The URL can be used to link to this page

1201 VIEWLAND WAY.PDF1111111111111113555 1201 VIEWLAND WAY S� CITY OF EDM ND O S 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION April 13, 2015 Ms. Alicia Davies Via email: info@ballardtree.com Subject: Hazard Tree Removal at 1201 Viewland Way Dear Ms. Davies, Thank you for submitting an arborist report with a site plan, photographs, and an 1SA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form dated February 26, 2015 prepared by Steve Cushing (Certification ID #PN-7629A) regarding a hazardous maple tree on the northern side of the property addressed 1201 Viewland Way on behalf of your client, Heather Moynihan. For your reference,) am enclosing the arborist report and Tree Risk Assessment Form prepared by Mr. Cushing. The materials prepared by Mr. Cushing state that the subject maple tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. The tree assessed by Mr. Cushing is located on and/or adjacent to a slope on the northern side of the subject property. The tree is within critical areas and/or critical area buffers, including an Erosion Hazard Area and possibly a Landslide Hazard Area. As such, the cutting of this tree is subject to the applicable critical areas regulations of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 through 23.90. Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity, unless it involves the. removal of invasive species or hazard trees. Removal of hazardous trees in critical areas is regulated in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) at Section 23.40.220.C.7.b. Such removal is an allowed activity as indicated by the code below: b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwisejustified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to'wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be . determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal.that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious_ environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written.approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; The above referenced materials prepared by Mr. Cushing identify and describe the location and health of the subject tree. Based on this information, it is clear that removal of this tree is warranted as long as the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b are followed, including the requirement of ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv that hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two -to -one. Thus, following the cutting of the subject tree, you will need to replace this tree with two new trees. An exemption for the tree cutting requested in the arborist report and associated ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form dated February 26, 2015 prepared by Steve Cushing is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the maple tree identified in the materials prepared by Steve Cushing (enclosed) may be cut. No additional trees may be cut without further review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. The stump of the subject tree must not be removed and must remain in place in order to help maintain slope stability unless sufficient documentation by a qualified geotechnical engineer warranting the removal of the stumps is provided to the Planning Division prior to the removal of the stump. 3. All work must be done using hand labor and light (hand-held) equipment, and appropriate erosion control must be implemented to minimize impacts to the critical areas. The two required replacement trees must be installed using the same techniques in the general area that the subject tree is cut. 4. The cut tree must be replaced at a ratio of two -to -one consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv within one year of tree the tree cutting activity. The replacement trees should be planted in the general vicinity of the cut tree. 5. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b, replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and shall be a minimum of one inch diameter at breast height for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball. ' If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Jen Mach uga Associate Planner Encl: Arborist Report with Site Plan and Photos, dated 2/26/15 Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, dated 2/26/15 Cc: Street File for 1201 Viewland Way Heather Moynihan (via email: hlmoynihan@msn.com) C 02-26-2015 Certified Arborist Report / Tree Risk and Hazard Assessment. Prepared For: Heather Moynihan 1201 Viewiland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared By: Steve Cushing ISA — Certified Arborist # PN-7629A ISA --Tree Risk and Hazard Qualified 253-241-9241 Subject: Acermacrophyllum (bigleaf maple or Oregon maple) have inspected the trees as I.S.A. Certified Arborist PN 7629 and Tree Risk Hazard Assessment Qualified, at request of Heather Moynihan. Findings: The condition of the trees is Extremely Poor. Tree is approximately 30'feet tall with 6 dominant leads. The Drip Line is 27 feet. The Subject tree is 45.22 inch Diameter Breast Height measurement from ground. It is exhibiting Severe Root Decay, Weak Branch Unions, Poor Scaffolding and Significant Die Back in the crown from previous improper crown, reductions or toppings. It is 15' from the high value occasional occupancy manicured landscaping, graveled path and retaining wall to the neighboring property. '25' from the high value frequently occupied deck of the neighboring residential structure. There is a r very large lead on the north side of the tree that will likely be the first to fail. The tree has been topped long ago and trimmed.over the years to maintain view. Anchor and Feeder Roots have Severe Decay and compromise the stability of the tree. The City of Edmonds Tree and Vegetation Protection and Removal handout #P46: In Single Family Zones If no critical areas are, present on or adjacent to the subject site, no permit is required for tree and vegetation removal on single family parcels, except: 1) if the parcel is improved or partially improved and can be subdivided into more than two lots, 2) if the parcel is unimproved and could be subdivided, or 3) if the tree is on a slope exceeding 25 percent. If the tree is in what the City of Edmonds considers a critical area: Permits may be required. The Risk Rating of these trees is: High I.S.A. Tree, Risk Assessment Forms attached There is no mitigation or trimming options that will improve the root system or structure of the subject tree. Recommendation and options: Remove the subject tree. J This is my letter of opinion and my recommendations as requested. 02-26-2015 Steve Cushing — ISA Certified Arborist PN-7629A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Ul .8147? 4j, YA .0a ,v Ar- . . . . . . . . . . . . oi, f.fi: ",!v doll. N) ijlA f"`,�� A f 1. 7"4 ay ;LN. XQ ^'•w �' � ' : NUJ �' .��I 'k :•, yl r _ �� ` 71 1� • � _ ,��,_ ._�-=� ter= � , �� ; • tr t. •: ��.. �;, � , � �., �, r it � ��,f '. - . t§�lti a✓ .v `,� r � �-•c .�,.� 1 ��_ � _ ^'mot ,, • i �• �! - Sod ,t,� ✓' i� � .r •r- S EJ, 2.�� t�.,f qr +•-'-�---�_'3 '3 �` i� �-•'� F •'�• i I r 9 "�4T�s. at(!7cQ..,"`.'N"++-•t;3,SLl�`�`.TiYl�'�iai, ••r.... _•t..i.....rr.�tiff clin, I'�r+:�Cy{I� ��..� �I 1(��'�}I�j � ; 'j f �t ��I,. �aA il)•,r) i ,i ''�l`.'I� (r., ---!! q � 'j`L�i (1 71•!Il L/�lyl, � 11prYl'''' Iljl4p } � `h `L f t � 1 ), `' c��rr •t r. r9, j� A�/ �r"��7-�t' r� ��I ��r�r�rs �. {,sty � l _y w L TI ii �; LLJU - `"y4` t ': .r°' v YC h�i�r !�` t^`a ,,, �n'''•t`� �` v� "}�wit%P+. ,may' �-3 1� �e .s � ' •� � • ttf�StSt'�i��n�F'r.;v_"r<`i.'*i'7 ISAL Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Heather Moynihan Date 02-26-2015 Address/Tree location 1201 Viewland Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Tree no. 1. Time 1:00 P.M. Sheet 1 of 2 Tree species Acer macrophyllum (bigleaf maple or Oregon maple) dbh 45" Height 30' Crown spread dia. 27" Assessor(s) Stephen Cushing I.S.A PIN 7629-A TRAQ Time frame Tools used Measuring Tape and Visual Target Assessment . Target zone Occupancy d a c ;'a x X —cc • = 3 rate 1-rare $ m u c u Target description u C c r x � z-occasional 3-frequent + > ` f+ - rp .+ '� It 4-constant a £ �a 1 Neighboring Deck ✓ ✓ 3 N N 2 Neighboring Path ✓ ✓ 3 N N 3 Neighboring Landscaping ✓ ✓ 2 N N 4 ( Site Factors ) History of failures Broken and Dead Branches and Severe Root Decay- Topography Flat❑ Sloped Liqht % Aspect Site changes None W Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated 0 Shallow W Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots❑ % Describe Bottom side of hill Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds E Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Exposed Sound View NW . , Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) W None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile BranchesM Trunkf RootsM Describe Tree is Dying F Load Factors 71 Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ FUIIW Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size SmallE Medium❑ Large❑ Crowndensity SparseN Normal❑ Denser Interior branches Few❑ Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ EzcessiveSuckerinq Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown N LCR 60 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches 0 25 %overall Max. dia. $ Codominant El bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole Over -extended branches ❑ _%circ. Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned 0 Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced W Topped N Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Over Pruned Response growth Main concern(s) Tree is Dying and will break Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant W Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent N —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling 0 Codominant stems N Included bark N Cracks 0 Dead N Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay N Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ _ Cavity ❑ 40 %circ. Lightning damage W Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks N Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole 40 %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean " Corrected? Response growth N/A Response growth N/A Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant f Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 0 Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization ! Likelihood Risk pill Bill Bill Conditions rating of part ' .. .' Matrix 2) CrownBill Poor Scaffolding ��0©CCCCC�*]CC[9,CoCCC� Branches ' dead branches C C CC CCCC CCCC C C a 9 0�©®1*1 C C C CCCC 5011rejNJ9 CCJCC - • • C C C92 CCCC CCC2 L C CC Leads_. • �EC9CCCCCCnR CCXc • • CC•cCCcc cc•R CC EN c ® • • • ... Decayevere XEoa cXoaCCCCCCC K MM©© CCC®CCCC CC❑ 2 CCX C 00 W C r C101 CCCC CCC, CNNC M M M CCCC CCCC N: R C,C CCCC M M M CCCC CCCC CCCC CCC ®®MSC rNCCCCCCCCCCCC r Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low " , Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely, Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely' Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact. Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor. Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low" Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low . Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Tree is Dying and Has Severe Root and Trunk Decay. My concern is Catastrophic Root and Trunk Failure. North Mitigation options None Residual risk 100% Residual risk Residual risk Work should Be done Immeadiately. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 0 Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 E 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data N Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed NNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ENone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 - Page 2 of 2 lnc.IS9"1 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR '!?*r/4(t AfAr Site Location: 1201 Viewland Way Tax Acct. Number: 00729500000100 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA-2008=0085 Applicant: Austin Huang Owner: Ruth Blackbourn CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION: STUDY REQUIRED (CRA-2008-0085) During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain (or be adjacent to) critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas (Erosion Hazard Area or Landslide Hazard Area), pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The LIDAR map (attached) indicates that there is a steep slope (approximately 70%) along the northern edge of the property. Projects proposed further than 65' from the top or toe of the slope (50' buffer + 15' setback from the critical area) may not require a geotechnical report to address critical areas issues (of course, other departments may require a report to address their codes, depending on the scope of work proposed). GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. Please review the' minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. Paget of 3 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. • Erosion Hazard areas include Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater, among others. • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the Geologically Hazardous Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. • Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the director's discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area and must meet additional criteria. • For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance ECDC 18.30 will be considered to meet the Critical Areas "Study Required" determination. The determination of "suitable slope stability" will be made by both the Planning and Engineering divisions of the City of Edmonds. • In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. • Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC 23.40.090. D • Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. • A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B. In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. Page 2 of 3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. • Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. • The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Gina Coccia, Associate Planner WAWA-J August 19, 2008 Name, Title Signature Date * NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. Page 3 of 3 SAW, -AIR ilk - �—MPNIL' 6 NEW, Approximate 70% Slope ]A -'�: VwIJ x W4 2 Nor - At 00 I ,I' 7 _ _ c -j L; IC ul.'N' Al� 40 7 474 k, A �—Mkl r 11 T: io- NOW UEW //,,LAND WAY ell 08.19.08 1201/1205 Viewland Way CRA-2008-85/86 1 inch equals 50 feet Planning Dowsion (GC) 1121 51h Ave fi, Edmonds WA 980201425 7710220 N nly I any fund is given. this map displays LIDAR data at approximate 24wt contour intervals. "='gui% agree to indemnify and so" harmless the City of Edmonds, This map is for mthirmstion purposes only and should not be retied upon for any action. its officials, officent, employees and/or agents from and against any Actual topography should be whiled in the field by survey for accuracy demand or action, "respech""Ithe natureofthecause ofcl This map is provided with all faults on an 'as ,s"and 'as available' basis. N demand or action, ansing out., any use or possession aft. m LI R Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: O& - 08 S Site Inform anon (soils/ tDpography/ hydrology/'v/egetation) �1 1. Sil�Address/Location: k e i O'et�l ( 4nd W �W . EdwanJS , N�iA '1 9 2 0 2. Property Tax A ccountN um ber: 00 72 9T 0000 0 / O a 3. Appmxim ate Site Size (acres or square feet): /g Zoo .SF. 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓ yes; no. If yes; how is site developed ? 9b N J e , D rf p rJ 5. Desca7bethe generalsitetopography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5 feetelevation change over entire site. Rolbng: sbpes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of66 feet). H illy: slopes present on site of m ore than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10 feet overa horizontaldistanoe of 33 to 66 feet) . Steep : grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33 feet). 0 ther (please describe) : 6. Sibe contains areas ofyear�ound standing w ater: ;A pprox.D epih : 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing w ater: ; A ppmx. D epth : _ W hat season (s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodw ay floodplain ofaw abercourse. 9. Site Contains a Creek or an area w here w ater fbw s across the grounds surface? Flow s are year-round? Flow s are seasonal? tW hatt in e ofyear? ) . 10. Site is prim arily: fnresied ;m eadow ;shrubs ;m fixed ; urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. O bviousw etland ispresenton site: 1. 2. 3. ForC ity StafEU se O my Plan C heck N um ber, if applicable? . Site is Z oned? F•• ei -12 - SCSmappedsoiltype(s)? AlAaew&M grave l j (ky,tAtA 1 D Gt►rn 15 - 1'5'1 4. C 5. icall A leas inventory orC A .m ap indicates C ritioalA lea on site? _�O — DV -eW Jj'p IYZ.CA ftj =s- landslide (>40�� + rD5io'n In yard areo?NE rne�r w ithin designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? X R eview ed bv: �1 DETERM INATIDN STU D Y R EQ U IR ED W A IV ER i co Gt'.t. Gt� D ate: Og • 19 -'IUD 0 8 Critical Areas Checklist.doc/2.17.2004 N VO e� D LA-1-VI t�f 5- Y �—' ate, #P20 4 OF ED�ro City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 ray I $qo Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date Received: 08. DI , 1100 CAy- Receipt#: Critical -Areas File #: rF-A9-003009,s CriticalAreasChecklistFee: $135.00 Dabe M ailed to Applicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submii a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in 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 information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed bellow. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT , 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 of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWVNER DATE PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Owner/Applicant: Ica VI .hick bawyn Name is o I view LanA yr a Street Address F4."ow4 9tol City State ! Zip Telephone: It � f -776 — /I V D Applicant Representative: Aa74%. "mtv%q Name Street gAdres2 City 91 State / Zip Telephone: 30 / �—?38— p 0 8 3 Email address (optional): Email Address (optional): di1 SIMMERIT ENGINEERING INC. January. 14, 2008 Project No. .01.0141601 STREET FILE Ruth Blackbourn 1201 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Slope Restoration 1.201 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ruth: _1713 Nlcridiian ~Intl IicHin;-h;nn. WA Y.x I cl; a,ll; 1 tN' 60x; I an. ;00173S 1 199 incril�„ \Irri�ltn_utcrrin_.c��nt It;i�,:, t�.�,�� ::\Irri�l•ncinrrtin� nnn e + I WGolREnE RECEIVED, JUN 212008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CTY CG° EOMM;CNDS After checking with available contractors with portable equipment that can access to the site, I have contacted Cemrock of Seattle and proposed the slope restoration plan based on their capability. 1. The plan calls for installation of 3 tiers of retaining walls on the failure section of the slope with 20' long, 24' and 18' for the top, middle, and bottom walls, respectively. The wall will be concrete wall supported by 3" pipe pile driven vertically into ground until refusal, at 3' on center. The wall will also be supported by 2, rows of anchors also at 3' on center. The —l" diameter anchor will be grouted into a pre drilled 4" diameter hole with at least 20' into hard soils. The wall height will be limited no more than 4' and backfilled with light weight geofoams covered with a 1' layer of topsoils for planting. 2. In addition, 9 vertical pipe piles of 3" diameter to the west of the wall and 5 to the east of wall (3' on center) will be driven into ground to refusal as preventive measure to protect the slope adjacent to the failure area. Support Calculations: Back -calculation on the failure slope: From Dunn Anderson and Kiefer (Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis): FS = c + yGh cost Otan 0 yhcospsing where: FS = factor of safety of the slope c = cohesion of soil, psf yb= buoyant unit weight of soil, pcf = 60 pcf y = unit weight of soil, pcf = 120 pcf h = thickness of failure soil, foot = 2.5' average estimated /3 =slope angle, deg.