard durable. particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry -processed stone. The on-site soils 622rpt 5 S&EE are suitable for use as structural fill. However, most of these soils are moisture sensitive and should be moisture -conditioned to within ± 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to use. Suitable imported structural fill materials include sand and gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock. Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures. Care must be taken when structural fill is placed on slopes. The procedure requires that the existing slope be benched so that the new rill can be keyed into the slope. Proper placement and compaction are critical to long-term slope stability. It is strongly recommended that the earthwork be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer. 5.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT The proposed house and all retaining walls can be supported by conventional spread footings which should penetrate topsoil, and be founded on at least medium dense, native soils. Details of our recommendations regarding the foundation design are presented in the following sections. Bearing Capacity: We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square feet (psf) for the design of the footings. This value includes a safety factor of at least 3, and can be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. Footing? Construction: The footing bearing surfaces should be protected from weather and disturbance, and all organic, softened and loosened soils must be removed by over -excavation. Any over -excavation at the footing subgrade should be backfilled with concrete, lean concrete or structural fill. Please note that our test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils, which were placed in 2 -foot thick lifts and compacted with the trackhoe bucket. If these test pits are located at the future footings, the upper 3 feet of the fill below the footing subgrade should be over -excavated. The over -excavation should be backfilled with structural fill. All footing subgrade should be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to re -bar and concrete 622rpt 6 S&EE placements. All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade to provide protection against frost action, and should be at least 18 inches in width to facilitate construction. Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to experience approximately 1/2 inch of settlement. Continuous wall footings should experience about 114 to 1/2 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be 114 to 1/2 of an inch. Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the footing sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing soil. The former can be obtained using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the latter using a coefficient of friction of 0.5. These values include a safety factor of 1.5. FootingD_ rain: Rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed around all perimeter footings. Drainpipes should be at least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness, and be connected to a suitable discharge location. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed along the drain line for future maintenance. Footing drains should be separated from roof drains. 5.5 SLAB SUPPORT All slabs -on -grade can be supported on structural fill or at least medium dense native soils. We envision that the soil at the slab subgrade will be disturbed and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab construction. We therefore recommend that the slab subgrade be proof -rolled or probed. Any wet and loose areas should be over -excavated and backfilled with structural fill. In order to promote uniform support and provide a capillary break, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a 6 mil. vapor barrier over a 4 -inch thick layer of free draining gravel. 622rpt 7 S&EE 5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls or permanent subsurface walls, and resistance to lateral loads may be estimated using the following recommended soil parameters: Note: Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the above lateral earth pressures. The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate ortranslate away from the retained soil by approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a cantilever retaining wall. The at -rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches and pits. SURCHARGE INDUCED LATERAL LOADS 1) Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge -induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as 0.3. The surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "at -rest" case are similarly calculated using an at -rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. For surcharge loads that are not adjacent to the wall, the induced lateral earth pressure will depend on the magnitude of the surcharge and the distance from the wall. Such induced lateral load can be estimated using the equations shown on Figure 3. 2) The traffic -induced lateral earth pressure can be accounted for by increasing the effective wall height by 2 feet. 622rpt S S&EE Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (PCF) Coefficient of Friction Active At -rest Passive Flat Backfill 30 50 300 0.5 QH:1 V) Slope Backfill 45 75 300 0.5 Note: Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the above lateral earth pressures. The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate ortranslate away from the retained soil by approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a cantilever retaining wall. The at -rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches and pits. SURCHARGE INDUCED LATERAL LOADS 1) Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge -induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as 0.3. The surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "at -rest" case are similarly calculated using an at -rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. For surcharge loads that are not adjacent to the wall, the induced lateral earth pressure will depend on the magnitude of the surcharge and the distance from the wall. Such induced lateral load can be estimated using the equations shown on Figure 3. 2) The traffic -induced lateral earth pressure can be accounted for by increasing the effective wall height by 2 feet. 622rpt S S&EE SEISMIC INDUCED LATERAL LOADS For seismic induced lateral loads, the dynamic force can be assumed to act at 0.6 H above the wall base and the magnitude can be calculated using the following equation: Pe = 318*7*H2*a Where Pe = seismic -induced lateral load 7 = soil density = 130 pcf H = wall height a = horizontal acceleration, 0.15g BACKFILL IN FRONT OF RETAINING WALLS Backfill in front of the wall should be structural fill. The material and compaction requirements are presented in Section 53 of this report. The density of the structural fill can be assumed to be 130 pounds per cubic feet. BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING WALLS Backfill behind the wall should be free -draining materials which are typically granular soils containing less than 5% fines (silt and clay particles) and no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter. The backfill material should be placed in 6 to 8 -inch thick horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in accordance with ASTM D-1557 test procedures. In the areas where the fill will support pavement, sidewalk or slabs, the top two feet of the backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density_ Care must be taken when compacting backfil I adjacent to retaining wal Is, to avoid creating excessive pressure on the wall. DRAINAGE BEHIND RETAINING WALLS Rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed behind retaining walls. Drainpipes should be at least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness, and be connected to a suitable discharge location. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed along the drain line for future maintenance. 62Zrpt 9 S&EE 5.7 ROCKERY WALLS In addition to concrete retaining walls, reinforced or non -reinforced rockery walls can be considered for grading purposes. Reinforcement should be used when: 1. The wall will be used to retain Ell embankment that is over 4 feet in height. 2. The wall will retain a cut embankment greater than 6 feet in height. A typical reinforced rockery wall details are shown in Figure 4 and the general notes for reinforced rockery walls are presented below. Please note that the figure and notes are for planning purposes. A detailed designed by a qualified geotechnical engineer should be performed based on the final grading plan. GENERAL NOTES FOR GEO-GRED REINFORCED ROCKERY WALL ROCK SIZE THE LOWER HALF SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF FOUR -MAN OR LARGER ROCKS (DEFINED BELOW). FOR THE UPPER HALF, PROGRESSIVELY SMALLER ROCKS MAY BE USED, WITH A MINIMUM SIZE OF TWO-MAN FOR THE UPPERMOST COURSE. APPROXIMATE ROCK SIZES SIZE WEIGHT (LBS_) 1 -MAN 58-210 2 -MAN 265-580 3 -MAN 760-1,830 4 -MAN 3,000 - 4,000 5 -MAN 5,000 6 -MAN 7,000 ROCK PLACEMENT VOLUME (CUBIC FT_) 0.4-1.3 1.6-3.6 4.7-11.2 18.4-24.5 30.7 42.9 THE BASE COURSE OF ROCKS MUST BE EMBEDDED INTO FIRM UNDISTURBED EARTH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES TO PROVIDE A SECURE FOOTING FOR THE ROCKERY. THE LONG DIMENSION OF THE ROCKS MUST EXTEND INTO THE SLOPE BEHIND THE ROCKERY TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM STABILITY. SUBSEQUENT COURSES OF ROCKS MUST BE PLACED TO LOCK INTO THE ROCKS IN THE LOWER COURSE OR TIER. 622tpi - 10 S&EE GEO-GRID 1. GEO-GRID SHALL CONSIST OF MIRAFI MIRAGRID 5XT OR ITS EQUIVALENT HAVING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM VALUE (LB/FT) LONG TERM ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOAD GRI GG -4 2327 TENSIL STRENGTH (AT 5% STRAIN) ASTM D 6637 1740 CREEP REDUCED STRENGTH ASTM 5262 2688 2, FIELD ADJUSTMENT OF THE GEO-GRID INTERVAL MAY BE REQUIRED. NO GEO-GRID IS REQUIRED FOR WALL HEIGHTS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 4'- 0". 3. GEO-GRID REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE PLACED TAUT (NO WRINKLE) WITH ADJACENT REINFORCEMENT OVERLAP AT LEAST 12 INCHES_ STRUCTUAL FILL STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO USE. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED USING ASTM D1557 (MODIFIED PROCTOR) TEST METHOD. DRAINAGE DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED, PVC, PIPE. INSTALL ONE CLEANOUT AT BEGINNING AND EVERY 150 FEET OF LINE. 622rpt S&EE 5.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT We recommend that the subgrade for flexible pavement be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL. Based on the subsoil conditions, we believe that the prepared subgrade will have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of at least 12. For the proposed access road, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches asphaltic concrete over 4 inches base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. The material should meet WSDOT aggregate specification 9-03.9(3) and have the following gradation: Sieve Size Percent Passing I F/4 -inch 100 518 -inch 50-80 114 -inch 30-50 US No. 40 3-18 US No. 200 7.5 max. % Fracture 75 min. 5.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that Site Class C as defined in the 2003 IBC be considered for the building design. The site is underlain by dense soils. As such, the liquefaction potential is negligible. 5.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services may be required during the design and construction of the project. We envision that these additional services may include the following: 1. Review of design plans and responses to city's comments. 622rpt 12 S&EE 2. Provision of construction monitoring services. The tasks of our monitoring service typically include the followings: 2.1 Monitoring of temporary excavations. 2.2 Monitoring of spread footing subgrade preparation. Our representative will confirm the bearing capacity of the subgrade soils, and will assist the contractor in evaluating the over -excavation requirements, if any. 2-3 Monitoring the placement and compaction of structural fill. Our representative will confirm the suitability of the fill materials, perform field density tests, and assist the contractor in meeting the compaction requirements. 2.4 Monitoring the installation of subsurface drains. Our representative will confirm that these drains are installed in accordance with our recommendations. 3. Other geotechnical issues deemed necessary. 6.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. 622rpt 13 S&EE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HINKEL SHORT PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON S&EE JOB NO. 623 AUGUST 3, 2007 623rpt Cil'4S m Attachment 7 S&EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way Suite M 124 Redmond, Washington 99052__(425) 868-5868 FAX (425)..868-7427 August 3, 2007 Mr. Greg Hinkel 7027 174'[' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Report Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Hinkel Short Plat Edmonds, Washington Dear Greg: We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the referenced project. Our services were authorized by you on September 2, 2006, and have leen provided in accordance with our proposal dated July 20, 2006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any question regarding the contents of this report or require additional information, please call. Very truly yours, ENS SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. was\�S'�. 2e166 4 w4 rONAL'� C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. President �t�: iV tiv. ZUo 623rpt S&EE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................... I ................ I 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................ 2 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS.... ................ .................... ........... ......... -- ....................__.........._................ 2 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................2 4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILTY.............................................................................. 3 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 4 5.1 GENERAL. .............................. — ........... ....... ........................................................ ........................... 4 5.2 SLOPE PROTECTION .......... .............................. .............................................................................................. 4 5.2.1 EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE..................................................................................................... 4 5.2.2 LEAKAGE CONTROL .... ............. ......._............._._...._..._................................................................................ 5 5.2.3 FOOTING NEAR SLOPE............................................................................................................................... 5 5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL.......................................................................................... 5 5.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT............................................................................................................................... 6 5.5 SLAB SUPPORT.................................................................................................... ... 7 5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES..................................................................................................................... 8 5.7 ROCKERY WALLS........................................................................................................................................ 10 5.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT................................................................................................................................ 12 5.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS............................................................._......................................................... 12 5.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES........................................................................................................................... 12 6.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 3: SURCHARGE LOADS ON SUBSURFACE WALLS FIGURE 4: GEO-GRID REINFORCED ROCKERY WALLS APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS AND KEY 623rpt i S&EE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HINKEL SHORT PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON for Mr. Greg Hinkel 1.0 INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development. The site is located to the north of 170 Street S.W., in Edmonds, Washington. A site vicinity map is included in Figure I and a site plan is shown in Figure 2; both are included at the end of this report. We understand that the project will involve subdividing the property into two lots. The existing house at the southeastern portion of the property will remain and a new lot in the northwestern portion will be created. An access road for the new lot will be constructed in the southwestern portion of the property. A maximum cut of about 5 to 6 feet will be required for the road. We understand from your architect, Mr. Fred Brown, that about 13 feet of excavation at the new building will be required. A new storm water retention structure is proposed on both the new and existing lots. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding site preparation and foundation support. Specifically, our services included: 1. Site reconnaissance to observe surface conditions including obvious signs of slope instability and wet and unstable soils. 2. Exploration of the soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site through the excavation of 4 test pits, TP -1 through TP -4. The approximated exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Details of the exploration program and the logs of explorations are presented in Appendix A of this report. 3. Recommendations regarding foundation support. 4. Recommendations regarding the construction of the new access road. 623rpt S&EE 5. Recommendations regarding seismic design. 6. Evaluation of the stability of the onsite slopes, recommendation regarding mitigations, if needed. 7_ Recommendations regarding active and at -rest earth pressures to be used for the design of any retaining structures. 8. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of onsite soils for use as fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction criteria. 9. Five copies of this written geotechnical report containing a site plan, exploration logs, a description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The site (the new lot) is located on a north-east facing slope with inclination varying from about 15% to ala%. The maximum relief across the site is about 34 feet. At the time of our field exploration, the site surface is covered with dense trees and thick undergrowths. We did not observed any obvious signs of slope instability which typically include slumps, cracks or fissures in the ground, wet and unstable soils, and springs. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PUBLISHED SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION Published SCS map of the Snohomish County area indicates that the surficial soil at site consists of Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy foams. According to SCS the erosion hazard for these soils are high. 623rpt 2 S&EE TEST PIT FINDINGS The soil conditions underlying the site were explored by the excavation of test pits on July 3, 2007. These explorations indicate that the site is covered by approximately 12 inches of topsoil. Under the topsoil, the test pits encountered about 2 to 4 feet of silty sand. This material was mostly dry and medium dense. Under this silty sand, dense sand with various amounts of gravel and cobbles was encountered. The material was moist and slightly cemented at places. Based on their appearances and densities, we believe that these onsite soils were native materials deposited by last glaciations. The upper 2 to 4 feet of the material might be deposited by recessing glacier (recessional outwash), and the material below was likely consolidated by the advancing glacier. Groundwater was not encountered in any test pit. 4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILTY Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions underlying the site and slope, and our estimate of the soil parameters, we have evaluated the stability of the slope using the computer program STABL5M. The analyses consider both steady state and dynamic loading conditions. The latter included an earthquake producing a ground acceleration of 0.158 which would represent an earthquake magnitude (M) of about 6.0 to 7.0. The information obtained from the slope stability analyses includes safety factors against deep-seated slope movement. The standard engineering practice considers a slope to be acceptably stable if it demonstrates factors of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1 for static and dynamic loading conditions, respectively. A factor of safety is defined as the summation of resisting forces divided by the summation of driving forces. The following table presents the results of our slope stability analyses for the project. Factor of Safety Type of Sloe Movement Steady -State Dynamic (Earthquake) Deep -Seated 2.9 1.6 These results indicate that the potential of a deep-seated movement of the steep slope is very low. 623rpt 3 S&EE 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL Our explorations indicate that the site area is underlain by competent native soils. Based on our evaluation, the onsite slopes are currently stable and should remain stable provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed_ Please be aware that there is always an inherent risk of slope movement for any development near slopes. In addition to natural factors (soil, groundwater, heavy rainfall), other factors that may affect stability include excavations, fills, leaking or broken utility, improper drainage, lack of maintenance of drainage facilities or vegetation cover, unwise actions by adjacent property owners, or similar events or unknown conditions that may cause instability. Therefore, future property owners must be alert of any adverse impacts on the slope and take corrective actions as needed. 5.2 SLOPE PROTECTION 5.2.1 EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE The surfcial soils at the site are highly erosion prone. During construction, any exposed area should be covered by visaueen before inclement rain storms or when the area is un -worked for 48 hours during October l through April 30, or un -worked for 7 days during May I through September 30. The site surface should be graded so that surface water is directed away from the structural areas. Standing water over site surface and un -controlled runoff over any slope face should not be allowed. Vegetation on slopes is the key to long-term slope stability. Lack of vegetation cover can result in the development of erosion channels which can in turn cause slope instability. Hence, all permanent slopes should be planed with appropriate species of vegetation and the vegetation should be adequately maintained. Any surface becomes bare should be re -planted immediately. Site surface and permanent slopes should be graded so that no runoff will concentrate and flow over any part of the slope face. Footing and roof drains should be separated and both tie -lined to the storm drainage system. 623rpt 4 S&EE 5.2.2 LEAKAGE CONTROL Based on the current plan, storm water retention structures are proposed for both the existing and the new lots_ Since these structures will be located on a continuous slope, leakage control measures should be installed to handle any possible future leakage and to avoid uncontrolled flow over slope. Typical control measures include the installation of a perforated drainpipe at the downhill side of the structure, and connecting the drainpipe to the storm drain. 5.2.3 FOOTING NEAR SLOPE To avoid loading of slopes by building foundations, footings near any slope should be deepened so that the horizontal distance from the outside footing edge to the slope face is at least 10 feet. 5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL Site preparation should begin with stripping vegetation and topsoil of the structural areas including driveway, building and slabs. The subgrade should be thoroughly proof -rolled using heavy construction equipment. If proof rolling is not feasible due to wet condition, the area should be probed using a steel bar so as to avoid disturbance and rutting of the subgrade soils. Areas which are found to be loose or soft, or which contain organic soils should be over -excavated. A qualified geotechnical engineer should conduct the proof -rolling and/or probing to assist in identifying loose soils and evaluating the over -excavation requirements. After stripping, over -excavation and excavation to the design grade, the top 12 inches of the native soils should be re -compacted to at least 92% of their maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D-1557 test procedures (Modified Proctor test). Structural fill can then be placed in the over -excavation and fill areas. The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below. Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen material and should consist of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry -processed stone. The on-site soils 623rpt . 5 S&EE are suitable for use as structural fill. However, most of these soils are moisture sensitive and should be moisture -conditioned to within ± 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to use. Suitable imported structural fill materials include sand and gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock. Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures. Care must be taken when structural fill is placed on slopes. The procedure requires that the existing slope be benched so that the new fill can be keyed into the slope. Proper placement and compaction are critical to long-term slope stability. It is strongly recommended that the earthwork be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer. 5.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT The proposed house and all retaining walls can be supported by conventional spread footings which should penetrate topsoil, and be Founded on at least medium dense, native soils. Details of our recommendations regarding the foundation design are presented in the following sections. Bearing Capacity: We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square feet (psf) for the design of the footings. This value includes a safety factor of at least 3, and can be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. Footing Construction: The footing bearing surfaces should be protected from weather and disturbance, and all organic, softened and loosened soils must be removed by over -excavation. Any over -excavation at the footing subgrade should be backfilled with concrete, lean concrete or structural fill. Please note that our test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils, which were placed in 2 -foot thick lifts and compacted with the trackhoe bucket. If these test pits are located at the future footings, the upper 3 feet of the fill below the footing subgrade should be over -excavated. The over -excavation should be backfilled with structural fill. All footing subgrade should be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to re -bar and concrete 623 rpt 6 S& EE placements. All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade to provide protection against frost action, and should be at least 18 inches in width to facilitate construction. Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to experience approximately 112 inch of settlement. Continuous wall footings should experience about 114 to 112 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be 114 to 112 of an inch. Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the footing sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing soil. The former can be obtained using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pef), and the latter using a coefficient of friction of 0.5. These values include a safety factor of 1.5. Footing Drain: Rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed around all perimeter footings. Drainpipes should be at least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness, and be connected to a suitable discharge location. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed along the drain line for future maintenance. Footing drains should be separated from roof drains. 5.5 SLAB SUPPORT All slabs -on -grade can be supported on structural fill or at least medium dense native soils. We envision that the soil at the slab subgrade will be disturbed and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab construction. We therefore recommend that the slab subgrade be proof -rolled or probed. Any wet and loose areas should be over -excavated and backfilled with structural fill. In order to promote uniform support and provide a capillary break, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a 6 mil. vapor barrier over a 4 -inch thick layer of free draining gravel. 623rpt 7 S&.EE 5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls or permanent subsurface walls, and resistance to lateral loads may be estimated using the following recommended soil parameters: Note. Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the above lateral earth pressures. The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate or translate away from the retained soil by approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a cantilever retaining wall. The at -rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches and pits. SURCHARGE INDUCED LATERAL LOADS 3) Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge -induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as 0.3. The surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "at -rest" case arc similarly calculated using an at -rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. For surcharge loads that are not adjacent to the wall, the induced lateral earth pressure will depend on the magnitude of the surcharge and the distance from the wall. Such induced lateral load can be estimated using the equations shown on Figure 3. 