Loading...
15520 75TH PL W.PDF15520 75TH PL W �SLf-/r9 ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: DO��D �(/�(/(/ C / 0 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) F02_ /�C�I� /�/�/VI/��J � 230012 g CRITICAL AREAS: DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DA' PARKING AGREEMENTS DA Y E c�vPro� —ECG i'$Vmp DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional W MWAZA 49 Z0 a,. 3- 3, EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: QUlrC/,4141 PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: 7�1t-71 SEWER LID FEE $: 210 LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: /,0-67f LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: 7`' Q� A SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED:__ STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TA' P CARD DATED: OTHER: %✓/ • %cA &q�to lox ! - [ azl o � ee Zld E ,11-4 LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\.Street File Checklist.doc Study Required ❑ Waiver J&vt".r'T�i't•Q,v^,,ti�•;V3"V vr,ir3!aFk`+t°''7^''^;'G'(f'C,,['+.li�'�'+:i'iS'"y'ipk'S7[Fi� '�` Irpt`vp•i°a*•1.."V�T"5'rxr7'„�L'>'7v"�Y""d",Y�'`i`•+1`Po^ri`'•O.wr';;a,-,t'v/5.w'^:'1h`�+,�-Tsw'`. .., ,•I�`,: nary y. , �.. CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER PERMIT 189o.ti9°� PERMITS 624.. Address of Construction: Property Legal Description ( all easements): ?_9 ' Owner and/or Contractor: State License Non="/_�� iwx! Building Permit No. . Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of. Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public Invasion into City Right -of -Way: ❑ No Yes . RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private'Property: ``�No ❑ Yes Attach le galdescriptionand copy of recorded easement I certify that I have red and shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on th ack.of the Permit Card. Date *, CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY. EXCAVATION OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-3 , PUBLIC WORKp DEPT. :af , Permit Fee: tro `'Issued'By Trunk Charge: Date Issued: Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: /5 Lid No.:�� Partial Inspection: Date Initial Comments . Reason Rejected: Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: Date-/91 Initi ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED :ON JOB SITE ** \ White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3/9D w O V F z ' � W °z ¢A w .a x w H o a , � p O cc z U w w Cl)z PL o � v w z J C r ul: d` of C W O � vNi V w A d z O � J v{ �o fl I I a -►- I `K I.. f_ PAGE: GRINDER PUMPS LY"Nlj"VOOD LINE ADDRESS: NAME OF . HOMEOWNER : 1 l7 t� �� A �� PHONE: 7 L?' ) -. c) Li(, MAKE OF PUMP: � iZ���Kl j G LPG 200 M - 2 MAX AMPS: % Z VOLTS: 24 0 SIZE OF OUTFALL LINE: r LENGTH OF LINE: MAX HEAD OF PUMP: APPROX. TOTAL HEAD: 3 , DATE INSTALLED: / �S IMPELLER TRIM: L4'12. � r nnnMr nAl nr.l r.7c'M 1.1— t _ LOCATION OF POWER BOX: C) SouTa !4- b c-Ao,-ksiF- i c�w13, Nd�s�• 9/84 ml N 0 E W 0 V d S F- O z 0 0 F O U .0 W � A d C7 O a J a: Ln:; C C�4 O� jLL�F v k w Pd � A W A z 0 0 z O - F A d w 3 O w d -1 C. z z �- Ln L- O cat Ln Ln I 3 J a 2 Ln C' n w cr 0 0 0 a • f ERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences 1*S4ekq1#daw<�id- July 28, 1990 Project No. T-1474 Mr. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield and Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single Family Residence Lot 1, Lunds Meadowdale Tract 156th Street Southwest and 75th West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Butterfield: We have completed the geotechnical engineering study you requested for a single family residence to be constructed on a lot located at 156th Street Southwest (not open) and 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to assess landslide hazards on the property and to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in order provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, and earthwork construction procedures. The scope of our work included test pits, laboratory tests on representative soil samples and geotechnical engineering analyses. We also reviewed existing geotechnical reports including landslide investigation reports, and other information in our files regarding the Meadowdale area. This report presents the findings of our study and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. Our work is intended to satisfy the requirements for a geotechnical report outlined in City Ordinance 2661. However, completion of the environmental checklist required by Ordinance is outside the limits of our services and is not included in the scope of our work. We recommend that you ask the Community Service Department if they intend to require completion of an environmental checklist for this project. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 0 Phone (206) 821-7777 • FAX 821-4334 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 SUMMARY The subsurface conditions of the property were explored with one deep test boring and two backhoe test pits. We found the site to be underlain at depth by hard clay. The clay is overlain by as much as thirty to forty feet of loose to medium dense'sandy, silty material, probably landslide debris. Some fill has been placed in the upper areas of the site. The property is believed to be part of a large ancient landslide. The area that failed extends along 75th Place West from Meadowdale County Park southward to about the 165th block and from the bluff on the east to the shoreline. The original landslide probably occurred several thousand years ago. Parts of this landslide have been active into recent times and possibly are still active. Records indicate that landslides occurred in Meadowdale during the winters of 1946-47, 1955-56, and during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1979, the 40-year record of landslide events in the Meadowdale area was studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. A map that identified landslide hazards and estimated failure probabilities was developed for the entire Meadowdale area. A portion of the map that includes this property is shown on Figure 3. Based on the conditions then existing, Lowe's conclusion was that the probability of landslide failure on most of the property was 35 percent during any 25 year period, and 90 percent at the southwest corner. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as probably the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, in 1980 through 1985, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed around and within the Meadowdale landslide. In 1985, GeoEngineers, Inc. evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in much of the area believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the subject property, the estimated probability that old slump material might move again within a 25-year period was reduced from 90 percent to 30 percent in the southwest corner and from 35 percent to 10 percent elsewhere. The probability that landslide material may encroach upon the subject property remains at 2 percent. For this property, we agree in general with the landslide hazards assessment in the Lowe report and with the revised occurrence probabilities suggested by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our opinion, the present risk is low enough to justify construction of the proposed residence. However, the present and all future property owners should be properly informed of the landslide hazards that exist, as required by the City's Ordinance 2661, and accept full responsibility for them. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 2 • L� Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Siting the residence on the low -risk area, as proposed, will minimize the landslide risks to the residence, both during and after construction. In addition, we recommend supporting the house on piles that extend below the ancient slide material. By keeping the footprint of the house away from the higher risk area, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period that would affect the proposed house is about 10 percent, according to the evaluation by Geo-Engineers. The following sections of this report describe our explorations and explain our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for the exclusive use of Robert Butterfield and Associates and their representatives. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on the site plan and the preliminary drawings provided us, we understand that the proposed house will have two stories over a daylight basement. The basement excavation is anticipated to be about eight feet in height along the eastern edge of the excavation. The western portion of the basement floor will be above existing grade. Before a building permit can be issued, the Ordinance requires a declaration from the geotechnical engineer that the plans and specifications the city has been asked to approve conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In order to provide this declaration, we must examine the final plans. We recommend that you provide us a copy of the final plans and specifications before they are submitted to the City. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on June 29, 1990. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by drilling one standard penetration test boring to a depth of 54 feet below existing grade. In addition, two test pits were dug with a backhoe to depths of twelve feet below existing grades. The boring was drilled by Drilling Unlimited of Olympia, using a truck -mounted drill. Continuous flight, hollow -stem auger was used to advance and support the borehole. The test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Backhoe Service of Bellevue. The approximate test boring and test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. In the boring, standard penetration tests were performed at five-foot intervals by driving a split -barrel sampler with an outside diameter of 2.0 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The results of these tests are the N-values reported on the boring log. To allow monitoring of groundwater levels, an observation well was installed in the borehole. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 3 0 0 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit and the test boring, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system described on Figure 4. The logs of the test pits and test boring are included in' this report as Figures 5 and 6. Representative soil samples obtained from the boring and the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test boring and test pit logs. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The property is located on 75th Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. It is a nearly rectangular shaped lot with 91 feet of frontage on 75th Place West and an average depth of 175 feet. It overlooks Puget Sound and abuts the Burlington Northern Railroad on the west property line. The ground surface of the site slopes downward from the street, first moderately and then steeply, to the railroad. Topographic relief is on the order of seventy to eighty feet. Vegetation consists of dense underbrush on the steep portion of the slope and several older deciduous trees which have been recently topped. Subsurface Portions of the eastern half of the site have been filled. Fragments of asphalt pavement are visible on the ground surface near the boring location. Approximately six feet of loose fill was found in the southernmost test pit. Underlying the fill is landslide material consisting of loose to moderate, and occasionally stiff, sandy silt to sandy, clayey silt. The landslide material is believed to extend to a depth of nearly thirty-eight feet at the boring location. Underlying these soils is a hard, dark gray, clay encountered to the maximum explored depth of 53.5 feet. Groundwater No groundwater seepage was encountered in the boring or either of the test pits. A ground water observation well was installed in the test boring to monitor the static groundwater level. On July 11, 1990 the water level was measured at a depth of 53 feet, approximately 6 inches deep in the bottom of the borehole. It is quite possible that this water condensed in the observation well. It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 4 • • Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as planned, provided our recommendations are incorporated into design and construction of the project. The risk of landslide activity, both large-scale and small-scale, is now low enough to justify development of this site. As required by the City's Ordinance 2661, present and all future owners of this property should be fully informed regarding the residual landslide risks, both large-scale and small-scale, and their purchase agreements should require them to accept full responsibility for these risks. The property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Two categories of possible landslides were identified on this property, and as shown on Figure 3: 1) avalanches of slope debris from upslope areas; 2) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first category was considered to have relatively low risk, only a two percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. On this site, the possibility that a failure in the second category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent. in the southwest corner and about 35 percent elsewhere. After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater from the Meadowdale landslide area. In 1985 GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrence probabilities of 90 percent and 35 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively. By siting the house as far north on the lot as possible, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period which would affect the house is reduced to about 10 percent, according to the GeoEngineers evaluation of the Meadowdale slide area. In addition, we recommend supporting the residence on deep foundations that transfer the structural loads through the fill and loose, disturbed soils to the underlying hard clay. Deep foundations will virtually eliminate the risk of significant differential settlement that could occur if spread footings were placed on fill disturbed soils. Additionally, deep foundations will provide some protection in the event that localized areas of shallow instability were to occur between the house and the railroad. However, a pile foundation will not provide protection against deep-seated earth movement similar to those that have occurred on this and other sites within the Meadowdale landslide area. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 5 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Deep foundations for this residence could be either augercast concrete piles or driven timber piles. We recommend auger cast piles. Pile driving in residential neighborhoods often elicits complaints of damage, real or imagined. For this reason, we do not often encourage use of driven piles in residential areas. If desired, we can provide design criteria and driving requirements for timber piles. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing this site. Augercast Concrete Piles Augercast piles should be installed with continuous flight, hollow stem auger equipment. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as the auger is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawal should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a fourteen inch diameter pile with five feet of penetration into the hard clay, an allowable capacity of twenty tons may be used. When wind or seismic loads are included, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide capacities for different pile diameters and embedment lengths, if required. Based on limited test boring information, we estimate that average pile lengths will be in the range of thirty to forty feet. The piles should be reinforced their entire length. We estimate that total settlement of single piles will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied. The remaining post -construction settlement would be realized as the live -loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements over any portion of the structures should be less than about one -quarter inch. We recommend that the installation of all piles be observed by a qualified technician who can fully evaluate the contractor's operation, collect and interpret installation data, verify bearing stratum elevations, and who would understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's equipment and procedures be reviewed by Terra Associates, Inc. prior to the start of construction. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures acting against sides of grade beams, pile caps and other buried structure, and by lateral loads transferred to the tops of piles. We suggest you develop lateral load resistance by deepening the basement walls so that they penetrate the native soils. Passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot acting on the downhill portion of the basement wall that penetrates into the ground. In addition, an allowable lateral load of one kip per pile may be used. If the needed lateral load resistance cannot be developed in this manner, we will be pleased to provide you with supplementary information. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 6 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Lateral loads may also be transferred to the ground by using batter piles to develop tension or pullout resistance. For computing resistance, a friction of 500 pounds per square foot acting around the perimeter of the pile may be used. No friction should be assumed in the portion of the pile within the slide debris. _ Ground Floors We recommend framing the lower floors over a crawlspace. Crawlspaces should have vapor barriers. Slab -on -grade floors should not be used in living areas where pile foundations are used. The garage floor may be a slab -on -grade supported on native soils in areas of cut or on structural fill not more than five feet deep. To provide a capillary break, we recommend placing at least four inches of free -draining fill, such as pea gravel, beneath the slabs. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a plastic vapor barrier at least ten mils thick should be placed on the gravel. An inch or two of sand may be used to protect the membrane during construction. Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls, including basement walls, should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls free to rotate should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot. Walls restrained at the top from free movement should be designed for the above load, plus a uniform stress of 100 pounds per square foot. The above pressures assume a maximum wall height of twelve feet and that no surcharge loads will occur due to adjacent footings or other applied loads. It is also assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall. If surcharges are applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted granular soils that meets the criteria for structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Perforated pipe drains should be installed at the base of the walls, as described in the Drainage section below. Excavation and Slopes Excavation slopes should be constructed in accordance with the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four feet may be made vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four feet, temporary cuts should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). All permanent cut slopes into dense native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1. Fill slopes should not be made steeper than 2:1. Where unretained fills are placed, the existing ground should be stripped and benched, and the fill compacted. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be provided with appropriate vegetation to reduce erosion. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 7 • • Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Drainage We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all basement walls and retaining walls. The drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4Nl?,-or similar material). Roof drains should be separately tightlined until into the storm drain system. We understand that stormwater may be discharged into the railroad right-of-way with Burlington Northern's approval. Under no circumstances should storm water be infiltrated into the ground or discharged onto the steep slope above the railroad. Site Preparation and Grading Building and pavement areas should be stripped of any vegetation, topsoil, loose surficial soils and any other deleterious material unsuitable as subgrade for the building or pavement. We recommend that any soils to be imported for use as structural fill be evaluated by Terra Associates, Inc. before they are brought onto the site. For import fills, we suggest that no more than five percent of the soil fraction passing the 3/4-inch screen should be finer than the No. 200 sieve. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal layers and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-698. The fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The allowable thickness of the fill layer will depend on the material used, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the layer. In no case should the layers exceed twelve inches in loose thickness. No fill should be placed on this site in any area where the existing slope is steeper than 20 degrees. Additional Services To observe the contractor's compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. These services should include: 1) observing installation of all piles; 2) observing all earthwork operations and the placement and compaction of any structural fill that may be required; 3) observing all slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement; 4) performing field density tests on compacted fills and backfills; 5) observing and testing the subgrade under pavement. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 8 • Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 LIMITATIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from a deep test boring and two test pits. However, subsurface conditions at locations not explored may differ from those observed in the test boring or test pits. The, nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. CLOSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report Figure 4 Soil Classification System Figure 5 Test Boring Log Figure 6 Test Pit Logs We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Dennis B. Green Project Engineer Anil utail, P.E. President DBG/AB:tc Project No. T-1474 Page No. 9 d'o eu I' `> 1 :143PD IS "s's = 3 o S Sw A s gyp{ 143RD3 Si '�Sw z +v,,,, HE` (/ •' �- ; '� "TH PL SW'� 1441H ST L6r Sw3 " 5 .r• ST '»t1, 57 "vt sw ° Sw �. O S1.6T PL $W ins n (lr 3Pl SW Oa'' S„ Z w 'tJ6 `H.°t PUGET RPAA BE1 Hy46TH s rS,oas $3 .. ; 1,6TH5.$w ' o; w ay I,n" =P SA - $W' NORM EAG \il s:�"., I.S'T✓H ST q m ST Sw 3 ` __Ie _ n w v > RO - oaj p I48TH 149TH NORMA BEACH RD SOUND // I FISHER 'I ;1 ^ 3 �� PI sw Sw s7 49 M PL SW > b T 1H PL < ISO Nol $SV - - 1 H'- P _ 1Lsr _ _ _ _ -I SW �� -Z 1515T $T S' t515T 15,N 150TH 3 ; 1s1sr .: s9c 3 Sirs 152NDST<�o� Sw - Is PL Sw �& 152ND; STo - SW _s _ IszN-b ; s- �� .. _.. .. 3 153RD ST 3 a jE 9: 3 x PL 52ND �f'I 153AD • • 31 > ' 3 e '< a $T swa •1 - I .. a I!.3RD PLSW .ii.1PR CI SN3 j11H Q > t I o I W 155TH ST SL.TE a 1 $W Q < _ till t" _FI_" T a5\v ____ 156iH ST Sw,.I_ F_=3 15..4'7H_ SI. Sw OAK -1), = e MEADO, .El „rH it MEADOWDalf 3 3 57TH Si 3v e < BEafR 3 3 U IS/TH P I . ! $W >I PARR IS PL SW a l Sw S\Y H IS IHSI 158TH2. ST_w r < = 158TH PL ti•:+. J •--�T- '� 3 iSBT PL 5w 3 I a s a F p 't 99Lr) W: I<" I a a I $I Z x x ¢ z u 3Cl)M a I LAfBUG TON f I Z H 15T SW_ H '' H 60TH a T A\PA�-� WHARF 3 3 MEq D H TH = PL Sw SW SI p 3 N EELEDµO i a ,161ST PL SORN�a Of 162ND RL swx:VIoRD ST +BISW 163RD Pt S3 RIDETH TWa 3164TH_ ST SW5 a 164TH >\�6QFIMARTHA �TNPl SIyw�r Q n 165TH Pl 16dT q3 B V RLY _- Sw ,I. ` 166TH PL 5 , ,158TH ST SWSW "t68TH E aDp�1` MEADOWDALE > I r"f PLsw 169TH 3STMlD HSH 1 TH /$w170TH Pt sW_.:a..IIr PIS/�17DTHO 5TN n2> o� n15T a'3 w �017 N T SW2ND STT W ♦ O"srSw= P W 9< 3RDc n+MinST 172N—H ,SW < o $ __ 0 1 173R( Sµ,.-.S I7.TH 5T Sw rPt Sw rF i 76THss 1L N! C G PL \ TTT�1/�I r zu P S rVI x 175TI`J ; _ LST I> 3, 4 �3' Y3sw: -," Ta z v 1 !W"$T <` 1 �. ��,II of fsN 176TH ST 1761 SOL•r;r`wlF a = a 3 i ;- i 3 :::I . 70H PL Sw = 3 \� LY L v Iit¢ 7 PL Sw ¢ 3 3 Sr f 5"1 a x i 3 n S�BTH; ST SW Ji 177TH ~ PL a� SW ,', 3 r--'� '� ^: �' ��•sn :178TH Pl $W < ♦. '- o. SW I <H - S > ,1 rH I Q179TH a119TH ST SW _ ^� allet� _I W _ ��■`_;"'�a 'PLswl QI PL SW SW :..,t.,. :yCTH P = 1 T f` `E '�•1.' •P: G+ 1♦' 'v> 181ST PL SW' PLC I TH ?L W 82NO +T a t91 i P W r 7" 1815 °l Sw AQ„ 3 g SW > JJ LY. SW ♦ ' ..5c� H 1,1 PL SW M ; 192MO Pt 3W Q �^ 9 7� >� iR SL<lon Sw P P SwF f 3 ... :1R2ND > Z O > 9_ DI xl si 7R (/ a SW ; 63P0 PL $V% L e S �si in <<®: 8ndr" 183R W o303 :, 11. .i O 1 RD PL SW I—'X 181 PL 184TH ST $$ I- $t Sw 2 ,• yv w j U6 ; _ > 184TH ST -SW 184TH PL 5r Sw• _ �N w> I TH.`, i Q PK. :o :ter a 3 o y� �186TH ST SWY'n)U0. r 186TH ST SW2 n w = " P 'aa�. ; S.:YALDfRWO� x:3 I n"� C},rnr :� 2 v, LD - `'� 0 PL _. 9N L :EJ 1a7T"�PLSW FS� Sw188TH STS f8nmn�� ' ¢, 3 M" r. \ 3 ..... - I-'31 . EI • H 1 1 TH P W PENNY LN - > [ ` > 788TH ST W t 189T .PL'SW t89TH PL SW 3189TH St ^ 3 + ''Sw a > S 166TH Sw Q ' c • '-T� ty07H 3 Q a T WH 3� ¢' 1 TH ST W 14?1" > v w - a 9;�3 Z <I 189Th PL $W' ALD y'!{V_'1, a;19`y9T PL SW«-1t i, ST »• _t C Sw -"' r w 1 TH � 1915T FS 1915T 57 W .1-!. MA T'Sr IS7ND 57 Ia 1 ST sW Ua _ nISI TSw $T:S �$T � ��- y v.. S.v n L� H x e ' 1E '^ w"' 192ND Si Sw 192ND CM ":: ••D s: '-•S a - PL •197N, s1 Sw Pa R. > Z PL = SW '•\ t92ND ST P `!.)­D 9:^ ty 1'.>157HD sw wv SCRIBER < 13 192ND PL S ��. 793R PL 3 < 1-, Sr Sw 1 ILAKf 193 e > `2', uR >w = .11 ....�. S a 3 S i = = Z : 194i» S' SW I H$ � PL W 1 J1.1 < .1 \. ~O tf S-N > 195T" Sr Sw y3 Iz3 ■ SW:ta.. • < N This figure copied from THOMAS BROS MAPS, Snohomish County, Washington, 1990. TERRA Vicinity Map Meadowdale Residence ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington -'' Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 1 Date 7/90 Figure 1 I �SaM a`id W 114 _ 112 110 108 I �` 1 9( / 88 —80 88 74 72 so 78 a / 70 7674 ss 88 -� 62 82 �. 80 80----_—,,,. I I I -- -- �J N m N C O 0) LL C: Cl. a) O w(r O rn �2 a) co -0 vi m Cn 0 0 O co E a a W 1z IL a c u W .. � c Q v LANDSLIDE HAZARDS 0 ---� 4A Renewed movements in old slump material 2C 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material I 3 02 1� I L . 3B Debris slides in materials that have not i \ -3A05 previously failed 05 ✓ r , The two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability 2 SITE O of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period i ,C7 tl i This figure copied from Figure 5 in the final report on the Meadowdale cc) Area Landslide Hazards Investigation �• b (("_{ by Roger Lowe Associates Inc, 1979 may; I Iti' 3 02 '1 . o 35 l� 4 5A25 N :ri l J 25 N 2A 4 90 05� �J r Scale: 1 •= 300' 2 ,. j 3 2 _ L 1 `\y7 02 0 31302 / 4A 35 \ i n \ 2C l I 8 4A25 4A 2- fi t`14A.l9 TERRA LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT MEADOWDALE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON weotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 3 SOIL_ CLASSIFICATIONS TEM !_ETTER GRAPH I MAJOR DIVISIONS_ SYMBOLSYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS Clean GW f Q:° Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, U) Gravels :o .o little or no fines. J Poorly -graded gravels, gra ei-sand mi;::ures, More than 50% of (less than CaP iT 5�'o fines). little or no fines. _ r coarse fraction, -- -- -- Silty gravels, gravel -sand -sill rni:<tufeg. N is larger than Gravels Giv1 non -plastic fines. W 4 �� %vith fines. Z ° No. sieve. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay rnixiu, as. <t E > _ plastic fines. CD o N SANDS Clean SW CC ZR Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, Ln oo Sands little or no fines. W C N ° (less than SP Poorly -graded sanas or gravelly sands, C More than 50% of 5% fines). little or no fines. Q coarse fraction Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, O ° C6 is smaller than Sands SM non -plastic fines. U s Xz with fines. Y Cla e No. 4 sieve. SC y sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flout, ML silt or clayeyfine sands or clayey silts v,,itl r)lasticifv, h o Liquid limit is less than 50%. Inorganic clays of Ipw to. medium plasticity, ti o CL llayslly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean Q E N W o d Organic silts and organic clays of love z o z OL i�,i,ii�iiri plasticity. Q � �; SILTS AND CLAYSInorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fZ co - N NH fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. c, — o Liquid limit is greater than 50% Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. w �> o E 9 _ u V) � i iI i i Organic clays of medium to high p!astic,ty, i i ,, i i i organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT01 Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS 2" OUTER DIAMETER I SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf 2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER qLl PENETROMETER READING, tsf P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot Q WATER LEVEL (DATE_) LL LIQUID LIMiIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per of T F R RA Soil Classification System Meadowdale Residence +: I A ,� ) ( I ^ E- Edmonds, Washington ;,...,,..., -:c„ :.,I; i'rr,j. i1! •. 4 1474 i?; t - 7/90 rI Ah TEST PIT NO. TP-1 Logged By DBG Date 6-29-90 Elev. N 80 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description N 0 ML Gray sand and silt, dry, loose 6.8 Reddish brown slightly silty sand, medium SM to coarse grained, moist, loose. (FILL) 5 34.5 Gray clayey silt, fractured, moist to wet, ML soft to stiff. 34.5 10 Becomes hard. 33.3 Test Pit terminated at 12 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 15 TEST PIT NO. TP-2 Logged By DBG Date 6-99--9p Elev. N 78, 0 ML Tan -gray sandy silt, moist, loose. 34.8 Tan clayey silt, varved, fractured, moist to ML wet, stiff. 34.4 5 Becomes hard 37.3 17.3 SP Gray to brown sand, moist, medium dense 5.0 10 2 4L Gray silt, varved, moist, hard 17.5 Test Pit terminated at 12 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 15 Soil Logs TERRA Meadowdale Residence ` = ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 5 r BORING NO. low B-1 Logged By DBG Date 6-29-90 ELEV. N 109 Depth Graph CS Soil Description Sample Blows (01 Ft. Tan sandy, clayey, silt, moist to wet, loose to medium stiff. I S-1 10 25.9 5 j S-2 6 19.8 10 ML I S-3 14 26.7 15 I S-4 31 26.4 20 I S-5 16 29.3 25 Becomes stiff I S-6 20 29.7 30 I S-7 32 26.0 35 1 S-8 60 31.8 Dark Gray Clay, moist, hard 40 CL j s-9 33 35.0 Thin sand layers 45 I S-10 100 13.8 Tan silty sand, very fine grained, S^I moist, very dense. 50 S-11 1 100 112.71 Boring completed at depth 53.8 feet. Groundwater observation well installed. Soil Logs TERRA Meadowdale Residence ` ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 6 WESTERN TIM COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. LYNNWOOD OFFICE SEATTLE OFFICE BELLEVUE OFFICE FEDERAL WAY OFFICE 110 188th St. S.W., Suite 300 600 University Street, Suite 2428 411 • I ORth Avenue N.E. 1230 South 336th Street Lynnwood, WA 98037 Seattle. WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Federal Way, WA 98003 771.30311527-1432 682-6006 453.8070 874.5115 Fax:527.9240 Fax:682-3605 Fax:453-0136 Fax:527-8983 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO Name City Clerk City of Edibn_ds Address 505 Bell Street City, State, Zip Edmonds, WA 98020 TH� ��C�P� j i IDED FOR RE MAY 23 A10 :33 TERW:LUuEP AUDUOR NOMISH 11Uh T", lt',,, :; QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GRANTORS, THOMAS DEGAN and MARILYN DEGAN, husband and wife, CNI for and in consideration of dedication to public use, conveys and quit claims to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation, �( the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, including any after acquired title: The Easterly ten feet (10') of the following described parcel: Tract 1, LUND'-S MEADOWDALE TRACTS, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 26, records of Snohomish County, Washington, lying Westerly of the existing county road forty feet (40') in width (not a dedicated road); less the North ten feet (10') thereof. TOGETHER WITH the right to make all necessary cut or fill slopes on the lE of grantor's adjacent to the above —described real property in connection v the construction, maintenance or improvement of the above —described real property for purposes of a public roadway. NO EXCISE TAX DUI $2,00 Treasurer'G Fe Reeguired MA•Y 2 y� 1994 NRKE homl C04lra8su ByDepu Dated 19 94 THOMAS DEG di i 1) By MA AN t6 livi lu (President) •'';,xr. `t r •, !