=330 = friction angle of soil, deg. = 34o based on the soil type At the time of failure, FS=1, c z 66 psf The current slope soils are dense with cohesion. And the slope has been safe for many year, at least for the houses on the site since 1980s. The failure is apparently the surficial layer of soils that were saturated from field observation. As long as the surficial erosion protection measures are implemented, the slope should be satisfactory as we also understand that the both houses on the top of the hill are supported by piles that will in turn help maintain the slope stable. However, for this analysis purpose, conservative approach is taken by considering the slope with the above soil parameters. With the parameters, using the above equation, a safe slope angle (FS=1.5) is obtained as P= 21.50. Reinforcing the slope failure section with anchors. From Hoek and Bray "Rock Slope Engineering 3rd ed.): FS = cA+ K cosp + TsinV)tan 0 W sinp— TcosV where: V=angle between the anchor and the slope face U = water pressure perpendicular to the slope face V = water pressure parallel to the slope face A = area of soils that prone to slide and W' = effective weight In the calculation, with the parameters used above, and considering the area A as; A = LB = 77 x 3 = 231 where L = length of slope face at 8 = 21.50 slope with the height of slope is 28', and B = width of the slope in consideration, since we propose anchors at 3' on center, so B=3'. W' = 70,5601b. V = 530 (the anchor is 200 with the horizontal). with the parameters, for FS=1.5 from the above equation, we need total tension T from the anchor support is T = 10,000 lb. (FS = 1.87) Since each section will have 3 walls with 2 rows of anchors on each wall, there will be 6 anchors on each section, each anchor needs T = 1.7 kips. We are proposing to use CTS (Con -Tech Systems) Grade 95/120-H All -Thread Bar of 7/8 inch that has Ultimate Capacity of 68.3 k so it has much adequate capacity for the proposed use. =Merit Engineering Inc. -2- Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, -- - --141661 1EXPIRES JUNE 10, zasy I Austin X. Huang, Ph.D., P.E., L.G. Principal -3- -Merit Engineering Inc. Forti0l Flo• Net .. ' I•, • i1.0,illii to llli .'tll Lti:. h Coo te tr = Y,,.h cos-' 0 (pure pressure) T N Q Wt N U Force Polygon (c) he remaining forces on the free-hody diagram are W,=bh (1)Y N=WcosG N=N —U 7' = W sin /3 N = bh cos g(y — yj N = bh cos 3 y;, initr Slllrc> 241 ie effectiW normal stress and the shearing stress along the bottom: ofAi'>t ce can tiow:be obtained from N and T by dividing by the length alongtii )ttom of the wedge. 01 = N = Ynh cos' b�Co.a = y/r cos /3 sin /3 b�C )s he shear strength for a c-0 soil is expressed as S = T.+v tan a?a "i hich becomes y S = T + yhh Cos= ,3 tan ' he safetyfactor for an infinite slope in a c- p � soil with seepage parallel to and le surface can now be expressed as S �r r - r ti F = Yth cos' ,3 tan cb :.. : yh cos /3 sin /3 (242=Y) . If T 0, Eq. 242-1 reduces to J9 F—Yntan� ' y tan (3 ., i'll ince yh/y= 1/2, the safety factor for a cohesionless infinite slope with,O'll C, ,epage is about one-half that for the slope without seepage. Assuming a factor of safety of unity and solving for h leads to.Eq..,242*.Z hich indicates that for cohesive soils there is a limiting thickness for stability; _ C scc . (242-"' t y[tan J3 — (Yr,IY) tan 4 'his value of h applies only for the case of full seepage parallel to the surfaee:ti f; milar relationship could be established for other cases. A dimensionless pa ter called a stability number is often useful in plotting slope stability data: _ i :ability number for the case of c-4 soil with full seepage can be define'iP !writing Eq. 242-2 as Yn tan /3 — —tan T _ Y h'Y sec= 7 Slope Stabilitv.An 27 n W Sin parallel, to the plane is T Cos B while the component acting across the surface upon which the block rests is T Sin B. The condition of limiting equilibrium for this case is / defined by W Sin y+ V - T Cos Q= cA + (W Cos L- U+ T Sin B) Tan y (12) Y -• This equation shows that the bolt tension reduces the U` disturbing force acting down the plane and increases the 9 normal force and hence the frictional resistance between T the base of the block and the plane. Rockbolt a Factor of safety of a slope y All the equations defining the stability of a block on an W Cos 1 inclined plane have been presented for the condition of limiting equilibrium, i.e. the condition at which the forces W tending to induce sliding are exactly balanced by those resisting sliding. In order to compare the stability of slopes under conditions other than those of limiting equilibrium, some form of index is required and the most commonly used index is the Factor of Safety. This can be defined as the ratio of the total force available to resist sliding to the total force tending to induce sliding. Considering the case of the block acted upon by water forces and stabilised by a tensioned rockbolt (equation 12), the factor of safety is given by cA + (W Cos - U + T Sin E) Tan m (13) F= W Sin �+ V - T Cos S When the slope is on the point of failure, a condition of limiting equilibrium exists in which the resisting and disturbing forces are equal, as defined by equation 12, and the factor of safety F = 1. When the slope is stable, the resisting forces are greater than the disturbing forces and the value of the factor of safety will be greater than unity. Suppose that, in a practical mining situation, the observed behaviour of a slope suggests that it is on the point of failure and it is decided to attempt to stabilise the slope. Equation 14 shows that the value of the factor of safety can be increased by reducing both U and V, by drainage, or by increasing the value of T by installing rockbolts or tensioned cables. It is also possible to change the weight W of the failing mass but the influence of this change on the factor of safety must be carefully evaluated since both the disturbing and resisting forces are decreased by a decrease in W. The bolt tension required to provide a specified factor of safety of F is a minimum when the angle i satisfies the equation tan 5 = F tan , .This result is obtained by differentiating equation (13) with respect to I: and setting dT = p and qdi3 = o• d: Practical experience suggests that, in a situation such as that described above, an increase in the factor of safety -MAW ROCKERY N 89'53'58* 24' so �00 3" VERTICAL PILE ROW 0 3' O/C, 9'- PILES TYPICAL • 260 24' • --3- -VERTICAL PILE ROW 0 3' O/C7--5- PUS • Tel --SPRINKLE ecb WALK IRRIGATION—Aj/-275 VALVE WALK,., - zoo 12' HI R i p I r. w 44 E)OSTING HOUSE FF-248 2 ji ROCKER 250— SLIDE LIMITS 25,5 47— -6*21 OSCH 80 PILES, DRIVEN TO REFUSAL 0 3' O/C, 5 PILES, • 265TYPICAL Lu Lu r,tfLAS PIPES • ___-2 70 cy:) CONCRETE PAD FF 277.5 3 A -A TOP OF BANK IN, ORAPHIC SCAT (a pm) im a 10, — I co I '"' !,NEW SHOTCRETE WALL y(fo" - 4000 per) tw, � i. (4) ADDITIONAL 04 REINFORCING BARS SPANNING ANCHOR HEADS MIRADRAIN 6000 �-" DRAINAGE FABRIC 4' : BEARING PLATE W/HEX NUT, WEDGE WASHER 3 (10"XIO"A" •O 36) 3`12 PVC WEE PIPES 3" SCHEDULE W COMPRESSION PILE DRIVEN TO REFUSAL 3' ON CENTER II REBAR REINFORCING GRID > cz 04 GRADE 60 6 ®�+ o 12" VERTICAL ui r` W S" HORIZONTAL cv =' U. Z' 00 20' . �oso�� • CTS22/120 i/W STEEL ANCHOR GROUTED WITH 4000 PSI CEMENT 41' DIA HOLE _ PRE DRIVEN TOPSOIL i' BELOW GRADE LIGHT WEIGHT GEOFOAM X. y� . �/.oF w^sy,tic9j EXPIRES +JUNE 10, =d0 CYIcoI Ct N 8913*58" W lm"540�.00� 24' -A-•0 E JAL PILE ROW • r ®3> O/C. 9 PILES TYPICAL • 260 24' 10 265-- • ---3- ZRTICAL PILE ROW 0 3' O/C7--& PILES • 18' --SPRINKLE 100 WALK IRRIGATnICAN VALVE INSTALL APPROX 200 L.F. SILT FENCE DURINGCONSTRUCTION WALK 3.2' HI RPIr.W WAI I tool EXISTING ZHn\JED I EIS j IOG WATAN soma cpx:c'� -'- ROCKER 250— SLIDE LIMITS 255-1 CO ui, ui Now UJI uj J SCH PILES, W DRIVEN REFUSAL 0 3' 5 PILES, L/C, 26,5 TYPIC L PUS PIPES nw : 7O CRETE PAD IFIF 277.5 TOP OF BANK IN. GRAPHIC SCALE 2 3 30 1n ■ 10' 9 & V Qo a� c iif �s c M o N.3 �M M z� o �g nM � M Nominal Diameter Steel Area cad Capacity Ultimate Yield Load 0.6 ULT OL° 2) Major Thread Dlameter D Weight Part ID. 18 mm 254 mm2 kN 170 kN 122 kN 21 mm 2 kglm CTS-18/120-H 5/8_in_ . __45.9K_ - 'kN - 38.2 ___...K __27.5K_ __...(n_ - __1.. ..Ibs.K _________ _ 22 mm __... 380 mm2 255 kN 182 kN 25 mm 2,96 kg/m CTS-22/120-H 7/8_in_ r _ 88.3 K _ _ - _ _57.3 K _ _ 41.0 K . _ _ _0.98 1n _ _ _1.99 lbsllf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 25 mm ........ 491 mm 393 kN 329 kN 238 kN 28 mm- 3.85 kg/m CTS-251120-H 1 in 0.76 in' 86.3 K _ _ _ 74.0 K - _ 53.0 K - - �296 _ _ 1.10 in _ • - _2.69 Ibs/If _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28 mm 616 -mm2 . ' -493 kN 413 kN kN 32 mm 4.83 kg/m CTS-28/120-H 1 1 /8 in 0.95 in2 110.8 K . - _ - • 92.8 K _ _ 66.5 K . 1.26 In _ - . _ 3.26 IbsAf -5.55 - 30 mm 707 mm2 565 kN 474 kN 339 kN 34 mm kg/m CTS•301120•H 1 1/4_in_ 1.10 in' _ 127.0 K_ ^ _ 105.6 K - 76.2 K_ _ _ 1.34 in _ _ 3.73 Ibs/if _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ , 35 mm 962 mm2 770 kN 645 kN 462 kN 40 mm 7.55 kg/m CTS-35/120•H. 1 318 in 1.49 in2 173.1 K 145.0 K 103.9 K .. -897 - 1.67 in 5.0_7 IbsA( - _11 - - - - ' - - 43 mm _ _ 1452 mm 2 - -1182 kN • _ . 973 kN kN _ 48 mm- 4 kglm - CTS-43/120.H 1 5/8 in 2.25 in' 281.2 K 218.7 K 156.7 K 1.89 in ----- 7.66 IbsiK - --- _ ` --------- = -------- 57.5 mm -- ---- 2597 mm2 -- - ------ 2077 kN ---- 1740 kN ----------------- 1246 kN 63 mm 20.38 kg/m CTS-58/120-H: 2 1/4 in 4.03 in' 466.9 K 391,2 K ----- _ 280.1_K - ---- 2.48 in - ---- 13.69 Ibs/if - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ---- 63.5 mm --- ---- 3167 mm2 --------+----- 2534 kN - 2122 kN ------ 1520 kN 70 mm 24.86 kg/m CTS-64/120-H 2 1/2 in 4.91 in' 669.6 K� 477.0 K _ _341.8_ K 2.76 in _ 1_6_.71 Ibs/If 75 mm 4418 mm2 3535 kN 2950 kN 2121 kN 82 mm 34 kg/m CTS-751120-H 3 in 6.85 in' 794.7 K 665.4 K 476.8 K 3,23 in 22.85 Ibs/K Notes This bar exceeds the physical properties of ASTM-615 and is specifically manufac Rock and Soil Anchors and Soil Nails. It is very ductile, ideal for seismic applications. a Design load for temporary applications, up to 0.7 ULT. Bar Anchor Systems _--- o M a � N N• t!D ff IY `fw A NO h x a 3 Admin (2) #4 rebar 60 grade onto of Load plate in addition to std grade of #4 rebar @ 12" OIC both ways 2066251558 p.2 i 4000 PSI shotcrete wall . 6" min thickness j� yy�i.�Vj4-ii APPRO,% Df'.. AN' ' Square X 318 Thick 36 Steel load Plate fielded to a 2.5" insert pipe X 6" 3" Schedule 80 pipe �-- Driven to refusal with a 140 LBS Collins hammer Typical Pipe pile plate and rebar.detail RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF- EDMDNDS Rdmin 2066251558 p.3 Schematic Only - Not to Scale (Dimensions as indicated only.) (2) #4 Vertical Stee!