2) The traffic -induced lateral earth pressure can be accounted for by increasing the effective wall height by 2 feet. 623rpt 8 S& EE Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (PCF) Coefficient of Friction Active At -rest Passive Flat Backfill 30 50 300 0.5 (211: IV) Slope Backfill 45 75 300 0.5 Note. Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the above lateral earth pressures. The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate or translate away from the retained soil by approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a cantilever retaining wall. The at -rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches and pits. SURCHARGE INDUCED LATERAL LOADS 3) Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge -induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as 0.3. The surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "at -rest" case arc similarly calculated using an at -rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. For surcharge loads that are not adjacent to the wall, the induced lateral earth pressure will depend on the magnitude of the surcharge and the distance from the wall. Such induced lateral load can be estimated using the equations shown on Figure 3. 2) The traffic -induced lateral earth pressure can be accounted for by increasing the effective wall height by 2 feet. 623rpt 8 S& EE SEISMIC INDUCED LATERAL LOADS For seismic induced lateral loads, the dynamic force can be assumed to act at 0.6 H above the wall base and the magnitude can be calculated using the following equation: Pe = 318*7*H'*a Where Pe = seismic -induced lateral load 7 = soil density = 130 pcf H = wail height a = horizontal acceleration, 0.15g BACKFILL iN FRONT OF RETAINING WALLS Backfill in front of the wall should be structural fill. The material and compaction requirements are presented in Section 5.3 of this report. The density of the structural fill can be assumed to be 130 pounds per cubic feet. BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING WALLS Backfill behind the wall should be free -draining materials which are typically granular soils containing less than 5% fines (silt and clay particles) and no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter. The backfill material should be placed in 6 to 8 -inch thick horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in accordance with ASTM D-1557 test procedures. In the areas where the fill will support pavement, sidewalk or slabs, the top two feet of the backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Care must be taken when compacting backfill adjacent to retaining walls, to avoid creating excessive pressure on the wall. DRAINAGE BEHIND RETAINING WALLS Rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed behind retaining walls. Drainpipes should be at least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness, and be connected to a suitable discharge location. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed along the drain line for future maintenance. 623rpt 9 S&EE 5.7 ROCKERY WALLS In addition to concrete retaining walls, reinforced or non -reinforced rockery walls can be considered for grading purposes. Reinforcement should be used when: 1. The wall will be used to retain fill embankment that is over 4 feet in height. 2. The wall will retain a cut embankment greater than 6 feet in height. A typical reinforced rockery wall details are shown in Figure 4 and the general notes for reinforced rockery wails are presented below. Please note that the figure and notes are for planning purposes. A detailed designed by a qualified geotechnical engineer should be performed based on the final grading plan. GENERAL NOTES FOR GEO-GRID REINFORCED ROCKERY WALL ROCK SIZE THE LOWER HALF SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF FOUR -MAN OR LARGER ROCKS (DEFINED BELOW). FOR THE UPPER HALF, PROGRESSIVELY SMALLER ROCKS MAY BE USED, WITH A MINIMUM SIZE OF TWO-MAN FOR THE UPPERMOST COURSE. APPROXIMATE ROCK SIZES SIZE WEIGHT (LBS.) 1 -MAN 58-210 2 -MAN 265-580 3 -MAN 760-1,830 4 -MAN 3,000 - 4,000 5 -MAN 5,000 6 -MAN 7,000 ROCK PLACEMENT VOLUME (CUBIC FT.) 0.4-1,3 1.6 - 3.6 4.7-11-2 18.4-24.5 30.7 42.9 THE BASE COURSE OF ROCKS MUST BE EMBEDDED INTO FIRM UNDISTURBED EARTH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES TO PROVIDE A SECURE FOOTING FOR THE ROCKERY. THE LONG DIMENSION OF THE ROCKS MUST EXTEND INTO THE SLOPE BEHIND THE ROCKERY TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM STABILITY. SUBSEQUENT COURSES OF ROCKS MUST BE PLACED TO LOCK INTO THE ROCKS IN THE LOWER COURSE OR TIER_ 623rpt 10 S& EE GEO-GRID 1. GEO-GRID SHALL CONSIST OF MIRAFI MIRAGRID 5XT OR ITS EQUIVALENT HAVING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM VALUE LB/FT LONG TERM ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOAD GRI GG -4 2327 TENSII_ STRENGTH (AT 5% STRAIN) ASTM D 6637 1740 CREEP REDUCED STRENGTH ASTM 5262 2688 2. FIELD ADJUSTMENT OF THE GEO-GRID INTERVAL MAY BE REQUIRED. NO GEO-GRID IS REQUIRED FOR WALL HEIGHTS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 4'- 0". 3. GEO-GRID REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE PLACED TAUT (NO WRINKLE) WITH ADJACENT REINFORCEMENT OVERLAP AT LEAST 12 INCHES. STRUCTUAL FILL STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO USE. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED USING ASTM D1557 (MODIFIED PROCTOR) TEST METHOD. DRAINAGE DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED, PVC, PIPE. INSTALL ONE CLEANOUT AT BEGINNING AND EVERY 150 FEET OF LINE. 623rpt 1 I S&EE 5.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT We recommend that the subgrade for flexible pavement be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL. Based on the subsoil conditions, we believe that the prepared subgrade will have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of at least 12. For the proposed access road, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches asphaltic concrete over 4 inches base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. The material should meet WSDOT aggregate specification 9-03.9(3) and have the following gradation: Sieve Size Percent Passim I '/4 -inch 100 518 -inch 50-80 1/4 -inch 30-50 US No. 40 3-18 US No. 200 7.5 max. % Fracture 75 min. 5.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that Site Class C as defined in the 2003 IBC be considered for the building design. The site is underlain by dense soils. As such, the liquefaction potential is negligible. 5.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services may be required during the design and construction of the project. We envision that these additional services may include the following: 1. Review of design plans and responses to city's comments. 623rpt 12 S&EE 2. Provision of construction monitoring services. The tasks of our monitoring service typically include the followings: 2.1 Monitoring of temporary excavations. 2.2 Monitoring of spread footing subgrade preparation. Our representative will confirm the bearing capacity of the subgrade soils, and will assist the contractor in evaluating the over -excavation requirements, if any. 23 Monitoring the placement and compaction of structural fill. Our representative will confirm the suitability of the fill materials, perform field density tests, and assist the contractor in meeting the compaction requirements_ 2.4 Monitoring the installation of subsurface drains. Our representative will confirm that these drains are installed in accordance with our recommendations. 3. Other geotechnical issues deemed necessary. 6.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. 623rpt 13 S&EE 5&EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond WE, Suite M 124, Redmond, Washington 98052,(425).868-5868 FAX (425) 868-7427 September 28, 2007 Mr. Fred Brown 1013 140`s Street Ct. NW RECmV ED Gig Harbor, WA 98352 1 2007 CC: Mr. Steve Miles BUILDING UEP!. Mr_ Greg Hinkel Report of Critical Area Study Proposed four -Lot Subdivision 7005 and 7027 —174` Street SW Edmonds, Washington File No 5-2006-144 Dear Fred: Per your request, I have prepared this report for the above referenced project. This report is prepared in accordance with guidelines stated in Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. A copy of my resume is included at the end of this report. Our company has performed a geotechnical investigation for the project at Miles (7005) and Hinkel (7027) properties. The scope of the investigation includes site reconnaissance, test pit explorations; engineering evaluation regarding foundation support, slope stability, and site development. We have prepared one geotechnical report for Miles and one for Hinkel properties. Both reports were dated August 3, 2007 and have been submitted previously. Erosion Hazard Based on our site exploration and Soil Conservation Survey (SCS), we believe that both sites are covered by Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes. According to SCS the erosion hazard for this soil is high (see Attached Figures 1 and 2). Landslide Hazard Based on our site exploration and topographic information, portions of the sites are located in areas of landslide hazard as the slopes in these areas are steeper than 40% and their heights are greater than 10 feet. These areas are shown on the attached Figures 1 and 2- 6221623 -Critical Area Report Attachment 8 Mr. Fred Brown September 28, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Seismic Hazard Based on seismic hazard maps published by USGS, no active fault is located within 200 feet of the sites. Also, the maps indicate a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Storm Water Management I understand that the post -construction storm water will be collected and discharged to existing public storm drain. Such arrangement will reduce the potential of saturating the soil on the steep slopes and thus enhance their stability. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Erosion Hazard 1. We recommend that any exposed area should be covered by visqueen before inclement rain storms or when the area is un -worked for 48 hours during October 1 through April 30, or un -worked for 7 days during May I through September 30. 