-• y (Secretary) Z' ] 1\,iDfJ4,CACKk+OWL DGEMENT FORM: REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM: /) e tateofVa' i SS State of Washington c ISH J County of } SS. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ Thomas Degan and Marilyn Degan _signet signed this instrument, and acknowledged it to be (his / her) on oath stated that (he / she) was authorized to execun free and voluntary act r the uses and purposes mentioned and acknowledged it as the in the instrument. of n voluntary act of such party for the uses and purpose ed 3� Mt{i Cf� the instrument. Dated Votary1PubIicJ6r the State of Washings n Notary Public for the State of Washington y appol m expires / —�f-�� My appointment expires t l-1&WAtB-e8LPe DPB12 Jt�1`ORIGINAL VOL. 2915P46E � CItY CLERK* � ITY �% • CiVIC CENTER COPY. . EDMONDS. WA 98020 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/ I[OLD HARMLESS Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City .of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite -to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant-, stipulate and promise as follows: I. Desc ipticr. cf ^•-Lie^t Trcper. , T: J.s ccvenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract (insert of land at the street address of �S p1At�w• ISlas �. S W. 1 i� street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: Tract 1, LUND'S MEAD014DALE TRACTS, according to the pla,: thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 26, records of Snohomish County, Washington, lying Westerly of the,f; sting county road forty feet (40') in width (not a dedicated road); less the nolT,9 tenAeet (10') thereof. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. -I--- ry C) <- o 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. the above referenced site -(hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has lieen identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide- hazard- The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the. -process to obtain building permit for Llie subject site. `1'Le results of the cons.: �.ant's reports and e.,aluations of WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -1- t:S/klt 02/08i9 a VOL. 2 915 PAGE 14 7 4 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building -Department. Conditions, limitations, or. prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance. with the recommendations of the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERSgeotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth_ Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest. in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at. the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 505 Bell Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with - development, stating that they. have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do' therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees WSS52079A/0006_040.034 -2- WSS/k1t 02/08/90 VOL. 2 91.5 PAGE 14'7 5 I _ • arising from and out of such development_ In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, -their successors in interest, heirs and .assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers,, agents and .employees from any loss, claim, liability .or damage .of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or_arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate . information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit_ 4. Insurance Requirement.. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy -for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in -order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: (insert insurance requirements and time period, if any --if no insurance required, so state.) WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3- WSS/k1_t 02/08/90 - ¢¢ 9405.230098 vot. 2 915 PAGE 14'7 6 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land_ This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs;. successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear_ This provision shall not be. interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required_ DONE this Aq,_ day. of f( 199-Z OWN • J ,� 1 PL''��' By: t By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss_ COUNTY OF �) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ; signed this instrument and acknowledged WSS52.079A/0006.040_034 -4- WSS/k1t 02/08/90 VOL. 2 915 PAGE 14'7'7 it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this M-) day of AJIP4/ 199 _ / Y PUPLIC ht ssion expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged y it to be (his/her) free and voluntaract for the purposes mentioned in this inst m t ru en . DATED this day of 199__ NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify_ that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the (title) of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument was executed)- to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. ._ DATED this day of 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5- WSS/klt 02/08/90 voL. 2 915 PAGE 14 "7 8 iCITY corms# STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY UNITS Property Address 15520 75th P1. W., Edmonds, WA 98026 Legal Description : That portion of Lot 1 of Lunds Meadowdale Tracts as recorded in Volume 6, Page 26, Records of Snohomish County Washington, described as follows: All of Lot 1 of said plat, except the North 10 feet thereof lying West of the existing County Road and except that portion of said County Road. I have read the requirements for accessory units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for at least two years after occupancy by the current owner is granted and until after a Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the City of Edmond Hearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a Conditional Use Permit. Property Owner Name Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I certify that II know or have satisfactory evidence that G- signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated ' 5"/ 2, bl q Signature of c�' Notary Publ i c T Z_- (Seal or Stamp) Title My appointment Expires z-- S"-.5: THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR • • AWO BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD PERMITS SERVICES Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Degan 18208 Ridgefield Road Seattle WA 98177 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Degan: STREET FILE 2000 First Interstate Center 999 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-1105 Telephone: 1-800-676-0145 Fax No.: (206) 467-3420 March 25, 1994 Subject: Assignment of Permit PX91-16210 from Vic Chynoweth, to Thomas and Marilyn Degan at EDMONDS WA Attached is copy of completed agreement for your file. Should you have a NAME OR ADDRESS CHANGE in the future other than that shown in this Agreement, kindly notify us at the above address making reference to this Permit Agreement number. Also notify us of any change of property ownership served by this facility as outlined in this Agreement, with reference to an assignment. Sinc C. David George PERMIT COORDINATOR 206-467-3329 Att. pc: Mr. J. A. Gunter, Operations Acctg. & Contracts, St. Paul MN cc: Mr. Vic Chynoweth cc: G. L. Sheets, Roadmaster CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-533-2891 1 I MW9 SURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD ASSIGNMENT OF PERMIT PX91-16210 AGREEMENT, between BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (formerly BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC.), a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Burlington": Vic Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds WA 98026 hereinafter called "Assignor" and THOMAS & MARILYN DEGAN 18208 Ridgefield Road Seattle WA 98177 hereinafter called "Assignee": Asssignor d Assignee desire that the Assignor's interest in all existing Agreements listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto a made apart hereof be assigned to Assignee and that Burlington consent thereto. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of their mutually dependent promises, hereby agree as follows: 1. For a valuable consideration, the receipt of which by Assignor is acknowledged, Assignor sells, assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee all of Assignor's interest in and under said Agreements as the same may have heretofore been amended or modified by any supplemental Agreement. 2. Assignee assumes and shall perform and be bound by all the terms, conditions and provisions of said Agreements as the same may have heretofore been amended or modified by any supplemental Agreement, and Assignee shall use said premises for the purposes specified in said Agreements. 3. Burlington consents to the Assignment from Assignor to Assignee provided that such consent shall not be construed as consent to any further Assignment of said Agreements. 4. This Assignment shall be effective as of February 2, 1994(Date of Sale) J Form 16011-E • -1 , ;V 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate this 17th day of March, 1994 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY r AVP Network Services VIC CHYNOWETH (Assignor) By Title THOMAS DI / (Assignee) By ld 6111" V Title By Title ���_ ��norrla5 �Qc�li.Yl 01 Form 16011-E BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD •, • EXHIBIT'A' PERMIT NUMBER DATE PURPOSE LOCATION LS SS MP PX91-16201 10/01/81 UG 6" drain Edmonds WA 0050 1221+14 21.17 r4l Form 60026-E 7-89 0 STREET FILE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 2000 First Interstate Center 999 Third Avenue PERMITS SERVICES seattle, Washington 98104-1105 Telephone: 1-800-676-0145 Fax No.: (206) 467-3420 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Degan March 25, 1994 18208 Ridgefield Road Seattle WA 98177 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Degan: Subject: Assignment of Permit PX91-16210 from Vic Chynoweth, to Thomas and Marilyn Degan at EDMONDS WA Attached is copy of completed agreement for your file. Should you have a NAME OR ADDRESS CHANGE in the future other than that shown in this Agreement, kindly notify us at the above address making reference to this Permit Agreement number. Also notify us of any change of property ownership served by this facility as outlined in this Agreement, with reference to an assignment. SincerW, P. David George PERMIT COORDINATOR 206-467-3329 Att. pc: Mr. J. A. Gunter, Operations Acctg. & Contracts, St. Paul MN cc: Mr. Vic Chynoweth cc: G. L. Sheets, Roadmaster CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-533-2891 STREET r` � I:t ASSIGNMENT OF PERMIT PX91-16210 AGREEMENT, between BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (formerly BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC.), a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Burlington": Vic Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds WA 98026 hereinafter called "Assignor" and THOMAS & MARILYN DEGAN 18208 Ridgefield Road Seattle WA 98177 hereinafter called "Assignee": Asssignor d Assignee desire that the Assignor's interest in all existing Agreements listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto a made apart hereof be assigned to Assignee and that Burlington consent thereto. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of their mutually dependent promises, hereby agree as follows: 1. For a valuable consideration, the receipt of which by Assignor is acknowledged, Assignor sells, assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee all of Assignor's interest in and under said Agreements as the same may have heretofore been amended or modified by any supplemental Agreement. 2. Assignee assumes and shall perform and be bound by all the terms, conditions and provisions of said Agreements as the same may have heretofore been amended or modified by any supplemental Agreement, and Assignee shall use said premises for the purposes specified in said Agreements. 3. Burlington consents to the Assignment from Assignor to Assignee provided that such consent shall not be construed as consent to any further Assignment of said Agreements. 4. This Assignment shall be effective as of February 2, 1994(Date of Sale) J Form 16011-E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate this 17th day of March, 1994 I W.P'111 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY AVP Network Services By Title By VIC CHYNOWETH (Assignor) f ell 0r e-Th THOMAS DE (Assignee) Titler�_orY1a5 ogt��rt MARILYN DEGAN (Assignee) By Title Form 16011-E 1 ,. .... ems. .. YM PERMIT NUMBER DATE PURPOSE LOCATION LS SS MP PX91-16201 10/01/81 UG 6" drain Edmonds WA 0050 1221+14 21.17 Form 60026-E 7-89 A 0 ? `` 'fir DMO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item Number: Originator:Robert J. Alberts For Action:X For Information: SUBJECT:- ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN -FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM THOMAS AND MARILYN DEGAN AT 15520 - 75TH PLACE WEST. - AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: May 17, 1994 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Quit Claim Deed Exhibit B - Vicinity Map Clearances: Dept./Indio./Initials `1 ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING Qe,!l:For RSA PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 04ITZ totkl• A quit claim deed for the ten foot street dedication is a development requirement from the Official Street Map for possible road expansion or improvements along 75th P1. W. Council accept the quit claim deed for the ten foot street dedication from Thomas and Marilyn Degan. COUNCIL ACTION: DEGAN.DOC (( \) VESTERNTrIU COMPANY WASHINGTON, INC. -----------.--.__--- • .VNwooU OFFICE SEATTLF. OFi OFFICE THIS SPACE PROVIDED FOR RECORDER'S USE: HELLEVUEOFFl('F FF.DF.RAI� WAy OFpI�•E i tRHIh St. S.W. Suite M) NIn University Street. Suite 242H 41 nnwmxl. WA 98037 Itatlh Arrnuc N.E. 1230 Snmh 33mit SImcI Seattle. WA 9H 101 Bellevue. WA 981 'I.= / J2 fii2-NK16 Federal Way, WA 9HIM)3 )b 5 -9240 453-HO70 874-5I13 Fax: 527-9240 Far:M1Hs Fan: 413-11 Un Fax: 517-HY83 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO Name Peter W. Benne Address 400 Dayton, Suite A city, state, zip Edmonds , WA 98020 QUIT CLAIM DEED THEGRANTORS, THOMAS DEGAN and MARILYN DEGAN, husband and wife, for and inconsideration of , dedication to public use, conveys and quit claims to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation, the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, including any after acquired title: The Easterly ten feet (10') of the following described parcel: Tract 1, LUND'S MEADOWDALE TRACTS, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 26, records of Snohomish County, Washington, lying Westerly of the existing county road forty feet (401) in width (not a dedicated road); less the North ten -feet (10') thereof. TOGETHER WITH the right to make all necessary cut or fill slopes on the land of grantor's adjacent to the above -described real property in connection with the construction, maintenance or improvement of the above -described real property for purposes of a public roadway. Dated' l9 94 THOMAS DEG 9 - di id l) MARILYN DEGAN 11 No By (Presidem ) By I Secretary) '4DIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM: REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM: ate of Washington aunty of SNOHOMISH } SS. 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that omas Degan and Marilyn Degan ,,ned this Instrument, and acknowledged it W be (his / her) •e and voluntary acIhZrIhc uses and Purposes mentioned the instrument. "ublic ledthe State of Washington +appot ntexptrex I—U•4Y D°""#4v0w2rORiGINAL State of Washington County of } SS. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this on oath stated that (he / She) was authorized to ex cute thr e nstrun ent and acknowledged it as the of _ — `— _to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public for the State or Washington My uPrx minirnt expires 1 I EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 EXHIBIT B - PAGE 2 OfIEET BILE THESE MINDS WERE APPROVED AT THE MAY 24, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 171994 The City Council meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was preceded by a flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS Laura Hall, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember William J. Kasper, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember Jeff Abdo; Student Representative APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA STAFF Paul Mar, Community Services Director Brent Hunter, Personnel Mgr. Tom Miller, Police Chief Noel Miller, Public Works Supt. Jeff Wilson, Planning Supr. Chuck Day, Accounting Mgr. Mike Springer, Asst. Fire Chief Rhonda March, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barb Mehlert, Recorder Council President Nordquist noted two agenda requests: 1) Remove Retreat Minutes and continue them to the next meeting for approval, and; 2) Item (1V1) to be continued to the next meeting Councilmember Kasper requested the scheduled Executive Session also include discussion on a Real Estate Matter. CONSENTAGENDA Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. (A) ROLL CALL 6a11``to-S ,k5 (C) Uv CN- fl- D) hkS (E) (F) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS FOR WEEKS OF MAY 2 AND MAY 9, 1994, AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 16 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1994 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SUSAN J. JENSEN AND LAEBUGTEN SALMON CHAPTER REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 26, 1994 FOR THE 1994 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PARAMOUNT PACIFIC CORPORATION ($365,697.92 INCLUDING SALES TAX) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1994 STREET SURFACE f TREATMENT PROGRAM CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 Page 1 ' THESE MINUTES WERE APPROVED AT THE MAY 24, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR VEHICLE EXHAUST REMOVAL SYSTEM FOR FIRE STATION NO.6 ' 0 (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES n �C� •, o' AGREEMENT WITH PATRICIA HOLIHAN STEINHARDT FOR CULTURAL ARTS 41 ( 10' ASSESSMENT (I) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE CITY PARK MAINTENANCE r U BUILDING REROOF PROJECT (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SCOPE OF WORK AS A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON TO PROVIDE SURVEY FOR PHASE 1 AND 2 OF CITY PARKS ($4,200) (K) AUTHORIZATION TO FUND REQUEST FROM EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB FOR REPAIR TO TWO HEATING VENTS ($875.00 PLUS WSST) (from May 3, 1994) (L) (N) l _a wok (P) 1� C L60 Vp (Q) (R) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATION TRAINING ORDINANCE 2981 AMENDING ORDINANCE 2936 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RELATING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 17.40.030 - NON -CONFORMING LOTS APPROVAL OF POLICE SUPPORT LABOR AGREEMENT APPROVAL OF REVISED PURCHASING POLICY INCREMENTAL DOLLAR LIMITS ACCEPTANCE ,OF QUIT,CLAIM�DEEWFQR T_tk FOOLT STREET !DEDLCATION FROM sTHOMA�S AND.`IVIA�RILYN DEGAN A' T�1:5526 75TH PLA"GE WEST ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR STREET DEDICATION FROM '✓ JEANNETTE M. SARRASIN AT 505 OLYMPIC AVENUE (S) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR STREET DEDICATION FROM ROBERT KECHLEY, ELIZABETH KENNEDY, AND GERALD AND CAROL SAMS AT 24211 76TH AVENUE WEST (T) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 WITH LANDAU ASSOCIATES FOR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER ($4,500) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 3 AND MAY 10 1994 C craU�Y£I;£R�"E1'Rl3ZZI1�f4J'EIi, SEU�V1JElll'�ij1'L 'R AUDIENCE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 17, 1994 Page 2 r� 'ww MTHAORILQLLl WMAS DEGANM5062 N DEGAN 18208 Ridgefield Road NW 19 l Seattle, Wa 98177 Pay to the Order of /1) -( A) w e eAd UTO""Weivt One Bank. Washington " Carillon Point Offioa 610 NNK 2275 Carillon Point ;i:. T.: Kirkland, WA 95033 -i: L 2 S 10 78 3 34 1 L GO 0 2 3 7 7 12 211 S 'i, HAA�ND —2 W-1 &.1i. 4 9 CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY SERVICES Date: Received of:,, L— �01- M.0 C/ rheck Cash $ Water Meter size: i Water Connection Sewer Permit/Repair Trun CTarge Sewer Connection/LID Fee R/W Construction Permit Street Restoration/Street Cut�620 Fund) Street Disruption Fee ing. 2.2% Inspection Fee Eng.—Soecs. & Plans Storm Drainage Fee Street Use Permit Building Permit (Type) Plan Check Fee State Surcharge (Fund 622) Zoning Ap-oTcat ions (Type) Shoreline Permits .S.E.P.A. Review Recording Fee. Maps/Books Photostatirtg, �7 d Tax Date of Hearing: Time By:.Z/) Permit #: REET FILE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •THOMAS DEGAN, M.D. 34-783/1251 , MARIL id DEGAN VQ. Fl �i 19�q 18208 Ridgefield Road N Seattle, Wa 98177 Pay to the 4g Order of �\ $ r i ® O l WeOne Bank. Washington sPoint Office 610 D� *gyp 2275 Carillon Point •A Kirkland, WA gam For 5i l00`— `0:L25LO78331:LL6002377L221i' 50 T. MARU D IN2 5062 9. CITY OF EDMONDS 1 ct COMMUNITY SERVICES Date 3 7. Received of e-114 neon vo� Water Meter Size: Water Connection Sewer Permit/Repair Trunk Charge Sewer Connection/LID Fee R/W Construction Permit Street Restoration/Street Cut (620 Fund) Street Disruption Fee L Eng. 2.2% Inspection Fee Eng. Specs. & Plans Storm Drainage Fee Street Use Permit Building,Permit (Type) Plan Check Fee State Surcharge Fun 622 Zorn n , Applications (Type) Shoreline Permits S.E.P.A. Review Recording Fee Maps/Book P otostatino aX Date of Hearing: Time: By: Z/% Permit #• .�..._..,w,.,.,..N.�y.,c�yyam.a:aW�+•ids-•:�•.-F•'..3+::?4•;-'�'�,-r✓-'{;-C-rr:!�✓5:.