—'-►� -.'a,.w. �r 6 ; Reinforcing Bars at-r ) �'' 11 �6 .. :IN Spacing on each Side of • r %� -, ti ! Anchor Head for Fu11.Wart Heigft Ab 10" Square � Thick • �� A36 Steel Load Spreader Pfate r- • t Anchor Nail ((2) #4 Horizonmt Steel Reirtdorcing Bars at 2- Spacing on each Side of Anchor Head for Etta Wall Length • ' — IS � Strips of Miradrain Horizontal 44 Steel r j Geacomposite Drainage Material for Reinforcing Barsat 12^ Ful Watt Height S o/ C _ on Center for Full Wad , Length _ C -t Vertical #4 Steel Re�rn org r Bars 0 12' on Center for Full Wall Height t_ NOTES • Minsrwm thickness of staocrete over exposed-soo.face, t = 6 inch f iWnsrwm shotcrete cover over makdoremg steel bars, c = 3 irches - Welled wire mesh reir#otrrg to extend for- full height and length of ` shotcrete wall for crack corm'ot - tifwadrain geocomposde for egravalent) to cover full height and wtgLh of exposed soil face behind shoraete walL RECEIVE r JUN 21 2008 t BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS 8 TYPICAL ANCHOR HEAD & WALLe CEMROCK / SEATTLE REINFORCEMENT r s 0 Rdmin 2066251558 p.4 ===Steel for Full Was HMM � Schematic Only - Not ioScale icated only (Dimensions as ind X-6 Steel"Anchor L cad Horizontal Reinforcing Steel Bars - (2) 04. Each Side of Anchor Head for Full Wail Length -4 T 2' c-c #4 Horizontal F:le"OrCinq Steel Bars @ 12, On Center for Fun Wall Length Vertical Reinforcing Steel Bars - (2) #4, Each Side, of Anchor Head for Full VYA RECEIVED Hei0t JUN 2 7 20M BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDLIONDS NOTE Horizontal and vertical steel re"orcing bars forming wvfaler beams. around anchor heads should extend for tug length Or height of the w an Of the anchor head an and should encapsulate * 'Block out pockets' around anchor heads are filled with concrete grout aft load testing is completeder anchor - An reinforcement type. size, spacing ard* location to be verified by project sVucttffal engineer- o CEMROCK / SFATTLE TYPICAL SHOTGRETE WALL Plate REINFORCEMENT 7 m LEGAL DESCRIPTION BENCH MARK uo —zw" 2 RECEIVED JUN 21-7 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OVEDmamm PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY CWLAND WAY FOR IA RUTH BLACKBOURN — — — — — — — — — — — ---- — — — — — — — — — — — - IN NEI/4, NEI/4, SECTION 24. T.27 N.. R.3 E.. W.M CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON W ell-Sauerland & Associates. Inc. I': .... .. 17 1";Z68-0-07 r. - ` Ask, ,`,.PROJECT NO. . _ MERITENGINEERING INC., .2715 SHEET No. of Meridian Street Bellingham, Washington 98225 CALCULATED BY Aw, , 'A,- tp DATE .Telephone: (360)738-6083 Fax': (360)738-1499 CJHECKEDBY DATE .. ; t � 1 {{"\jjtt \4x S RECEIVE JUN 27 20 BUILDING DEPARTMENT GTY OF EDMONDS I �ot.� Zvi Anyr>,-n *-,A— Gtnr��"5 • q'� 1 � � 20�8' Mt=,�t-►r C�11�, n�.�.�1 rlC7 C3 L L �Q 11Yc'7 i�-P F-IM+t-- C9 006 Editkm IRC wIWAC Am ndn=ts 2006 Editicnm IBC w/VVAC Amendments 006.Bdition UK w/WAi Amendments Appendices A, B, G, 006 Edition IMC w/WAC Amendments 2006 Edition IFGC w/WAC Amendments 2006 Edition IFC w/WAC Amendments 2006 Edition VIAQ WAC 51-13 2006 Edition WSEC WAC 5 1 -11 BUILDING OWNER APPROVED DATE BLDG. OFFICIAL City of Edmonds Building Department VF PLAN PERMIT i n.rn,7 , PP JED BY PLANNING 1) Any request for alternate design, modification,. variance or: other administrative deviation (hereinafter "variance") from adopted codes, ordinances or policies must be specifically requested in writing and be ., called out and identified. Processing fees for. such request shall be established by Council and shall be paid upon submittal and are non-refundable. 2) Approval of any plat or plan containing provisions which: do not comply with city code and for which a variance has not been specifically identrfied, requested and considered by the appropriate city official in accordance with the appropriate provision of city code or state law does not approve any items not to code specification. SUBMIT ALL SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS TO CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR ON A. WEEKLY BASIS RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2008 BUILD ING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE r+ ho \Arm"1111111k I Cc V'-; I i t'fu(i,ut tilt. it S-IM ERIT ENGINEERING INC. � J ; ®®p,® JUN 2 -1 20' " t:ITY OF ��, ,lr�iil ntitirriin� EDMONG December 7th, 2007 Project No. OL0141601 STREET FILF ACEC Ruth Blackbourn Washington 1201 Viewland Way Gold Award Edmonds, WA 98020 Recipient Engineering Re: Site Visit - Slope Reconnaissance Excellence 1201 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Site Reconnaissance #1 Slope Observations on 12/5/07 by John Gillaspy Dear Ruth: At the request of Mike Blackbourn, we visited your above referenced site to observe conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning a recent slope failure on part of the main slope beneath your residence. We understand the slope failure occurred mid -day on Monday 12-3-07 near the end of a period of stormy wet weather. We visited the site on the morning of 12-5-07 and met with you, your downslope neighbor Sandy Olson, and Mark Blackbourn. This letter briefly summarizes our main slope observations and provides a written copy of our preliminary on -site recommendations at its conclusion. The failed slope area is at the northeast corner of the property. The top edge of the slope at that location is defined by a concrete pad walkway that extends from the open site driveway area. The northeast corner of the attached garage for the residence extends to near the western edge of the failure zone, although the slope directly beneath the garage and house further to the west appears relatively undisturbed at this time with only minor evidence of soil creep. Structural loading directly above the failed area is minimal compared to most other surrounding areas of the slope; i.e. both the intact slopes to the west and east of the failure lie under residences, whereas the failure zone does not lie beneath any significant structures. The portions of intact slope on either side of the failure are covered with small brush and brambles mostly, with sparse deciduous trees in spots. The slope on average was estimated at —33°, shallowing out somewhat at the bottom, with a total vertical expression of h = 28'-30' in the area of the slide. Directly below the subject property and failure zone is the Olson residence. During our visit, the slide itself appeared generally linear and near -surface in nature. The top edge of the slide resembled a steeper scarp zone but was confined by the concrete pad walkway, and disturbance did not intrude much beneath the pad. Below the steeper top couple of feet, the exposed soil in the slide exhibited similar topography to the surrounding undisturbed slope, except appeared recessed —2'-3' from estimated pre -slide grade. We observed the exposed soil as silty/clayey sand with some gravel, non -coherent to slightly coherent, and very damp to saturated at the surface. A previous study on the neighboring property indicates sandy soils continue to much greater depths on the slope. We also noted that the slide surface was incised by small water channels extending from its top area down to the accumulation zone, most likely from surface stormwater runoff during and after the slide event. At the time of our visit, we did not see groundwater seepage on the slope; however, minor seepage was occurring at the toe of the slide originating from the soil and vegetation refuse pile, presumably from water trapped during the slide and subsequent rainfall that is slowly draining. GeoCe�hnicd:, C;r�L�.r:�..rl, 1ir.lr.�•rv.�l.,.rt._:.rl. PJcnir..�, .uar :n�i:<,nn�<•n[.r! _ ..<._ri;u� "nu ver;..i<an.es ..crvir._ec. To help reduce the further occurrence of failure at the site by providing appropriate on -site recommendations, part of our visit's focus was to identify any possible contributing factors to the slide. Because of the timing of the slide (during heavy rainfall) and moderate slope but non - coherent soil conditions coupled with lack of good stable vegetation, it is reasonable to think that slope stability may have been previously marginal but became fully saturated by stormwater and was compromised to the point of failure, based on our brief on -site observations and previous experience with similar failures and soil conditions. While on site, we were directed by you to observe several stormwater pipes of unknown origin and destination leading downslope from the eastern neighboring property very near the upper edge of the slide zone. At least one of the pipe4, possibly two or more, were broken open near the top of the slope. Pipe refuse was mixed in with the accumulated soil and brush near the slope base. The one most visible pipe was open onto the top scarp of the slide zone at the time of our visit. We do not know, based on our observations, if the pipe damage and subsequent opening occurred at some point prior to or during the storm and slide. The presence of damaged stormwater-related pipes suggests that these features could have acted as a source for feeding excess water onto the slope if open at that location during the last storm event. There may be other unknown sources of water or other unidentified contributing factors that we did not observe while briefly on site. After observing conditions and before leaving the site, we gave preliminary recommendations in light of safety concerns and to reduce further risk of additional failure. We recommended that the damaged stormwater pipe systems noted above be repaired and capped or routed away from the slope to an appropriate outlet immediately to ensure no further excess water is directed onto the vulnerable slope. This is in addition to any other possible sources of water to the slope that we are unaware of at this time. We also concurred with the recommendation of a city engineer (as we were informed by you) to cover the exposed slide zone with tarps or some similar material to protect from direct rainfall onto the slide. Finally, we voiced concern to the downslope neighbor to hesitate for now on removing material from the toe of the slide after the question of cleanup was posed by them. We explained that material removal at the base could lead to more failure above, and therefore that repair is probably best postponed for the moment and could be most safely associated with timely remediation of the failure as a whole. We then agreed at your request to provide this letter documenting existing conditions and our preliminary recommendations in full as communicated during our visit. Merit Engineering, Inc. is available to be on call for further investigation and/or geotechnical consultation as needed for design and implementation of slope repairs. Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Austin X. Huang, Ph.D., P.E., L.G. Principal =Merit Engineering Inc. Ah �V IMERIT ENGINEERING INC. FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET Kate �December,1-1, 2007 TO: I Mark Blackbourn Windermere Real Estate Phone (206) 546-5731 Fax I(206) 546-5741 REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ® For Hi Mark, INumber of pages including cover sheet 3 FROM: Austin X. Huang, Ph.D., P.E. MERIT ENGINEERING, INC. 12715 Meridian Street Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone 360.738.6083 Fax --1360.738.1499 Web Page E-mail MeritEngineering.com merit@MeritEngineering.com review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment Here is the final signed version of the letter for 1201 Viewland Way. If you need original versions I can send a few copies by mail at your request. Regarding your research into house history: Considering the house is relatively young, it may be possible to get ahold of an as -built plan or track down the builder/developer for as -built information. This kind of first-hand information would probably be most helpful in identifying the presence and position of piles if used. Good luck with the search. Thank you, John Gillaspy, M.S. Staff Scientist Geotechnical, Geological, Hydrogeological, Minims, amd Environmental Enyineering and Geosciences Services. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants January 29, 1987 Project No. T-418 Mr. Don Miller E ETFIL'o- STR Group Four, Inc. 19502 - 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 RECEIVE Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study JUN 27 2008 Proposed Lockyer Residence Lot 2, Harbor View Estates BUILDING DEPARTMENT Edmonds, Washington CITY OF EDMOND$ Dear Don: As requested, we have conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Study for the proposed residence to be constructed on Lot 2 of Harbor View Estates in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the project site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions on the property in order to provide recommenda- tions for foundation setbacks from the top of the bank, foundation design and construction, and site preparation. The scope of our study included test pits, laboratory testing of representative soil samples, geotechnical engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. In an earlier letter report dated January 5, 1987, we summarized our findings and dis- cussed our preliminary recommendations following a meeting we had with you and the contractor. This report presents a more detailed discussion of the results and findings of our studies. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The main geotechnical feature of the site affecting development as a building site is its location at the edge of a steep bluff overlooking Puget Sound to the west. This location will require special care in the design and construction of a structure on the site. The bluff has an inclination of about 80 percent. It appears to be generally stable although it is subject to minor erosion from surface water movement over the slope. 15301 N.E. 90th Street • KetlmOno, vvasningron your/ - rnunc: oo 1-Ji. V Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 • Redmond, Washington 98073 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 The two primary considerations in developing this site from a geotechnical standpoint are as follows: 1. The presence of the previously placed uncompacted fills on the site. These soils are in a variable condition. In our opinion, these soils are not suitable for providing foundation support for the proposed structure in their present condition. Founda- tions must be extended down through the fill soils into competent native soils. 2. The proximity of the residence to the top of the slope. It is our understanding that a portion of the structure will be canti- levered over the top of the slope and this part of the structure supported on pier foundations drilled into the slope. From a geotechnical standpoint, it is our opinion that this is feasible. As with any construction adjacent to a very steep slope, there is a potential for some movement. This potential can be minimized by not causing any disturbance to the presently stable slope configur- ation. In addition, all foundations must be deepened so that the foundation loads do not impose any additional stresses on the surface of the steep slope adjacent to the proposed residence. Following our meeting with you and the contractor, the amount of building overhang has been reduced. However, it is still significant and will greatly affect foundation design and construction. We estimate that for this purpose the foundation should extend to a depth such that there will be a minimum clear distance of 10 feet between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope. Surface water should not be permitted to flow over the bank and the natural vegetation on the bank should not be disturbed. The following sections of this report describe our study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed it was planned to construct a single- family residence on the site along the top of the bluff as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.. The residence will be constructed primarily in the southern, gradually sloping portion of the site. However, a part of the structure will be constructed overhanging the steep bluff in the northern part of the site. The western portion of the house will be constructed with a basement level at approximate Elev. 277.5 while the main floor and the eastern portion of the house will be built at approximate Elev. 289.5. Cuts of up to approxi- mately ten feet- or slightly greater will be required for both the basement level and the eastern portion of the structure. To achieve finish grades at the driveway along the east side, cuts of a similar magnitude will also be required. Fills on the site are expected to be minimal. Project No. T-418, Page 2 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 Details of the structural loading for the structure are not known. However, based on our previous experience with similar structures, we anticipate that perimeter load -bearing walls will carry less than 2 kips per linear foot and isolated column. footings may carry loads on the order of up to about 25 kips. If there are any changes in the proposed construction as described above, Terra Associates should be requested to review them and make supplementary recommendations, if needed. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on December 8, 1986. Subsurface soil conditions on the proposed building area were explored by excavating four test pits to depths ranging from 10.5 to 12.5 feet. The test pits were excavated by using a rubber tired backhoe provided by Golden T Construction Company. The locations of the test pits were determined from known points on the property survey. Elevations were determined by approximate interpo- lation from the site topography provided to us. The approximate locations of these test pits are shown on Site Plan, Figure 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are attached to this report as Figures 4 and 5. The test pit logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and testing of the field samples. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Moisture content determinations were performed on all samples. In addition we also conducted Grain Size Analyses on several samples. The results of these tests are shown on the boring and test pit logs and on Figure 6. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is I.ot 2 of Harbor View Estates in Edmonds, Washington located at 12th Avenue North and Viewland Way. At present the site is undeveloped and generally covered with grass and brush. The neighboring lots to the east and west are both presently undeveloped also. Project No. T-4.18, Page 3 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 The general building and lot area slopes down from the east to the west with overall topographic relief within the southern portion of the lot of about 20 feet. .The north side of the lot is bordered by a very steep slope with a gradient of about 80 percent dropping down approximately 35 feet to the north property line. There are no signs of mass slope instability on the site. However, the slope has been subject to minor erosion from surface water runoff -over the slope. Subsurface We excavated four test pits to a. maximum depth of 12.5 feet. Our test pits indicated that there is fill of variable thickness on the entire lot. The thickness'of the fill varies from approximately five feet along the top of the slope to more than 12.5 feet in the southern portion of the lot closest to the street where Test Pit TP-4 was excavated. These fills are in a vari- able condition and consistency and generally consist of silty sands. Below this fill layer, native clean sands were encountered in Test Pits TP-1 through TP-3. However, this native sand layer was not observed in Test Pit TP-4 to the depth explored. More detailed information is presented in the test pit logs included with this report as figures 4 and 5. No groundwater was encountered in any of our test pits. However, during the rainy season, a perched water table may develop above the less permeable silty sand layer. This condition may develop at greater depths and may also appear as seepage zones on the face of the slope. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the steep slope in the northern portion of the site is generally stable and the proposed residence may be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary geotechnical feature that should be considered in developing this site, as mentioned earlier in this report, is its location at the top of a high and steep slope. In addition, uncontrolled fill soils are present on the site to varying depths. Consequently, the depth to competent native bearing soils also varies considerably. The western portion of the residence is to be constructed as a basement level. At this location, the planned excavations should take the lower level of the structure down to competent native soils which should provide adequate bearing. However, the eastern or uphill portion of the structure will be constructed at a level approximately ten feet higher. At this level, the finished grade will expose competent native soils in the northwestern portion closest to the slope. However, in the southern portion, existing fills will remain in place below the bottom of the structure. At this location, we recommend that foundations be deepened to extend beneath the existing fill soils. Project No. T-418, Page 4 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 In the northern, overhanging portion of the structure, foundations for the proposed residence should extend to a depth such that the foundation loads do not effect the stability of the slopes. We recommend a minimum clear distance of, ten feet between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope. Foundations may be designed as piers extending to the appropriate depth as determined above or as deepened spread footings. Based on our discussions with you, it is our understanding that drilled piers will be used for this part of the residence. During and after construction, the native vegetation on the bank should be protected and surface water should be directed away from the bank. Grading should be minimized on the site and no fills should be placed at the top of the steep slope. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotech- nical engineering practices. It is intended for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Group Four Inc., Golden T Construction Co. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for the various geotechnical engineering aspects of this project. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Fnnndatinna Foundations for the proposed Lockyer residence may be supported on dense competent soils encountered at variable depths below the fill layer. In addition, it is also necessary to extend the foundations to a depth such that foundation loads do not effect the present stability of the slopes in the northern portion of the site. We estimate that for this purpose, the foundations should extend to a depth such that there will he a minimum clear distance of ten feet between the outside edges of the footings or piers and the face of the slope. Where the required depth of excavation is shallow to achieve this 10 foot clear distance, foundations may be designed as deepened spread footings, supported on the dense native soils. Otherwise, foundations could be designed as drilled piers extending to the required depth. Foundations more than 10 feet back from the top of the bank may be designed as conventional spread footings bearing on the competent native soils below the fill. Drilled piers are probably likely to be more appropriate in the northern portion of the house where the house will hang over the slope to some extent. It is very important to excavate these piers well into compe- tent native soils and to a depth that will provide a minimum horizontal clearance of ten (10) feet between the outermost edges of the piers and the face of the slope. Project No. T-418, Page 5 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 Conventional spread footings bearing on the competent native sands may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. Foundations should extend to a minimum depth of 18'inches below the lowest adjacent outside grade. A minimum width of 12 inches should be used for continuous footings. Individual spread footings may also be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf and should have a minimum size of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above pressures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Structural steel should be installed in accordance with structural requirements. As indicated earlier, in the southern portion of the structure, competent native soils are not expected to be exposed at the finish grades. At this location, -foundations must be deepened to extend to beneath the fills and into competent native soils. Drilled Piers Foundation support for the northern part of the house may be provided by drilled piers. Drilled piers should have a minimum diameter of 12 inches and should extend to a depth such that a horizontal distance of 10 feet is present between the face of the slope and the outside edge of the pier. The piers may be designed for a capacity of 15 kips. For an 18 inch diameter pier an allowable load capacity of 25 kips per pier may be used. All piers may be designed for the full load bearing capacity, provided they are spaced at least five feet apart. All piers should extend down well into competent native soils and to a depth that will provide the minimum required horizontal clearance discussed earlier. Piers should be installed under the observation of qualified geotechnical personnel to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated and to make any changes in the event that soil conditions vary. Settlements Building settlements are expected to be less than one-half (1/2) inch for pier foundations or deepened spread footings. Most settlements should occur during construction. Slab -on -Grade Floors Floor slabs may be constructed as slabs -on -grade over the native soil subgrade or existing files recompacted to at least 90 percent- relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557. To reduce capillary action, the slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of pea gravel and a 10 mil thick plastic liner. In parts of the building where piers are used, slab - on --grade floors should not be used. We recommend using .joist supported wood floors in this area. Project No. T-418, Page 6 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 Basement and Retaining Walls Basement walls should be designed to resist the lateral pressure imposed by an equivalent, fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If walls are restrained'from free movement at the top they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot. These pressures assume a maximum height of 12 feet and that no surcharge leads will occur. Please contact us for supplementary recommendations if conditions are expected to be different. The basement walls should be provided with a continuous blanket of free drawing material at least 12 inches wide. A perforated pipe should be placed at the footing level to collect water and discharge it to the street. Cuts along the driveway may need to be retained. If a retaining wall is used, it may be designed to the criteria given above. If a rockery is used, it should be constructed to Snohomish County Standards. Please note that a rockery is not an engineered structure like a retaining wall and should not be expected to perform as such. If a rockery is used, some movement and/or repair should be expected in the future. Horizontal Loads Horizontal structural loads carried to the foundations may be resisted by both friction forces on the base of foundations and passive resistance on the sides of foundations and grade beams. A coefficient of 0.30 may be used between concrete and soil. Resistance to lateral loads may also be computed as passive earth pressures exerted by the soils adjacent to the grade beams. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot where the foundations and pile caps are poured "neat" against undisturbed soil, or where the backfill is compacted in accordance with the requirements for structural fill. Where piers are used on the slope, no passive resistance may be mobilized in the uppermost five feet of pier penetration. Site Preparation and Grading Grading work on the site should be kept to a minimum and special care should be taken to avoid disturbance to the existing vegetation on the bank. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as quickly as possible. Soils exca- vated from the pier holes or basement excavations should be removed from the site. We do not recommend that any soils remaining from the construction be placed at any location on the site. Project No. T-418, Page 7 Mr. .Don Miller January 29, 1987 Surface Drainage Positive surface gradients should be maintained to direct surface water away from the steep bank. Yard drains, downspouts, foundation drains and water from paved areas should be directed away from the slope and discharged directly into the storm system. Care should be taken in the design and operation of any irrigation systems to avoid saturating the soil. Slopes Temporary slope may be made at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). Permanent cut slopes, if required, should be made at an inclination of 2:1. All permanent slopes should be vegetated to reduce erosion. Additional Services It is recommended that Terra Associates be requested to review the final design and specifications to determine that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly incorporated in the design and construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the four test pits excavated on the site. The na- ture and extent of variations in the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, we should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during construction: (A) Examine all foundation areas prior to forming and concrete placement to evaluate that adequate soil bearing conditions are present. (B) Observe the installation of the drilled piers to determine that the piers have been drilled to a sufficient depth to achieve design capacities. We request- L-hat a minimum of two working days notice be given to us prior to beginning construction in order to schedule our services. Project No. 'r-418, Page 8 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart Figure 4 and 5 Test Pit Logs Figure 6 Grain Size Analyses We trust that the .information presented in this report is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarification, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anil Butail, P.E. President MM:AB/mf %, ts U p, 9 y ILI O 1 cIS T E� (� z S�ONAL �If# Project No. T-418, Page 9 i 1r4j .. .;,P ' V-1-= .. I. � r.vrr l� - s'3 Q t".N 3 Slt . 1 ,CHERnr 7 ; a JL &nlsr ,. o+ 4yL �r 1 rST Sw_ o a I I °p r„ Iv' ro V � 3 3• 3 a ly I I Jb\c t;r� G a It ` IYj ft.SW o1 r' 3 1 no I p C r n/ �` r it t /jFont ®q �9a1 Plea .