2. Any slope face becomes bare for any reason should be re -vegetated immediately. During construction, site surface should be graded so that surface water is directed away from the structural areas. Standing water and runoff over any slope face should not be allowed. Landslide Hazard 1. All temporary excavation during construction should be 1.5H:1V or flatter. All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain the slope stability. 2. To avoid loading of slopes by building foundations, footings near any slope should be deepened so that the horizontal distance from the outside footing edge to the slope face is at least 10 feet. 3. Care must be taken when structural fill is placed on slopes. The procedure requires that the existing slope be benched so that the new fill can be keyed into the slope. Proper placement and compaction are critical to long-term slope stability. It is strongly recommended that the earthwork be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer. 6221623 -Critical Area Report S&EE Mr. Fred Brown September 28, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Seismic Hazard We have evaluated the stability of the onsite slopes using STABL5M program. Both building and seismic loads are considered. The standard engineering practice considers a slope to be acceptably stable if it demonstrates factors of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively. A factor of safety is defined as the summation of resisting forces divided by the summation of driving forces. The results show that onsite slopes are stable for both loading conditions - We recommend that Site Class C as defined in the 2003 IBC be considered for the building design. The sites are underlain by dense soils. As such, the liquefaction potential is negligible. Storm Water Management Since the storm water detention vault will be located on slopes, leakage control measures should be installed to handle any possible future leakage and to avoid uncontrolled flow over slope. The measures should include the installation of a perforated drainpipe at the downhill side of the structure, and connecting the drainpipe to the storm drain. 622/623 -Critical Area Report S&EE r Mr. Fred Brown September 28, 2007 Page 4 of 4 CONCLUSIONS The subject sites are located in an area of erosion hazards. Portions of the sites are located in areas of landslide hazard. Based on our knowledge of the soil and groundwater conditions at the site, it is our opinion that the above mitigations are sufficient to avoid additional potential risk associated with the development. As we stated in our August 3, 2007 reports, there is always an inherent risk of slope movement for any development near steep slopes. In addition to natural factors (soil, groundwater, heavy rainfall), other factors that may affect stability include excavations, fills, leaking or broken utility, improper drainage, lack of maintenance of drainage facilities or vegetation cover, unwise actions by adjacent property owners, or similar events or unknown conditions that may cause instability. Therefore, future property owners must be alert of any adverse impacts on the slope and take appropriate actions as needed. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our continuous services for the project. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call. y� �Oak 28,66 e2 ONALG I_ IEMFEs: tv0V..100� Very truly yours, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. '-7',T — � w IP_ o� C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. President Attachments: Qualification Statement (CJ. Shin's Resume) Figure 1: Site Plan ---- Miles Property Figure 2: Site Plan — Hinkel Property 8221823 -Critical Area Report S&EE S0. y} 1S[ �NHbd ' 3 CL C LL l 0 e� ��iz o 1vM 15�l�EOC3 �'�--- as art��aaNn Z - — — -3 un r;: ! - Z �a N ;v ,i r QaSodox�dy?� C S g t \ \ 3pN33 OOOM .9 S S O ca LC EL Lc`,0 ' 0 a i I 31a 1; ' co 9G 3Nli I rz " Q 3NIZct� co 7 IM to,OL -0.L0.68 N CO ¢ lorL ra 3 Q1 C: �NOUN3i�e1 ]13fyiY _ _ �-Iy� V Ld CL Q 3 = hRlO.LS 3S dOlJd� � \ ` Q I CL CV (n Z �• 'J j_,M1 �jy "\ \ ,r �f� I '*C:3 :E O 1 { f ! i "+h -j r—f1 I I CL CL cc 11 CL �L � ilOi1R3 i IiNH va 7 xv 9'00 t Q35 -a -.Z \ sore / rdl O. f1 � °'FsF ata6 '4 Ldl — co39013LI�i9nb..LS ? r / / f \ _-` 1 ` noliriac7a yalaM: waasSa�Sadoad \ I i� ` \ N� , S7 t lift %• I Y~� co �� ! �,, t �;,�, 5 lit 0lp4;' 77 f 1 5 tae= r 1 Vi �,'y. �Y t1t�(1N�4NJb�Zif1S "' afF.9a.£8 N t3� y�' ,►�Yr 3+A�Cs�4�,.s� •xa IZf `O f f9'LOZNNIS LL, 0. d' I? NDIS do 6&'t (091OD15 Ot8 -ON "j'b) r 96'89F='ANI - - N,S 113SIS 14L44t C13LVOVA Zt'BB£.dOl -1 HNiSS — G —:&-o '999 9 '- - - - i CO) 7N YM AVOls ctg,=[wnd 12131YM 91153Y1da a f LOV81 20 3NII Tinos 3,_')hNZR31532i casodo-aW Ol 6a1.Lmij f1 0 i' CV 01 12) 3d0'1�a 96Z 1 'XVH � w 8 l r'�•. '� m 3 .L�b�1 div ;I �� m CL321fi1.7Ei2Jls � :p -a °°n N` �7NiNi'd13?J G�3sOd021d ' I ', r } : tL (� SZ1= o Ql —•� --•. � �,l - �. Q qtr 4F 1 -a CL .UaG 5 '•� v. fR — �•. -` �� _ \ `'C"— vasa ` It _ �1 ! { /r •.' � M+ l'�-'4ii� - ;.: - 6F � � r r �—�~ � ver �F" 1 ICL Z 33npy "k3 x .. � ;X'KI O C4�'. ap�� 9/•' IY �� ` � L_ M Z, 07 aasoao-aij \~ 1 r- iaOO oil CL iv CL ca is RG CL �a M9,zs ulrt+a�/dd , r Zwulgnl !LL9 Nyyif'0'ss1 ` � `1f�\ l �� ' l 9 y� / O"a4Y i � ` � 0. fn , i Dl aNfu O m �F9y` 35 � �afo3 5o r �\ � � ,90)A�f � � Y 5 �i t as ass iw RESUME Firm Name S&EE, Inc. Name C.J. Shin, PhD, PE Title President/Principal EngineerlOwner Years employed by firm 12 Total professional experience 20 years Education (college/degreelyear): • University of Missouri/ MSI 1983 • University of Colorado/ PhD/ 1987 Registrations and licenses: • Professional Engineer/WA/1991-Current Awards, publications, etc.: • "Using Recovered Glass as Construction Aggregates Feedstock," C.J. Shin and Vicki Sonntag, Transportation Research Record No. 1437, September 1994, pp. 8-18. • "Blast Loading of Buried Structures," C.J. Shin, H.Y. Ko and Stein Sture, the 3rd International Conference on Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Niagara Falls, Canada, May, 1989. • "Subsurface Conditions in And Foundation Construction on Pinnacled Carbonate Bedrock," JJ Belgeri and C.J. Shin, 20th Ohio River Valley Soils Seminar, Louisville, Kentucky, October, 1989. • "Modeling of Dynamic Soil -Structure Interaction Phenomena in Buried Conduits," C.J. Shin, J.P. Whittaker and H.Y. Ko, Geotechnical Centrifuge Conference, Boulder Colorado, June 1991. Previous employment (firm/location/title/dates): • University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado, Research Associate/ 1987-1988 • S&ME, Inc./Nashville, TN/Engineer Dept. Manager/1988-1990 • Dames & Moore/ Seattle, WA/ Project Engineer/1990-1995 Brief summary of relevant experience: Over 20 years of experience in the management and performance of geotechnical investigations, analyses, consultations, design recommendations and construction monitoring for government, municipal, industrial, commercial and residential projects. Experience included projects for U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, WSDOT, Washington State's Clean Washington Center, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, King County, METRO, Snohomish County PUD, City of Seattle, City of Renton, Town of Hunts Point, City of Bellevue, The Boeing Company, Weyerhaeuser, Scott Paper Company, NUCOR Steel Corporation, and the A&E industry and developers overall. Some specialties are listed below: Resume -CJS S&EE r • Landfill investigation, design and construction monitoring • Investigation, design recommendations and construction monitoring of deep foundations including drilled shafts, augercast pile, H -piles, pipe -pile, concrete pile, and pin pile • Assessment of liquefaction, lateral spread and remediation • Evaluation of lateral loads on piles or caissons • Landslide investigation and remediation • Design recommendations and construction monitoring of soil nail wall, soldier pile walls with tiebacks, and sheet pile walls • Geotechnical investigation, construction monitoring and material testing • Recycled materials in construction applications Recent key projects: • Mixed used building at 1811 Eastlake Avenue, Seattle. Owner: Low Income Housing Institute. Contact: Ms_ Sharon Lee 206-443-9935. S&EE provided geotechnical services for the 4 - story building. Scope of work includes exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses for excavation shoring, building support, and recommendation for general site work. Project completed in 2005. • Mixed used building at 2245 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle. Owner: Val Thomas Inc.. Contact: Mr. Joe Borden 206-621-1221. S&EE provided geotechnical services for the 4 -story building. Scope of work includes exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses for excavation shoring, building support, and recommendation for general site work. Project will be completed in 2007. • Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. Owner: King County Solid Waste Division. Owner's project manager: Mr. Victor Okereke (206) 296-4422. S&EE has been providing design and construction services for Cedar Hills Regional Landfill from 1997 to current. Work include Area 4 cover system (100 acres); Area 5 development and closure (40 acres), and Area 6 development and closure (50 acres). Design included slope stability evaluation and mitigation, roadway development, interface shear for liner system; alternative lining system (GCL) equivalency demonstration, settlement evaluations. Construction services included review of CQA plans and documents, observation of materials, conformance with drawings and specifications, observation of field conditions and confirmation of design parameters. Project will be completed in 2007. • East Cap Extension, Tacoma Landfill, Tacoma, Washington. Owner: City of Tacoma. Client: Parametrix, Inc. Project manager: Mr. Steve Emge (425) 458-6371. S&EE performed geotechnical studies including evaluation of foundation stability and settlement, assessment of interface strengths, engineering evaluations of global and veneer slope stability, reinforced rockery wall design. Project will begin in 2007. Resume -CJS S&EE • Landslide Evaluation and Repair at Four & Five Newport, Bellevue Washington. Owner: Bentall Capital. Owner's project