� - SIMEET FILECITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - STH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT C� p Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering .April 5, 1994 Peter W. Bennett Attorney At Law d 400 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Shoreline Review for Degan Permit Application Plan Check -Number 94-49 Dear Mr. Bennett: I have reviewed this permit for the need to apply for a shoreline master program permit. Single Family Building Permits are exempt from the Shoreline Permits unless grading within 200 feet of the shoreline exceeds 250 yards; or unless the project is being built for speculative purposes. In this case the applicant is proposing a house for their own use, and the applicant is not proposing grading in excess of 250 yard within 200 feet of the shoreline. Therefore, this proposal is exempt from the Shoreline Permit Review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division • ) Incorporated August 11, 1890 • C oh.. e-;+;oe tn4ornatinnal — POW"An .tanan V R.ET FILE MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION March 10, 1994 TO: Plan Check File 1t 94-49, DEGAN FROM: JOHN BISSELL AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: Critical Areas Review Exception The subject building permit application is exempt from Critical Areas review. This is because the application is dependent on an already approved development permit (Setback Adjustment A-33-90) which was approved prior to the enactment of the Critical Areas Ordinance, and which is still active. Ordinance Number 2874, section 2 states that "Development proposal applications which were complete with all fees paid and filed with the City on or before March 2, 1992, shall be vested under then existing ordinances for the life of such application." Though the City recognizes that the original building permit application for this proposal has expired (Chynoweth), the setback adjustment for the proposal has not expired. Since the Degan building design found in Plan Check 94-49 is identical to the originally approved Chynoweth plan check, the Planning Division recognizes the vesting of A-33-90 to include the new plan check application. If the applicant proposes to change any exterior portion of the building originally approved under A-33- 90 or approved under the building Division Chynoweth application, A-33-90 will not apply, and thus no vesting will apply. A-33-90 shall expire on June 1, 1995. At that time all vesting for the purposes of development shall be lost. In addition, any future site development proposed after the approval of a building permit which conforms to A-33-90 shall be required to conform to the requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC 20.1SB). STREET QLE „t• TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. A° "° Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology A and Environmental Earth Sciences Mr. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield and Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Review of Plans and Specifications Proposed Degan Residence Lot 1, Lunds Meadowdale Tract 156th Street Southwest and 75th West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Butterfield: BUILDING 31 1994 Revised March 24, 1994 July 15, 1991 Project No. T-1474 As requested, we reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications for the proposed residence at 75th Place West and 156th Street Southwest in Edmonds, Washington. In 1991, these plans were prepared for the previous owner. The same residence will now be constructed for Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Degan. It was noted from our review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications prepared by Robert Butterfield and Associates and originally dated June 21, 1991, that the proposed plans conform to the intent of our recommendations presented in our geotechnical report dated July 28, 1990. The recent plans prepared for Dr. Degan are dated February 25, 1994. In accordance with the City of Edmonds geotechnical declaration requirement, the following statement is made. In our judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the report and that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. As stated in the geotechnical report for this property, we agree in general with the landslide assessment by Roger Lowe Associates and with the revised occurrence probabilities suggested by GeoEngineers, Inc. On the subject property, the estimated probability that old slump material might move again within a 25-year-period was given as 30 percent in the southwest corner and 10 percent elsewhere. 12.525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777 Mr. Robert Butterfield Revised March 24, 1994 July 15, 1991 The probability that landslide material may encroach upon the subject property is 2 percent. We believe these risks will be reduced or mitigated by for this property by siting the house as far north on the lot as possible and by supporting the structure on deep foundations consisting of augercast concrete piles. Further, proper construction of foundation and retaining wall footing drains should prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressures, often a.major contributor to soil instability. With this letter, we are enclosing a copy of the architect's Statement/Declaration of the Foundation Design and the Architect/Engineer Declaration. We trust this information is sufficient for your present needs. Please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anil Butail, P.E. EXPIRES I 09/95 President DBG/AB:tm Encl: Statement/Declaration of the Foundation Design Architect/Engineer Declaration Project No. T-1474 Page No. 2 rRc":.FT RLE* 1 GSA 9 / / /� / q4- T 'a I G ut" \98 ayds; Joe q-2 ! oo. N3 I 1 _ J)� �� 6UT �IaU►-AM CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-3202 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Grading of approximately 786 cubic yards of material for the construction of a single- family (File No. CUG-92-3). Proponent: Vic & Nancy Chynoweth. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Located on the west side of 75th Place West, north of approximately 156th Street West (15520 75th Place West). Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review, of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by .1992. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-3202 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: 3 C—�4 Z Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than March 20, 1992, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on March 6: 1992, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of 2 92-03 DN S/3.3-92.SEPA Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504-8711 XX Applicant: Vic & Nancy Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Agent: Brad Butterfield 400 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachments PC: File No. CUG-92-3 SEPA Notebook Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 92-03DNS/3.3-92.SEPA 0 0 CIT7�COIa!' Jacuzzi Question # 2 Tom & Marilyn Degan 18208 Ridgefield Rd NW Seattle, WA 98177 March 7, 1994 City of Edmonds Building Department Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Madam: BUILDING MAR 3 We had dropped the hot tub from our plans as a budget cut but your question brought up numerous things to discuss. Such as, how do we get it to the deck later if we desire? After much consideration, we would like to place a small hot tub (6'x6'-or 7'x7') if at all financially possible in the far north west corner of the lower deck. At this time we can not forecast for sure we will be able to do this. Thank you so much for drawing these potential difficulties if done at a later date. Respeptfully, Mar�iyn began gh11VJ 19- /W 74a6 y At- 'n Aloy -rllwo� 1400 Cap i��d olut � c 1410 i4/ STREET FILE H I LD I N 9 Butterfield Design Group 400 Dayton A AR 3 11994 Edmonds, Washington 98020 206-77AS64 March 30, 1994 Building Official City of Edmonds Subject: Applicant and Owner Landslide Acknowledgment Declaration We, Thomas and Marilyn Degan, acknowledge the accuracy of all permit submitted information and in a form which relieves the city and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the city, all conclusions shall be those of Thomas and Marilyn Degan and their design professionals and consultants. We, Thomas and Marilyn Degan, understand and accept the risk of building our residence in the Meadowdale Slide Area which is an area with potential unstable soils. We will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of our residence or any prospective residential leasees of our residence or portions of our residence, of the slide potential of +hic area I state that T o as and '_Marilyn Degan have sworn before me this 30t of March, 1994. Not DONNA E. WIRT .`et%ure /�� Snohomish County State of Washington r Exp 1-4-98 Ix 0 P `1 :,."K. •Jy y\ /mil . �i�a1 Stff�ILE 0 Butterfield Design Group 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 206.115-0564 February 18, 1994 STATEMENT/DECLARATION OF THE FOUNDATION DESIGN AT 155200-75TH PL. SW TO: Building Official Edmonds Planning Dept. The Foundation Design, Plans, and Specifications for the new residence at 155200-75th Place SW have not been modified in any way once they were submitted and plan checked as the "Chynoweth Residence". Signed Robert Butterfield Architect RECEWED MAR 0 1 1994 PERMIT COUNTER , ' r s 1... AXRMIT APOFATION REQUIREMENTS • . To: Applicant SnEErFILE From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector Owner. Vg-4A-fJ Plan Check No: q4- — +q Address: 15520 %5TU-pL W Date: A4?z--34= After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 1. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS — 7:00 A.M. 10:00 P.M.WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS —10:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M. 2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 18.60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. 4. Builder/owner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 18.30.030d) 5. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. BUILDERIOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30.50G) 6. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 1830) 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) S. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the property. If an intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may be required. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staff to determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 18.90) 9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14%. Waiver granted to %. (ECDC 18.80.060D) 10. Driveways must be paved from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) . 12. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.20) 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connection to the City sanitary system is required. A separate permlk is required. LID# 'Zito Fees paid: Yes No Charge (ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.90) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) PRMTREQR.DOT S T� G L L.e E 20 TRE. S t"# PRMI'REQRDOT .: :�. `� :�` '• - ,L >*} 9a "'rs. - °'-__ r y `..-•q?: rid __ —,a .:>d' '.,�� �.+�„ ''., CI OF� komONDS - FF 1 ST INST.LE � SUES. INST. s ! _ CHANGiiQP OWNBR8HIP Thor C&p:st.ead RECORDED OWNER AND M: t ADDRESS `DATE DUE NUMBER OF INSTALLMENTS a PE ��(,�� INTEREST RATE �O. 13 ! - ♦cam L.I.D. NO. j? S izi ^F t ASSESSMENT g .