•1 1M 1^ rn J y ° ha ilr; C 19BTH <T> 1MSN w �fr`. ^ Ill ��vl ticn �P . s P ET I / 1 O== 09 . 1 96TN L I �i L HIxD > = I1nn sr w n Sr rr: _ J _ �•OR K vr[wux a a.IAn/Jr+°n ; _ z tot Y P S PARK /s°ci1Q C:,SPLaSz it Z �.twr n ^ _ !r 7 d M iN<a' ;S 3199TH fT tia,•,1,. 1i •1 "0> ih'= . � .. •Pst s: w > ml 1 _ fEA I / s F==li'r aar aii -Anm Iw <P�� cQ~l�ua it tOtxD SI SW qJ�: < m2UD Rl ST�JI ` ilMOND S v21 _LLI t .. ra V HDENWAffH �`?: 'r O 'a: � -- ST I J • p i� 3 sW r AJAn st t PARK Q' .. •i m al a z � 1 r: w z =opy IN )°Sln 3 sw n SFI urrry i 'FINE:'"fw3 •T-3W i515w-r RIDGEIa TI 1 I•�st� �• '�4•_ CH wi r:wi i'iWlY3I i1 it f Pg.. AV r !x MA c °I ur x sr - .B . , y ^ n rsw --- - -- - - -- I - _/ a S Ul 1 114T10H� ntr� 1 _ M_� rOSi ram` W• t ('� c C� i A+AHrNA rl�+e�`atOEH a m� »nl >< 31A1EAe a ..« PROJECT SITE t"`4>". lr 1 i•i > ...r!l� PAAAi ..ri- r, I „ Q•' IQ7 O < fn ro A 5 f '0 i V 2 tf/t flllE a rti• 1 SANCrf/AFY Ci H f C c iN .�,' f M ,� �'1• FS f"': $ T2TI -T Swp , �. wwS{ m x Jtl 6ir rn¢r,C. � uu Ll .rr • � 1 n I '•� 7' t p 0 SI. Q 217111 ST SW _ \1 Q N r t V .m r nar• n. SE ►H• �-- 1.• r fAmim Jcr • ti :ut. 1 ;a KY A H n. ft 21a1N Pt r 1 _tr r� � •!AA Zvi Q • i� : � Tr t f. Oftr1HDf '!\ • ' P •'�3 � Y •_<` :' J16TM Si •rr T PL Se 1 LwAIIL � z : - 'Ir lrr jam- •� PE �a - iW iOI15riN YLII• '` a > _ _ .>i' --- -- -- --.f.2 Tit ----'`'111u �'°' L- .IriA Q .4 •'� R'l F• ._= rr'S > •._ ,,4i - i'i- :-:-; y sG =dr 1 ��r�F- y PL "F. )I DI t 1'• a J17G'r 219r11 4i ^ SW o Uf7 !K 1 �� aft I •�R � a � r} z u � .. a/s rl 4a 3Yy P _ ^ 3 = 1 ` t i •Wt.SSAr' ' � a � SI S••4 4 1 ly.r r ya •• Ir �r ' ,tl j I70 rl I r PW'Li.RAV 3 �p] 1 lal'J° I •. t alxf.i a t a S 3 ( n T 1. ! TJISI pl S�MOfP L 1 V' a • ' �xD ^ C C I r E uirr S' b1 s a > > ,WOODW I 4TiD •bnr Si 5fv ,-%'; ' , �'" , .�. � � I a r i PL75A n r < > 3 s 1 u > r ttiT jr PPL Srt/H^ ti .'zl z n� > SW a S"piI> .. ?:nHl PL • i •' •iN r m . st.e R U 1- :sw ?pTh SEE Ill OS I r uu.' a Ot' ' vr., +, s•. 1� E_ pl t791n if fr V III o' ER Lsln kJzd >c > ..? 1 • Irr:4w r4 i lx p I4 PARY. R t > .. � •5 y. 0 '1rin rt ..Q s r a °.11 Il ,: b < > 4 s; 1 1• > T lnli ww, cl s'bLili L Sl- S i Q z c•Jl -1�� i� ` •u,l f11. ,+7I • w eA° I G y i •wu• ri . 1 a . S 1S 2 .: fs BELL AVI o o'er° a" v9 nisi 1 s r��i�r 7 '• ' evubwar JAI_. 1 ' G $1'Sw vaElll:�� A d Ns rf= ar�,rl. o.1R `ICarii�� 3 ��'i ��$ 1itIt: 1] of ,IIDTDIxGIAM RO . ll •, j PL S< ST Sir ` ' 1 • Jlf 1L'I 1 I -- — Y Q . r. t l J �[. i . - - - - '- - - ' -r - - - - . UBBE Sfl1)ON M • • qr . . L-" • LOl 5 ul > >. 1 PT �i ''� ! 716nr s •u � 216tH Si -Sr -- (WELLS / 2)ar)r xi d> 'sue r j i.Nf A'•> S1. 1 ---jjj rSt47thin tt Till SSSw '•r'E^'o 1 / '17bIr1 a• LL r. t 1 f r- 1..1. a 7 2NJn Sr SfI U'-�a zjS � r 2 1 .'.•'> ,7 r 111 ��101F �1r '"' '',t11 lr r• (IVYJ B r I CEA� ,j z 24 Tit i-- I7roUr rl�r.i{ Jalir. r. .. U.' i .. �. ST._-_---.- r �N TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants VICINITY MAP Lockyer Residence Proj. No. 418 jDate 12/86 [Figure 1 260 — — 266 206 270 276 280 286 e �♦ 290 ~ �10_tA, -- 300 PROPOSED RESIDENCE e I ® 7P--1 TO-3 e i SCALE : 12 24 48 TERRA 1117 ASSOCIATES f. Geotechnical Consultants [II LEGEND: APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER SITE PLAN Lockyer Residence Proj. No. 418 j Date 12/86 IFIgure 2 Group PRIMARY DIVISIONS Symbol SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS Clean GW well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures more than half Gravels little or no fines. GP poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand of coarse (less than '-" fraction to 5% fines) mixtures, little or no fines. larger than Gravel GM silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, A ?; No: 4 sieve with non -plastic fines. GC clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures a om fines N plastic fines. t7 c o . SANDS Clean SW well graded sands, gravelly sands, little z a more than half Sande or no fines. SP poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, ° a of coarse (less than 8 fraction is 5% fines little or no fines. (0 smaller than Sands SM silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- 8 ,y .. No. 4 sieve withplastic fines. SC clavey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines fine. o SILTS AND CLAYS XL Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock N flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey aHi w liquid limit is slits with slight plasticity. o ai less than 60% CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity A gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, m lean clays. OL organic silts and organic clays of low : z plastici SILTS AND CLAYS ME inorganic silts, micaceous or diatom- " a E 8 liquid limits Is ceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. CH inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. greater than 50% HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT peat and other highly organic soils. DEFIMTION OF TERMS U.S. S 200 rd Series SOieve 10 SILTS & CLAYS fine medium coarse GRAIN SIZES SANDS,GRAVELS, STANDARD AND NON -PLASTIC PENETRATION SILTS very loose 0- 4 loose 4-10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30-50 very dense over 50 RELATIVEDENSITY /M TERRA ASSOCIATES 'MR Geotechnical Consultants Clear Square Sieve Openings 3/4" 3" 12" GRAVEL fine I coarse COBBLE' BOULDER PLASTIC SILTS Unconfined STANDARD AND CLAYS Compressive Strength NNETRATIO very soft 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 soft 1/4- 1/2 2- 4 firm 1 /2 - 1 4 - 8 stiff 1-2 8-16 very stiff 2 - 4 16-32 hard over 4 over 32 CONSISTENCY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Lockyer Residence Edmonds Washington Depth (ft. ) 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 Looped By mm Date 12-08-86 USCS TEST PIT NO. T Soil Description Elev. +301' (Approx. ) W M SM .Gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND, with scattered cobbles and small wood fragments, moist to damp, medium dense (Fill) 10.4 >'►+* Brown, gravelly, clean medium to fine SAND, SW slightly damp, medium dense to dense. 6.6 •r i�..�k 6.6 Test Pit Terminated at 10.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. Lopped By M_ TP-- 2 +284' (Approx.) Date 12-08-86 TEST PIT NO E lev. SM Gray, slightly clayey, gravelly, silty -SAND, becomes silty -SAND with scattered gravels, moist, loose to medium dense(Fill). 10.8 -- 12.2 -- _ SM Gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND with interbedded layers of blue -gray clean SAND, clamp, medium dense. SW Blue -gray, gravelly, clean SAND, becomes brown :i.�.�.. in color, damp, medium dense to dense. 9.6 Test Pit Terminated at 12.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Lockyer Residence Edmonds Washington Proj. No. 418 1 Date 12/86 [Figure 4 Depth (n.) 0 5 10 15 Y 5 10 15 TEST PIT No. T Lopped By MM Date 12-08-86 USCS Soil Description Elev. +290'(Approx.) W M SM Gray -brown, gravelly, cobbly, silty -SAND, with scattered roots at top, and wood fragments.. 9.0 - moist, loose becomes medium dense (FILL). 9.3 -, : 14. SM 9.9 Test Pit Terminated at 10.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. Lopped By rtM 4. TP-4 Elev. +2$8'(Approx. Date 12-08-86 TEST PIT N, SM Tan -brown, grading to gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND, with scattered roots at top and scattered cobbles and debris, i.e. concrete 6.8 chunks and wood fragments, damp to moist, _ loose to medium dense (FILL). 9.2 SM 10.6 Test Pit Terminated at 12.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. TERRA • ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Lockyer Residence Edmonds Waahington Proj_ No. 418 1 Date 12/86 Figure 6 mm m. mu LL PL III c.18c�0 • CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mrs. Ruth Blackbourn RECEIVED 1201 Viewland Way DEC 5 - 2007 Edmonds, Washington 98020 ENGINEERING DIVISION Dear Mrs. Blackbourn, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR il- I p Y'W ` q -pip December 5, 2007 V� In response to the December 3, 2007 rain event City officials were notified of slide damage to have occurred all on private property north of your driveway. City staff conducted a site reconnaissance and observed the slide yesterday. The purpose of this letter is to alert property owners affected by the slide so that you may take whatever action you deem appropriate. The City recommends that you enlist the services of a professional Geotechnical Engineer for an independent assessment of your property and home to provide recommendations about the impacts of possible future landsliding, necessary slope restoration or mitigation, or necessary improvements that may be advisable for you to undertake to protect your property. Geotechnical reports and assessments for properties, including Plat Civil plans showing drainage systems, are on file at City hall and are available for review. If your geotechnical engineer requires slope restoration, slope mitigation or improvements an approved permit from the City is required in advance of start of work, for compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80 which regulates Geologically Hazardous Areas. Please note that any work deemed an emergency by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be immediately implemented and special inspection by the engineer for such work is required. All field reports or special inspection reports associated with required emergency work shall be provided to the City for review and approval and after the fact permits will be required if applicable. Please contact me should you have any questions regarding permit requirements or other concerns at 425-771-0220 extension 1226. Sincerely, e 5 � Z" 4-7) , Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • SictPr C:itu - Hakinan_ .ianan 00 I - CD r Qi N •r N CITY of EDMONDS f SIDE SEWER PERMIT jFor Inspection Call 771-3202 PERMIT NO. 07717 Address of Construction: .20 w Property Legal Description (Include all easements): T /Md oPL. V l EW E S 7AT� E S Owner and/or Builder: ErV nn a Contractor & License No: _E 9ILL— 9L—o26V K� Single Family Residence Multi -Family Commercial (No. of Units ) (No. of fixture Units EDMONDS TREAT(V1ENT PLANT Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No ')(_ Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No )_ Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK I certify that I have r ad an shall complyDate with the items listed on the back. FILE ��ZZZZZ��.