manager: Ms. Kam Boulle. (425) 562-3320. S&EE conducted geotechnical investigation for two large landslides in a commercial development. The slides were about 100 feet by 100 feet each. Slide debris caused relatively severe property damage. S&EE evaluated the cause of the slides, developed repair options, produced construction plans, and monitored the repair. Project completed in 2006. • Firwood Pit Reclamation, Edgewood, Washington. Client: Scarsella Brothers, Inc. Project manager: Ms. Tamarah Hancock (253) 872-7173. Project involves filling of a gravel pit. Fill thickness will be about 50 feet; volume will be about 700,000 cubic yards. S&EE performed geotechnical studies including evaluation of foundation stability, settlement potential, surcharge preloading, earthwork, drainage and slope stability. Project will be completed in 2010-2012. • Phase I Development (about 20 acres), Ephrata Landfill, Grant County, Washington. Owner: Grant County. Client: Parametrix, Inc. Project manager: Mr. Steve Emge (425) 458-6371. S&EE performed geotechnical studies including evaluation of foundation stability and settlement, assessment of interface strengths, engineering evaluations of global and veneer slope stability, recommendation regarding benching requirement, evaluations of drainage requirement and material drainage capacity. Project will be completed in 2007. • Project: The Boeing Company, 13-03 Building, Boeing Military Flight Center, Seattle, Washington. Owner's project manager: Mr. Kevin Rambaldini (206) 544-1479. S&EE conducted geotechnical and environmental investigations for the multi -story concrete structure. Project involved about 250 18 -inch diameter augercast piles, sheet pile walls, dewatering, and the use of recycled concrete for structural fill. Project completed in 2000. • Capital Improvement Projects since 1995. NUCOR Steel Corporation, Seattle, Washington. Owner: NUCOR Steel, Owner's project manager: Mr. Craig Anderson, (206) 933-2211. S&EE provided geotechnical investigation, design and construction monitoring services for various projects for the steel manufacturing plant from 1995 to current. Projects included: new oxygen plant, craneway support at billet yard, new shot pit, new scrap yard roof (1997) and its extension (2005); post -earthquake evaluation and repair, Terminal 105 improvements: pile foundations for light pole and scale supports, roadway subgrade support (use geo-foam to reduce surcharge loads on compressible soils). This is an on-going project. Resume -CJS S&EE LANDAU TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 14 ASSOCIATES wumftswfm TO: Rob Chave and Jen Machuga, Planning Division City of Edmonds, Development Services Department Cc: Jeannine Graf, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. (Dn VE DATE. October 24, 20.07 4 2007 RE: GEOTECHNICAL, REVIEW PLANNING DEP- HtNKEL / MILES SHORT PIAT SUBMITTAL 7005 AND 7027174T" STREET SW EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides the results of our geotechnical review of documents for a permit application related to a proposed short plat at the referenced properties. We understand that the property owners at 7005 and 7027 174`x' Street SW have applied to subdivide their properties to create a 4 - lot short plat. Landau Associates has been requested to review the submittal materials and to provide comments related to compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.80 and whether the development should be subject to the provisions of ECDC 19-10. Landau Associates services have been provided in. accordance with our On -Call Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Services agreement with the City of Edmonds and Task Order No. 07-05. We have received the following information forwarded by the City of Edmonds for review: • Preliminary Short Plat drawing prepared by Western Engineers, Inc. dated March 20, 2007 • Proposed Short Plats and Boundary Litre Adjustments drawing prepared by F. F. Brown Design dated March 20, 2007 (Based on Survey and Topo by Lovell Sauerland and Associates, Inc.) • Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Short Subdivision, 7005 and 7027174`x' Street Sly, Edmonds, Washington letter prepared by Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated March 14, 2007 • Report of Critical Area Study, Proposed Eoui-Lot Subdivision, 7005 and 7027174`' Street Sff ; Edmonds, Washington, File No. S-2006--144 prepared by Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated September 28, 2007 • Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Miles Short Plat, Edmonds, Washington, S & EE Job No. 622 prepared by Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated August 3, 2007 • Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Hinkel Short Plat, Edmonds, Washington, S & EE Job No. 62.3 prepared by Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated August 3, 2007. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 . (425) 778-0907 . fax (425) 778-6499 • www.iandauinc.: Attachment 9 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS The submitted materials were reviewed for compliance with the requirements for Geologically Hazardous Areas in accordance with ECDC 23.80. Geologically hazardous areas were addressed in the Critical Areas Study report prepared by Soils & Environmental Engineers, Inc. (S & EE). In addition, geotechnical investigation reports were prepared for each of the two proposed lots that included the results of test pit excavations, geotechnical engineering analyses, and preparation of geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of houses on each of the two proposed lots. Critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in ECDC 23.80.050.A. The Critical Area Study prepared by S & EE includes a resume of the report author that demonstrates appropriate education, licensing, and experience to prepare such reports. The following comments address each of the identified geologically hazardous conditions on the proposed lots. Erosion Hazard The Critical Areas Study report by S & EE identifies the site soils as composed of Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loam on slopes of 25 percent or more. These soils are classified as Erosion Hazard Areas in accordance with the designations in ECDC 23.80.020.A. The Soil Conservation Service also considers such soils to have a high erosion hazard. Erosion mitigation recommendations are contained in the Critical Area Study Report and the geotechnical investigation reports prepared for the proposed Lots 1 and 3. The reports also address the importance of surface water control. We agree with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations and recommend that their recommendations be appropriately incorporated into the project plans and specifications for construction on each of the lots. In addition, an erosion and sediment control pian should be prepared for the project in compliance with the requirements in ECDC 18.30. Landslide Hazard Areas Landslide Hazard Areas are identified in the Critical Areas Study on each of the two proposed lots. The designation of Landslide Hazard Areas are based on the criteria contained in ECDC 23.80.020.B.2, which designates any slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 R or more. Proposed Lot 1 has two steep areas classified as Landslide Hazard Areas and proposed Lot 3 has three steep areas classified as Landslide Hazard Areas based on this criteria. Each of the identified Landslide Hazard Areas is of limited horizontal extent, typically on the order of about 15 ft by 30 fl in 16124107 N%drndataVroject.IG74114DnleRmlRXHlnkel-w&es_SubottalReview_tm.doc LANDAU AsSOCIAT@S plan dimensions or less, and is typically on the order of 10 to 12 ft in vertical relief. The identified areas appear to be slightly steeper than 40 percent, based on the topographic information available. Soil conditions disclosed in test pits excavated by S & EE on the proposed lots disclosed relatively competent soils including recessional outwash, glacial till, and advance outwasb. No areas of existing or historic landslide activity such as slumps, cracks, fissures, wet and unstable soils, or springs were identified by S & EE in their reports. Slope stability analyses were completed for the existing slope conditions on each of the two lots and the results presented in the geotechnical investigation reports for each of the proposed lots. The computed factors of safety against slope instability appear to be satisfactory based on comparison to conventional geotechnical practice and the criteria of ECDC 23.80.070.A,3.a. Steep slopes are mapped in the vicinity and to the north of the proposed lots based on city-wide LiDAR mapping completed for the City of Edmonds. ECDC 23.80 requires that if the toe or top of a slope is located off of the subject property, then the location of the toe or top shall be delineated 200 horizontal feet from the property boundary or at its natural location, whichever is closer to the subject parcel. The Critical Areas report for a geologically hazardous area must address all geologically hazardous areas within 200 ft of the project area. From the topography and critical areas report submitted for the proposed short -plat, it is not possible to assess the extent of steep slopes adjacent to the proposed lots and whether these slopes, if present, could be affected by, or could impact, conditions on other properties. We recommend that the offsite conditions be addressed in accordance with the ECDC 23.80 requirements. ECDC 23.80 requires that a minimum no disturbance buffer and minimum building setback be established from the edge of all landslide hazard areas_ Buffers and setbacks were not specifically addressed in the geotechnical reports, although a requirement is provided that foundations must be setback or deepened so that the base of the footing is located at least 10 ft horizontally from the face of the slope_ We recommend that the recommended minimum no disturbance buffer and minimum building setback be specifically addressed by the geotechnical engineer for the proposed development. For alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area or development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer, the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060.A, sections 