-#': l,. 1 a >+� ,� N: '' Fl,'t m;;11ir� t�t� DATE REC. .PRE•PAYMENTI BALANCE P T j 1 . N _ .. - 'i,-� 'i' •,. `��LY is t`' _ PAYMENT RECORD _,' �� ''�nC��i , fj L' INST. 'NO. L.I.D NO.. a sOATE REC. NO. PRINCIPAL INTEREST PENALTYsxtUNPAlO INTEREST Q COSTS PAID TO 'DATE �n e f G •r , e t BALAKC� " Y:3yYf.l ks M/47 ;/ 3 �v 9l'�/IJ° Uoo �9 a. dry oSi9 �9 M1r �sla,d3 loG s F :yhyvy�h � Rio �o/���y`�Gao�o� . oo �46-� �✓ 99G:�a ����s� :y�'� a�.�:cr����,� . ♦: S �� Jo /�14,• '=�O 6or7t( 5-4-Ca utlf-9% -' ?-3410 so iatdq .q to /mot. iood$) $02.3y• )grl•tole ►,000•oa ��{oZo�.lfl i ry8 �fl r OJECOEVIEW CHECKLIS* PROJECT NAME: PLAN CHECK t '- OJECT ADDRESS: �5�, .� %j ,�� RECEIPT DATE: p�y- �� EVIEW D BY: (I nitial/Da e) PLAN.. WATER .. COMMENTS FIRE BLDG. SEWER STREET, ENG. Setbacks/Variance/SetbackAdjustment ` Conditional Use Permit .. .. ` ¢ ADB Requirements '4 ;..:........ Other Zoning Requirements Underground Wiring Required Lot Slope 1596 .. : -6 SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit ',,.N•:<> Tree Cutting Plan Plat/Subdivision Requirements Le al Description Verification 0(— ``�� fix. , .7114ki Aw Quit Claim reet Dedication a+d.2 s/.� rr� Easements - Pub Xc rva e----� Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee%30. ,. ,,::.•..' €: yr `•':' rk i w . `.'�; '¢;,:<..., < vy+S ?i;.! .:.;; , 1 1 _ 12 1.3. Engineering 2.2Inspection Fee,- :x" 4,'"7<t '' ya;: s 14 Draina a Plan (On-Site)fw�:..�����{: � �y'� ��' ` �� t �;.p$ =. �f < . ` � , - 7 Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses S2tbac6: - Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing Culvert Required Aje, l-- irlvett sizC'vll^�-• _ Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff ----`,; t,; w$:- _ 20 gljj Catch Basin Required _ "- --'— Drivewa Slo & Vehicle Access :: ..\:.:/}45::`•` <J4 r.0 23 r Sidewalk Required ' Curb & G_ntter Required A- Co Curb Cut ForDriveway Required Ado Street Paving Rewired ALo _ :x^Fk,' .... .<,r. 27.:, Right -Of -Way. Construction Permit Required Y65 Street Name Sign -Required 29 Other Si nin Re uired 3...- Bond Required For Public Improvements v :'':`.;...}•. ... v: 31< ; FEMA Ma Check/Water Table _ 3?`;i Side Sewer, Availability: ►w1 ` "' 33 Calculate Sewer. Connection Fee If No LID # ECreate Street File �j xisting Water Main Size... III��� Water Meter Size <�;;•r< `••, �_ :.s� .. «n}}. }'. :»t�v.>:::;4s<;v,<<>:v;,>' h•:�'. ��; rkf:..::, } }f --rtN ri•' } / /� <:.?.: �a'� o"�cyvt }t :34 35 —'—� I Service line Size . Water Meter Charge Required y • «�...vY $. 39 Hydrant Required H _drant Size Existing '}C'vi�4:v�:i?v.r :: vi• '+:}Yr:�•Y:: :\vat .: Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler Street Cui A10 7a°° S F :.F+l Miscellaneous ITG /ZL37proj 7t10Q Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING STREET Y / ll,'r��IV V. - ENGINEERING FILE., PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 I- I &�18°I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT jnPlanning • Building • Engineering c. August 27, 1999 Dr. Thomas & Marilyn Degan 18208 Ridgefield Road Northwest Seattle, Washington 98177 RE: 15520 75`h Place West, Edmonds BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR Please be advised, during the outside peer review of the proposed. retaining wall on the property you own at 15520 75`h Place West, the following issue was noted: "Lastly, GEOTECH Consultants'. August 9, 1999 report indicates that the original storm drain detention system was replaced with an HDPE pipe that routes stormwater directly to the BNSF right-of-way. If the BNSF Railroad drainage easement is conditioned on an upslope detention facility, the permit may need to be amended." As owner of the property it is your responsibility to ensure that the requirements or conditions of any required or existing BNSF Railroad permit are followed. If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact the Assistant City Engineer, Don Fiene at 425-771-0220 extension 323. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan AUG-25-1999 WED 04:23 PM LANDAU ASSOCIATES 0 FAX NO, 2539262531 P. 01 Landau Associates Cnvironmn.nml and Geotochnical 5orvicos Ms. Lara Knaak City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED VEGAN RETAINING WALL 15520 - 75TH PLACE WEST EDmONDS, WASHINGTON 'BUG oE,Fz0P 61999 C/TMOF ,'D MO�9,eg CTq. g . August 25, 1999 Dear Ms. Knaak: We have completed a geotechnical review of resubmitted documents as part of the building permit application for a proposed retaining wall to be constructed along the top of the slope in the west portion of the Degan property. The resubmittal is in response to Landau Associates' review comments on the original submittal (summarized in a July 29, 1999 letter to the City of Edmonds (City]). The parcel is located at 15520 — 75`h Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The following documents were included as part of the resubmittal: An August 9, 1999 letter report titled Georechnical Engineering Considerarions, Repair of Landslide, Degan Residence, 15520 — 75`4 Place Wesr, Edmonds, Washingron prepared by GEOTECH Consultants, Inc. A site plan showing the location of the proposed retaining wall prepared by Tryg Wynquist Construction Company and dated August 9, 1999. The subject property is located within the defined Meadowdale landslide area, and construction within that area is subject to the conditions set forth in City Ordinance 2661 (Meadowdale Landslide Ordinance). Review of our records indicates that Landau Associates did not complete review of the initial building permit submittal for the residence. Idowever, we understand such a review was performed, hence we assume that Elie original site development met the requirements of the Meadowdale ordinance. Our review of the retaining wall submittal is viewed as a supplement to the oriCD ginal application, with only pertinent wall -related geotcehnical issues needing to be evaluated. Our review of the supplemental information submitted by the applicant has adequately addressed the comments/questions outlined in our July 29, 1999 letter to the City. Accordingly, it is our opinion WAPATO (71%F+X PI.ACai • 4210 - 21)'H I STREET E. • SUITE 1' • TACOMA, WA 9s.424.1321 (2,53) 926-2,10 Fax: (25 s) 926.2531 K-mail: ini'o(^?Iandauinc.c+ml U1111onds Portland spokane 'raemm�i AUG-25-1999 WED 04:30 PM LANDAU ASSOCIATES FAX NO. 2539262531 P. 02 that the City can proceed with processing the geotechnical portion of the building permit for the proposed retaining wall. Since the wall will not retain potentially unstable soil to the west, the property owners should be advised of the risks associated with future movement of this soil. The owner's geotechnical engineer should be able to provide this assessment. Lastly, GEOTECH Consultants' August 9, 1999 report indicates that the original storm drain detention system was replaced with an HDPE pipe that routes stormwater directly to the BNSP right-of- way. If the BNSF Railroad drainage easement is conditioned on an upslope detention facility, the permit may need to be amended. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our geotechnical review of documents submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed retaining wall at the Dcgan property was completed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices in this area at the time this letter was prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied. We trust this letter provides you with the necessary information. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 622.41 l3. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Edward J, Heavey, P.E. Senior Engineer Reviewed by: William D. F..vans, CPG Associate EJ H/W DE/jas eBJ25199 I:%PHWECTb74\0951dopansup_ivw.doe LANDAU ASSOCtATt_S 2 08-1�-1`Jyy 1b; 24�HI'I rKU111 I KIUJ I U 'aGJ r r LUeel r. UG frj • I GEOTECH AugUS19,1999 CONSULTANTS, INC. I 132SH Nk 2um suvM Suite if, JN 9929:' Bellevue %VA '.0X15 I (4 57 747-561 a FAX (QiL5) 747-8.%( Tom and Marilyn than 15520 — 75tK Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Subject: Oeofechnica! Engineering Considerations i R6pair of Landslide i Degan Residence 15520 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Degan: This .summary report has been developed at the request of City of Edmonds through their geotechnical consultant, Landau Associates in their July 29, 1999 letter. Our work to date has consisted of the following: • Viisking the site on at least four occasions to observe conditions following slope movement, and to discuss potential methods for preventing further similar landal'id®s. • Reviewing the July 28, 1990 geotechnicaf enginearing study that was prepared by TP.rra Associates prior to construction of your Tesidence. • ' Consulting with your contractor (TrY8 �Ruist) and structural engineer(Coughlin Porter I Lundeen) during design of the slope stabilizabon system. • Developing this summary re@ort. I I SLIDEHISTORY :The site is located in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, above a very steep bluff that drops to the Puget Sound. The Meadowdale area was affected in the past by a massive. ancient landslide. Your property is situated near the northern end of this defined Meadowdale slide area. The primary risks identilled for the site by Roger Lowe Associates In their 1979 study are potential :slumps in the old slide debris on the western side of your lot, and mudf ow. 5 travailing onto the eastern side of the site from the steep slope (oid slide headscarp?) across 75th Place West. On, or about, December 31. 