��i��,�� Permit (- . t i Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: Partial Inspection: Comments Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: 7_(-7_J'7 Z: f 4/1- Date Initial Rejected: Reason Date Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy - File Green Copy — Inspector Buff Copy - Applicant The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO. ------------------------------------------ -- I NEW CONSTRUCTION jf REPAIRS ❑ LID NO- ------------------ ASMT. NO. --.------.------.- OWNER --- ?2.vl�........ t,.YLrv9 VV'S`-------•--••--------•-------------- ---•--••----•--------------------------- CONTRACTOR -Q��.�.�...... ...-�---• --�- PERMIT NO. .CJ-71.71-11 JOB ADDRESS . ®l V..� �. l� \brae---.-.�_ ------ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO.------ -•-----•---------------------- BLOCK NO.------•------------•----------.---•- 4 oUa 0 PVbW-0001-1 /75 (REV.11 \I-, e La t5..s rya--#- % --------------------------------•------•-----•-----------•-•----------------•-------•----------•------•--------.....-- �att.�-i 1'4.�•l��' Approved: DATE ��------------- B (�..! .890 199- CITY OF EDMONDS , 250 - 5th AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning a Parks and Recreation • Engineering August :1, i?BEl STREW T Bonar Peterson 1201 Viewland Way Edmonds WA 98020 .SUBJE.CT: BACKFLOW PREVENT 1701,,i DEV1CI' IE';i I(\a; Dear Property Owner: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR FILE PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The bacl<flow prevention device it,, your water sucply s•;Stem is due.' for annual testinq as required by `Mate Code WAC C!I_j- i+,:_.�I.,ds show a total of one device. in your system. Please have the testing performed by a person holdinq a certificate of coR!oetefii:v is a c,-us`a rannectlon speCldllst. !SSlled by the Si]-1ii dll'. Health Services (teleohor,e if a device fails its test, please have the neces-ary r-eoairs made. I_Ipan completion of a satisfactory test, havr� thF certified ';ester f 11 out the enclosed Test and hlaintenance Report and return it to this office within thirty days. Additional information relative to this Inal:tet- may be obtained by contacting our Cross Connection Control Specialist at 'i71-32()2, extension. 318. Siru_erely, Archie Brena Water/Sewer Supervisor Sri / l k. Enclosure BKFLTEST/TXTWATER 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan K/ CITY OF EDMONDS ASSET INFORMATION SHEET .. NEW Mg 05935ASSET NO ❑ ADDITION - ADDITION TO ASSET NO. ❑ RETIREMENT DESCRIPTION SERIAL NO. LOCATION � DEPT. **PURCHASE ORDER NO. _ PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST FA *PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COMPLETION DATE COST //,, B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. ESTIMATED LIFE Y L FILE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY I $DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT _ G.L. ENTRY INITIAL _ REFERENCE VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO. DATE DEPARTMENT FILE K'it-it D HARBOR VIEW ESTATESI ON BONAR.A NELOA PETERSON .� �'� LOTHm LOTH. sots sots16 PLw" EDMONDS W LWnW000. WADMMOW 9=7 303r.e e3e, rK ^'s.M MEMO TO: Building Division .f. FROM: Engineering Division SUBJECT: After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: 1) Connection to City water system required. 2) Connection to City sanitary sewer system required. 3) Right-of-way permit required for any work.on City property. 4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. 5) Back water valve required if, downstairs plumbing is.below elevation of upstream manhole. 6) Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum. E 7) Builder/owner responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion on site and may not impact neighboring properties in any way. 8) Construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. }a fzJ AfiSLL;yIII pRQTFIC'P PMIEW ammmIST �, ,;: NAM: , f � AITC15oAl PRWECT Wr DATE: by: (initial date '.' ICATION pacEIPT geviewed BPS PLANNING WTR/SWR STRF�'P ENC]FN1G LE FAMILY/MULTIPLE/ IAL -� (Circle One) FIBRE BUILDING //�/// %//////// //////%// ///////'/•////////// � A/t(/S Cry��. yM= Planning RIANCE/SEIZAACC ADJ 2 _ITI(k1AL USF PERMIT 3, r C•3ECKF9 / / ,; RE�C!URREMEN7.5 R ZONING RE UIREMan's RpNmWAL FEATURES 6 .SS SLOPE & VEHICLE ACCESS D ;. 7 CNAGE PLAN (On Site) / W FILE / 4L DESCRIPTION VFd2iFICATION / 10 P CLAIM/D1MICATIONS Doff - PUBLIC/PRIVATE - CUTE SEWM CONNQCPION IF NO LID# � ,% 12 //� 13 // /// ,T/SUBDMSIQN RE�IUTREMEN'PS - 1 /9/yfj 14 jfr-OF—WAY CONSTRUCTICN PERMIT RE�?D� �p RppD FC)R Fi]AI,IC IMPROVf?dLNPS ' 15 /7%%�� EIS CONDITIONS & GROiJND � 16 ////// ///////// ///////// "////// / _.r_ PER FIE( QiDCKID REEF PAVING REQUIRED 18 R9 AND GUTTER REQUIRED DSMX REQUIRED 20 TE28 CVP FOR DRIVEWAY RDQD _l 21 MW NAME SIGN READ 22 110M SIC;IIW READ23 / IDE SEWER AVAILABILITY 24 ICISTING WATER UhTM SIZE /.17////// /////I//// 25 LATER METER SIZE / //.////////// 26 3ERVICE'LrM SIZE 27 HYDRANT IRED-177,777/G 28 NYDRw SIZ E EXISTING CROSS CONNDCTZON -NSPECTION REQD• // ////// ¢}gyp aq�'*.�/'�.. i� /{ // /// ./.fy��.+•�� //////'//// ` 0. �pEyyD MEv FIRE LINE CHARGE READ - SPRINKI.R /'l//l/:////L/l//� 32' cm 33 CPEN DITCH EXISTINGtO DASIN'RmQD 38 a� S7�mm`�p� PLAN DiiAINAC;E MAINTAIN0/ ///////// 39 �=OI'i214RUNOFF'' /. /' 40 "s 3 PUBLIC WORKS MGR. -PLFm ING,MGR. ENGINEERING MGR. .i5.ki tad CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION NAME (OR NAME OO BUSINESS) Bonar".Peterson +� MAILING ADDRESS - 0 . 'BOX 9 6 7 • TELEPHONE NUMBER iTY Edmonds WA 9:8:0:20 .742-8317 NAME 'Ed Abbott ADDRESS 6615 163rd Pl. S•W• cITY D TELEPHONE NUMBER a Lynnwood, WA 98037 742-3331 NAME USE PERMIT 1;i1 ZONER:S NUMBERJOB s ADDRESSW/ly ua � �` !� l� r •, LEGAL ESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. 1• LID NO. Y^9 s & PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. 4 DEDICATION EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED ❑ SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED Ben Leland Construction Co. ' - Ll x ADDRESS METER SIZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE FIXTURE UNITS 1426 163rd Pl • S.E. �N Dcc I TELEPHONE NUMBER CITY a REMARKS ; o Bellevue WA 98008 747-7275 U STATE LICENSE NUMBER ENV. REVIEW ADB NO. BE—NL—EC233J8 SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT Legal Description of Property - Include all easements SHORELINE a (show below or attach four copies) z ` 0 a VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE Harbor View Estates, Lot 1 r HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE o YARDS J a FRONT SIDE REAR REMARKS w W J, NEW 0 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING ADD/ALTER D COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REPAIR 0 RETAINING WALL SIGN CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT D FENCE x _FT) DEMOLISH ORFILL REQUIRED INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANT LOAD PRE-MCOMPLOIANCESNSP, POOL REMODEL ❑ YES ❑ NO QWOOD STOVE/ ❑ APT BLDG D RENEWAL REMARKSINSERT . z O d wNUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING o m 'UNITS NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) VALUATION FEE New residence PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, GRADING/FILL driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days ENERGY CODE Permit.Limit: 1 Year- Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days ''Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns anck I rn successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w th City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, harmless e f employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of Cr whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT this shall not be deemed to 0 of this permit. Issuance of. permit J modify,,waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance = nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the ATTENTION information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES ONLY THE ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor WORK NOTED Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa Min Insurpince._ SIGNATURE (OWNER OR GENT) DATE SIGNED ��4 Z�7/ INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ITY OF CITY OF 6 + E NDS r 771.3202 ATTENTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR UNTIL A_CERTIFICATE OF, OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC •.401>.00 1 b2PZ APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged In space provided. OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DATE RELEASED BY: DATE 5 to ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector IJ PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor /dui l/u�v SCALE : 1" = 10' 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 15' 20' 5 krya6� LEGAL DESCRIPTION - - LOT 1, HARBOUR VIEW ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 45 OF PLATS, PAGES 72 AND 73, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. kry5,5 BENCH MARK INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF VIEWLAND AND 12th AVENUE N. ELEVATION : 247.00 DATUM : CITY OF EDMONDS SNAITARY SEWER SYSTEM (M.L.L.W.) X FIREPLACE " � � PAR i IAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY ECEIvE JUN 2.7 2008 0r 2 FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5 RU TH BLA CKBOURN IN NE1 /4, NE1 /4, SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 2. REVISED MAP TO 10 SCALE 1. ADDED CONTOURS IN SLIDE AREA 1-8-08 JTT 1-7-08 JTT INUMM Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. am Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 • (425)775-1591 • (425)672-7998 fax DRAWN CHECKED I DATE F.B. SCALE FILE NO. J.T.T. I J.T.T. 12-18-07 514,P. 11 1 1" = 105068-0-07 e k2a6� LEGAL DESCRIPTION - - - - LOT 1, HARBOUR VIEW ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 45 OF PLATS, PAGES 72 AND 73, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. kry5,5 BENCHMARK INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF VIEWLAND. AND 12th AVENUE N. ELEVATION : 247.00 DATUM : CITY OF EDMONDS SNAITARY SEWER SYSTEM (M.L.L.W.) K FIREPLACE 0. PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY RECEIVE F 0 R JUN 2 -7 Zoos RU TH BLA CKBOURN BUILDING DEPARTMENT clrr OF EDMck�s IN NE1 /4, NE1 /4, SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 2. REVISED MAP TO 10 SCALE 1-8-08 JTT 1. ADDED CONTOURS IN SLIDE AREA 1-7-08 JTT