2 and 3 must also be addressed by the geotechnical engineer and the design team. It is not clear from the submittal what efforts in terms of structure siting, no disturbance buffers, or other means are being taken to avoid or minimize impacts to critical areas as a part of the development. In accordance with ECDC 23.44.120, the applicant "shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas." This issue needs to be addressed by the applicant and the design team. 1W24M7 6EdmtlalalpraJects19T441a01FiteRmlRtiHinke]-N61es SubmittalReview tmAae LANDAU AssoclATEs 3 The geoteclmical reports prepared for each of the proposed lots appear to be relatively complete and address the standard geotechnical design criteria for typical grading, foundations, and retaining structures. However, the current submittal is for a proposed short plat. The documents submitted indicate the location of proposed houses on the proposed lots and proposed grading. We assume that at this stage of the permit process, the location of the proposed house and the proposed grading is conceptual for purposes of illustrating the nature of the proposed development. However, the short plat application package does not represent a complete site development and building permit application package. As such, the actual configuration of the house, elevation, and site grading could change from the conceptual design presented - It appears that the existing geotechnical reports addressed the existing slope stability at the two proposed lots. According to the. geotechnical report, excavation depths of 13 to 20 ft are planned at the location of the proposed structures. The slope stability associated with the proposed excavations, retaining walls, and regrading on the property needs to be addressed in the geotechnical report. If the proposed short plat is approved and site development and building plans are prepared, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer provide additional consultation during the design of the proposed building, grading, and site development plans for the proposed construction, and confirm or modify the geotechnical report recommendations as appropriate for the specific details of the proposed construction. In addition, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer review the design plans for the building and site development in order to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the project design. The City of Edmonds Development Services Department may desire to have a geotechnical peer review of the final development plans prior to issuance of a building permit to confirm that the geotechnical issues on the site have been appropriately addressed in the final design. Seismic Hazards The Critical Area Study report and the individual geotechnical reports prepared for each of the proposed lots appropriately address seismic hazards. EARTI3 SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS (ECDC 19.10) The proposed lots are outside of the designated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area as defined in ECDC 19.10. However, portions of each of the two proposed. lots have slopes that are 40 percent or more for a vertical height of 10 iI or more. As such, they meet the definition of Landslide Hazard. Area as defined in ECDC 23.80. In accordance with the definition of Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area contained in ECDC 19.10, such areas meeting the definition of Landslide 10124197 11Edmdalalpriij"tsNO74t1401FIeRm�RUnkel-Mies SubmlltalReview lm.doc LANDAu AssociATEs 4 Hazard Area in ECDC 23.80 shall also be considered to be an Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. Consequently, applicants for permits in such areas shall submit a geoteclinical report and complete plan set as required by ECDC 19.10 to the Building Official for review. SUMMARY Landslide Hazard Areas as defined by ECDC 23.80 are present on both of the proposed lots. The Landslide Hazard Areas are of limited extent on each of the lots, and evidence of current or previous slope' instability on the proposed lots were not observed by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. The present information does not suggest significant problems with development of these lots with respect to Landslide Hazard Areas. However, development of any property with an identified Landslide Hazard Area presents some degree of risk and highlights the importance of careful consideration of design and construction practices in order to properly identify and reduce that risk. For purposes of considering the short plat application, we recommend the following issues be addressed. * The topography within 200 ft of the proposed lots should be examined by the geotechnical engineer to assess the toe and top of adjacent slopes, whether these nearby slopes meet the definition of a landslide hazard area, and whether the proposed lots could be affected by adjacent offsite conditions or whether development of the proposed lots could affect offsite conditions. • The provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 regarding avoiding or minimizing impacts to identified critical areas should be addressed. The geotechnical engineer should specifically address buffers and setbacks from the landslide hazard areas identified on the site, and if alterations or development within an erosion or landslide hazard area are planned, then the development standards contained in ECDC 23.80.070 sections 2 and 3 should be addressed by the geotechnical engineer and the design team. If the City of Edmonds decides to approve the short plat application, the following points provide a brief summary of Landau Associates' recommendations for additional considerations resulting from this review_ • An erosion and sediment control pian should be prepared in accordance with ECDC 18.30 and the recommendations of S & EE related to erosion control protection and handling of surface water should be incorporated into the plans. The geotechnical engineer should provide additional consultation during the development of site grading and building plans by the design team, and the geotechnical engineer should review the completed design plans and specifications to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design. The additional consultation should include an assessment of the slope stability associated with the specifically proposed arrangement of building, retaining walls, and site grading. The City of 1412007 11Ed�ndatalprajeclsl07417405FdcRmSRh}iinkcl-lu�les_SubmilgiReview im.tloc LANDAU AssociA7r=s 5 Edmonds may desire to have a geotechnical peer review conducted to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations have been appropriately incorporated into the design plans. • ECDC 19.10 appears to apply to this project and the permit submittal requirements of ECDC 19.10 should be addressed as a part of the project permit applications. 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 4 -Lot Short Plat at 7005 and 7027 1740' Street SW. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the geologically hazardous areas provisions of ECDC 23.80 have .been appropriately addressed and whether ECDC 19.10 should apply to the proposed development, and to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements 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 and other design professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. PIease contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/kes 40124/07 1lEdmdatatprolecl5l074514OT7leRmMiHnke3-NMlas_SubmlttalReview tm.doc LANDAti AsSOCiATes 6 s�EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way, Suite M 124, Redmond, Washington 98052 (425) 868-5868 FAX (425) 868-7427 December 17, 2007 Mr, Steve Miles 7005 174`' Street SW 1* Edmonds, Washington �1� 741-160f�Mr. Greg Hinkel �� 7027 174`' Street SW N�40� Edmonds, Washington �j a Letter Report Proposed four -Lot Subdivision 7005 and 7027 --174" Street SW Edmonds, Washington File No S-2006-144 Dear Steve and Greg: Per your request, I have reviewed the October 24, 2007 Technical Memorandum prepared by Landau Associates and prepared this letter in response to the geotechnical related comments. On page 5 of the memorandum, it indicates that "For purposes of considering the short plat application, we recommend the following issues be address." I restate these issues and provide corresponding responses below. Item 1 : The topography within 200 feet of the proposed lots should be examined by the geotechnical engineer to assess the toe and top of adjacent slopes, whether these nearby slopes meet the definition of a landslide hazard area, and whether the proposed lots could be affected by adjacent offsite conditions or whether development of the proposed lots could affect offsite conditions. Response: I visited the site on November 11, 2007 to observe the offsite topography conditions. I noted that the slope at the north side of Miles property continues northward for about 35 horizontal feet and meets the neighbor's level backyard. The offsite slope is about 3H: I V with a 2 -foot high retaining wall present at the toe of the slope. I did not observe any sign of slope instability. Using a 3 -inch diameter hand auger I drilled a 4 -foot deep boring, HA -1, and found about one foot of topsoil underlain by a native soil (medium dense to dense, fine to medium sand with gravel). This offsite slope and boring location are shown on the attached Figure 1. The top of onsite slope extends southward to the existing Miles residence that is adjacent to the proposed lot. 622!623 -Letter Report Attachment 10 Messer. Steve Miles and Greg Hinkel December 17, 2007 Page 2 of 5 The offsite slope conditions adjacent to the Hinkel property are shown on the attached Figure 2. 1 observed that the north slope continues northward for about 50 horizontal feet and meets the neighbor's level backyard. A small steep slope at the northeast corner of the lot continues northward for a short distance and meets a level yard. Using a 3 -inch diameter hand auger I drilled a 4 -foot deep boring, HA -2, near the toe of the slope. Like HA -1 to the north of Miles property, HA -2 encountered about one foot of topsoil underlain by a competent native soil (medium dense to dense, fine to medium sand with gravel). The slope to the northwest of the property continues for about 100 horizontal feet and meets the neighbor's level yard at the top of the slope. The topography to the west of the property consists of a few horizontal benches where neighbor's yards and houses are present. I did not observe any sign of instability of these offsite slopes. Based on my observation, it is my'opinion that the offsite slopes do not meet the definition of a landslide hazard area. Provided that our recommendations presented in our August 3, 2007 geotechnical report, September 28, 2007 critical area study report, and this letter report are followed, I believe the proposed lots will not be affected by adjacent offsite conditions and the development of the proposed lots will not affect the offsite conditions. Item 2: The provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 regarding avoiding or minimizing impacts to identified critical areas should be addressed. Response: In regards to mitigation sequencing stated in ECDC 23.40.120, 1 am of the opinion that the code requirements would be satisfied provided that the following recommendations are incorporated in the grading and drainage plans. 1. The grading activities should avoid the onsite steep slopes whenever possible. The locations of these slopes are identified in Figures I and 2. 2. When grading activities must encroach upon the steep slope areas, a few criteria should be followed: a) Permanent slope must be 2H:1 V or flatter. For fill over steep slopes, subgrade preparation and fill placement should follow stringent requirements so that slope stability can be ensured. These include removal of vegetation and topsoil; benching the slope so that the new fill can be keyed into the slope; use of structural fill materials; 6221623 -Letter Report S&EE Messer. Steve Miles and Greg Hinkel December 17, 2007 Page 3 of 5 erosion control by the establishment of vegetation cover; and activities monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer. The criteria of structural fill materials are stated in our August 3, 2007 geotechnical reports. b) If permanent slope cannot be 2H:1 V or flatter, retaining structures including cast -in- place concrete or reinforced or non -reinforced rockery or block wall should be used to retain cut banks. The structures should be designed based on the geotechnical parameters presented in our geotechnical reports. Item 3: The geotechnical engineer should specifically address buffers and setbacks from the landslide hazard areas identified on the site, and if alterations or development within an erosion or landslide hazard area are planned, then the development standards contained in ECDC 23.80.070 sections 2 and 3 should be addressed by the geotechnical engineer and the design team. Response: In regards to development standards in ECDC 23.80.070 and related standards in ECDC 23.80.060, 1 am of the opinion that the code requirements would be satisfied provided that the following recommendations be incorporated in the project plans. Buffer and Alteration The onsite steep slopes are relatively small in plan dimensions and elevation relief. Provided that all recommendations in our geotechnical reports, critical area study and this letter report are followed, we believe that no buffer is necessary. Some alterations to the steep slopes may be incorporated in the design. The alterations may include fill over steep slopes, or excavation to remove parts of the steep slopes. It is our opinion that the alteration will not: a) Increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; b) The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c) Such alternations will not adversely impact other critical areas. We recommend that grading and drainage plans be reviewed by us to confirm that the above requirements are incorporated in the design. In regards to item (a) above, some yard/french drains may be need near the property boundaries to control surface runoff. The need and location of this drain should be determined during the development of the grading plan. 6221623 -Letter Report S&EE Messer. Steve Miles and Greg Hinkel December 17, 2007 Page 4of5 Design Standards a) Slope Stability I have performed slope stability analyses using profiles that include the offsite slopes. The results of the computer (STABL5M) runs are included at the end of this report. The analyses assume the maximum loading conditions, that is, no excavation at the proposed building sites and full building loads are included. The results of our analyses are shown below: Factor of Safety Location Steady -State Dynamic (Earthquake) Miles Property 1.7 1.2 Hinkel Property 1.7 1.2 These results indicate that the proposed development will not decrease the slope stability to the acceptable limits (1.5 for static and 1.2 for dynamic conditions). The analyses also assume a_5 feet building setback from the top of any fill or natural_ slope. Please note that for footings near any slope, the bottom of the footings should be deepened so that the horizontal distance from the outside footing edge to the slope face should be at least 10 feet. This requirement should be incorporated in the building and grading designs. I recommend that the following design standards as stated in ECDC 23.80.070 — Section 3 be followed during the development of the final design. b) Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c) Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d) Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e) The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on 622!823 -Letter Report S&EE Messer. Steve Miles and Greg Hinkel December 17, 2007 Page 5 of 5 neighboring properties; f) The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g) Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage; Finally, as stated in Landau Associates' October 24, 2047 Technical Memorandum, S&EE should provide additional consultation during the development of site grading and building plans. In addition, we should review the completed design plans and specifications to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design. The additional consultation should include an assessment of the slope stability associated with the specifically proposed arrangement of building, retaining walls and site grading. I appreciate the opportunity to provide our continuous services for the project. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call. 28168_.p NAL EX' 4V. 2008 Attachments: Figure is Site Plan — Miles Property Figure 2: Site Plan — Hinkel Property STABL5M Results Very truly yours, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. / President 6221623 -Letter Report S&EE S.�b`2il O lYlbl 71,163HOd' I `bv XYH J.YmgNtja W X t a390d02ld 1 0 v 8 1 PInlww'Ls Lexi aasOdoad� U 3ON33 -Nn 'Ho ,B t c ^d d � N N O= 1 Lo'OI c0 i o LL I � Gf it • �/ i 2— C vTL a Q n3 1NiN�q aQ f a V F L � o n N w O 0 Z 0. \ n�4'W W►1.t + "ic sa � (lava �as).ar sse . .' . ,� �►-I-s yap J " ffi_ B:� L3vz O N 151C14 lity `3r N3i UOU ,B S Q .CI ` . oco 14, x III ^ m 3 fi Ll� _ I �C. •..• � �-r / / 'r6g�t � � '� '1 �I J�1213dOZld �. � "O L Q v 10� a sm� oaz •� . I 1, o QA ai X 0 In- // �A xvw:• X 739 i5 4f C / 'tn ism Yy C Q fl JOt �-5�— -r—� �•TcAA =dl �! N C c c ca 'p- 1 so•o*t., = I— a$ _ �,.. U U U ^d •� N N c0 ..� LL I LU oao") le -6 7 i . I, ..- -- � - . - --- .- - I �6Z-Iii 5ZEI, 1,�Dls iu-,/ . 1. — Wftl 4331VDvA W" 1:311UL -10 3MIl runs fel 89t HASS Mm Ndo-Lq <32.mna OI S:7j.Lra.Ln 44 Muni 011*3 U A CIO Zr A� � ob N-1 'N I 9 C4 CO re pu Fl (D ul LU 06 co .9 L m 0 3c 9milix sg H;jafr4_ 1 0 v > E m 9NMYlAw om Q ;JN17 1 OVS 0 -0 FL {,Sv �v I a) CL CL O E 44 Muni 011*3 U A CIO Zr A� � ob N-1 'N I 9 C4 CO re pu Fl (D ul LU 06 co O r O to T Q IV Q N +'r 9�� T Q � 0 O r co o . N 1 U I LU �1 \ tu F -- CD Vj O m CO) pjL __-_...._..._...._.l nz� �- c`li ._a Wd a 2 U = < LL 4:6 oa 0 E oWa Ur 0 �o • LIO 0 oC2. U, D 00-0-1 N Iz E�f mI (D Co O c "NO) W 0)Z"N C7 cn 00W4]d0 LNnnn�QO LLr r r— r— r r r--- *kfir•-�-� O O �} N C% O O 00 O r O to T Q IV Q N +'r 9�� Q � 0 O r O to T Q IV Q N +'r 9�� 0 l OR 0 co T 0 T oi W NI T I �� L ! w Lu - -- 06 -0- CO NNQ'N p161 U) Mzem-1 d U �rya�ao fA i O 't'A a w VJ '��Nj d CV v= I T � � r N C�Z3: cD c _ o�pro f AM C L L rn� O ' � l � o � rn U c 0 U Z3 C -.ul m r ro� of inCo in Q E _ s - i 040� � Z O i fn O c O M V�t7 tD O:NLV C4 N N. C4 C4 NC�{N � ---t-+r-r r -r --r r i ik lq U N �•- OIS -- •-. 0 Li T T 0 l OR 0 co T 0 T O W i(0 T I 0 l OR 0 co T 0 T r � i C I L ! T Q. Q fA i m O d CV v= I T � � r r O I C ' L - a U- IM T ,C J � m inCo in Q • � Q i 0 0 Li I N i a I 0 N k� C5 0 a IV N W H V) i M O s m 2 . O M ,. r m � � f 1 k CL ` o k ° % . \\ R � y § y ± $ too=5 t� \v =o \ / �ca � �» Joa:$ E a, }$ -Ne CL Q ;� m .g2 ag' ff Cl) f/ 0 m'66g 5? \�\/ f T -Z6 » k 9� 4\ 7§ . ) k$ - e ! 0 / c @ ®Rk\Q(444 ±�\-- i#_=o"am- _=. _ 2 2 k 04 In 2 0 r .o � k ■ . � CD 2m ■ cu fa fa Q � ■ R 2LL � � 2 � R � � f 1 k 2 2 k 04 In 2 0 r .o � k ■ . � CD 2m ■ cu fa fa Q � ■ R 2LL � � 2 � R . Attachment 11 %ice %��'` ��.��, MEMORANDUM Date: November 16, 2006 To: Planner Jen Machuga From: Fire Marshal John J. Westfall 425.771.0213 Subject: PLN20060144 4 -lot Subdivision 7027 174"n St SW The following project has been evaluated under the 2003 International Codes and current Edmonds Community Development Code. 1) Existing fire hydrant spacing meets ECDC . 2) Complete design submittal showing profile/slope of access from public way made to proposed lot(s) (email request Fred Brown 7117106). a) Grades in excess of 12% may require the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system for dwellings in accordance with NFPA 13D standard. b) Dwelling architectural submittals will require a fireflow analysis. Fireflows in excess of IFC Tables B105.1 and C105.1 and restricted paved driveway widths for emergency response may require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system for dwellings in accordance with NFPA 13D. 3) Post address for property access visible from 174th St SW. Signage shall conform to local standard for emergency response signage. Cc: Mr. Fred Brown Engineering Technician Lyle Chrisman Residential Plans Examiner Jenny Readwin City of Edmonds Sb Fire Marshal Attachment 12