1998, a landslide occurred on the western side of your lot, near the s�eelp, west -facing bluff. This slide resulted in a clownset of 8 to 12 inches across the souftrn one -'half of the western (rear) yard. The ground movement appeared to extend onto the adjacent south property, which is currently vacant. Numerous landslides occurred throughout the Puget Sound region at this time, following a snowmelt and heavy rains. Due to the likelihood that cassive water contrikxAecl to the slide, the following so6ona were rdcornmended: eB-12-1999 10:23RM FROTKW TO • 4257710221 P.03 Torn and Marilyn Degan August 9, 1999 JN 99297, Page 2 DiSconnect the storm detention system located in our rear i y yard vVater from downspouts and surface drains was routed to the base of mile steep .bluff in a new above-9round 1-10PP (Crisco) pipe. Cover the rear yard with plastic sheeting to prevent further infiltration of the soil. precipitation into After these measures were completed, no further movement of the slide maSS Was observed In February 25, 1999, a landslide occurred in generally the same area as the previous slope movement. This slide foltowect, extended wet weather, and appeared to occur re o shallow mudflow on the steep bluff, combined with a slump of several feet of flit and highly -fractured silt and may` in the southwest portion of the yard. The Drisco outfalt pipe for stonnvvater was still intact, btA hadibeen undermined at the crest of the bluff by the soil movement. Concentrated runoff from the southern neighbor's driveway was diverted away from the slide area. Plastic sheeting was again Placed on time slide area through the winter and Spring morrtfrs. Based on our observations, the recent slides appear to have affected the near -surface fill and highly freMrcd, cu,rey silt identified by Terra Associates in their Test Pits 1 and 2. These explorations encountered approximately 10 to 12 feet of fdl and highly -fractured soil downslope of the house site, Our observations of the recent slide revealed 4 to 5 fit of silty sand fill a y9ng nighty -fractured, clayey sift. This is generally sUntiar to the conditions encountered by Test Pit 1, Which was excavated in the southwest yard area before grading occurred for your house. No bulging or displaoement has been obvious lower on the bluff to indicate deeper movement wimin the underlying hard silt. colvcLtlsro�u�s ANa RECOR9II�ENDA71O1VS GE RAL Based on our observationS, the re-' ant aloae movement is affecting G layer of loose fill and woak, highly -fractured soil that extends to a depth of 14 to 12 feet. This is the most probable mode of Slope failure identified for the western yule of your lot by the Roger Lowe Associates study, It appears that further movement of this sail is likely if stabilWng measures are not completed. Continued progression of the landslide toward the east (upslope) will unden�mine the bypassed storm detention system. endanger the new storm outfall pipe, and cause collapse of the landscape vrt�k9' located along the downatope side of the house. Further soil movement in this area would prevent access around the near of the house for small equipment and would limit access for Pedestrians and emergency personnel. The residence itself is not currently in danger, es it is supported on Heavily -reinforced plerS. 11Vhile excessive water In the weak, neer-surface ache appears to be the primary cause for the reco.4 landslides. It is our opinion that installation of an interceptor drain is not sufficient fo *nifipwtly improve their stability. These soils have been further weakened by the recent movement, and drains typically have a limitea effective fife, We recommend that a row of closely spaGCd, heavitj+ reinforced piers be installed across the landslide to retain the A and highly frkliured soils.. These piers would be located at least 25 feet from the crest of the steep bluff. TFiis iivtll pr>mvent reclaiming of the affected slide area between the pies and the bluff. We recommend OEOTKH CONSULTANTS.JW- OB-12-1999 10: 2;5HM rKUM 1 KW Tom and Marilyn Degan August 9, 19" I U QeD ( (iLjeel r. l'JZ1 • JN 00297 Page 3 ithat°the piers be designed to retain soil to a depth of 15 feet, which allows for some variation from the 10 to 12 feet of loose soil indicated by the previous test pits. If the depth to hard silt is found to be greater than 15 feet during the pier Installation, it will be necessary to move the row of piers further toward the east. Due to their close spacing, the piers will retain the soils below the existing ground surface without installing fagging or a facing. However, baokfiiled timber lagging will need to be placed above the eAst rig surf+aoc in the sCrde area to restore support for the suiils around the slide. Norio of the slide area, lagging: should be placed to a depth of at least 4 feet below the existing grade. In the future, It will likely be necessary to install more lagging and backfill as the piers are exposed by continued rnoviement of the near -surface soils. While the actual width of the recent slope movement is only approximately 40 Beet, it would be prudent to extend the closely spaced piers across the entire width of the property. This increases pr6tecbon against future loss of ground in your rear yard. Following the impending development of the southem property, access to the wea west of your house for large chilling equipment would be difficult, to impossible. There are currenily no i'rtdications of deeper slope movement affecting fife hard silt While the potential far this type of slope movement is law, It is not nonexistent. if deeper slope movement does occur in the future, it could undermine the closely spaced piers. requiring additional, more costly, slope stabillzation measures. Unless the entire width of the property Is stabilized by the closely spaced piers, the storm detention pipe. should not be reconnected. Even 9 this occurs, the integrity of the joints between the detention pipe, control manhole, and outlet pipe MR be questionable. For this reason, it appears appropriate to continue the use of the existing Drisco oUftil pipe. This pipe should be periodically observed for damage following soil movement on the steep bluff. CLOSELY -SPACED PIER WALL Closely spaced piers should be separated by no more than 3 feet edge -to -edge. The piers would be constructed by setting steel H-beams in a drilled hole and grouting the space between the beam and the sod with concrete f+er the entire height of the drilled hole. lean concrete should be used for at least the upper 15 feet of the drilled hole. This material will be easier to chip away in the event that more lagging needs to be added when future slope movement occurs. We anticipate that the holes could be drilled with open hole methods, but the contractor should be prepared to rase the holes or use ;furry methods if caving soil Is encountered. if water is present in a hole at the time the soldier pile is poured, concrete must be tremied to the bottom of the hole. The upper approximately 5 feet of the piers will need to be lagged with pressure -treated timber in the area of the landslide. Away from this area, tagging should to installed to a depth of 4 feet teloVd the existing ground surface. Timber lagging should be designed for an applied lateral prebsure of 30 percent of the design wail pressure. Any voids behind the timber lagging should be fillediwith a sand and fly ash slurry. This backfill will allow water to seep through the lagging, and should remain in place behind the piers if they are exposed further by slope movement. In the area of #ve recent slide, the backfill within 2 feet & the piers should be sand and flyash slurry, with compacted 2- to flinch quarry spells used behind this slurry, iGIEoTECH CONSULTAta INC btj-l�-lyyy lb; e4HI'I r'KUI11 I Kw I U 4GJ f f 1✓JGGl t . kJJ !7orrr. and Marilyn Degan A 99997 August 9,1999 Page 4 I- ! The closely spaced piers should be designed similar to soldier pales. An active soil pressure equal to that pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be applied over the center -to -center sparing. This srHl pressure should be assumed to act to a depth of 15 feet. Lateral movement of the soldier piles below the 15-foot depth will be resisted in the hard, glacially: compressed silt by a passive soil pressure equal to that pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 450 pct. This soft pressure does not include a safety factor, and assumes that the piers wild be located at least 25 feat from the face of the very steep bluff. Considering this, and our ocnservetive ssbrnete of the depth bf retainage, it is our opinion that this passive resistance is appropriate. The passive resistance ads on two timas the grouted pile diameter. We recommend a minimum embedment of 20 feet below the 15-foot retainage height. REVIEW OF CLOSELY -SPACED PIER DESIGN Prior to completing this report, we were provided with the typical cross-section for the pier wall pmpared by Coughlin Porter Lundeen. This detail indicated that relatively heavy H-bearns are to be. used for the pier reinforcement. This is appropriates, and will reduce the difficulty of Installing additional lagging in the future. For simplicity, the detail shows a mw6murn i$-foot excavation, sirrrilar to a soldier pile. However, our discussion above defines the depths to which lagging ehould be placed at this time. There is no intention of excavating 15 feet of soil in front of the piers, in order that lagging could be placed to this depth. [�JT1 • - r � _ The condusions and recommendations contained in tt►is report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our site visit, and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions that we have observed, and that were encountered in the previous explorations, are representative of subsurface conditions on the site, if the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly dMerent from those antklpated, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated sail conditions are commonly encountered on oonstnxtion sites. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making add;tivnal expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. I Thd recommendations presented in this report are directed toward preventing further movement of Ithi6iexisting fill and highly fractured soil upslope of the closely spaced piers. Predicting the future t4havior of steep slopes Is an inexact and imperfect science that is currently based mostly on the past behavior of slopes with similar characteristics. The owner must ultimately accept the possibility that slope movement could occur below the piers, requiring that additional lagging and bac�cfill be placed, This report has repfesentatives, icd Ousions :we i� i I I been prepared for the exclusive use of Tom and Marilyn Degan, and their for Specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and based on observed site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. VO 1G-1 JJJ 1V•GJnI I I I\VII If\W 'Tom and Marilyn Dogan August 9, 1999 I l.J "'fGJ I 1 1VGG1 F . VIJ • JN 99297 Page 5 1conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current ;standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No .warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to ;construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the :,rzMractrvs methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, ezc:Ppt as specifically described in lour�report for consideration in design. This report should be provided to any future property owners lto:ir form them of our findings and recommendations, Ap ITIQNAL SERVICES Geolech Consultants, Ina should be retained to provide geotechnical consultatlon, testing, and observation services during construction This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate wherther earthwork and foundation construction .activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this repart, and to provide sugg6stions for de*n changes in the event subsurface condit;ons differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measuren-*nts, will be the responsibility of the contractor. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you. have any Questions. or 4 we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. cc: Try9 Wynqulst viafacS"rmiie (206) 937-9940 MP.WJRi=: aft Respectfully subrnitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. EXPIRES Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, IN a ����ZG�1nguldt G'on. ctidn C'd. P LAf 1 N G SHEET 3839 W. Marginal SW SEATTLE, WASHINGTO 98106. FOR tQlr�liV Phone 937.2948 ADDRESS DATE act �q 9 �r.....A . a740%S,10 r-mul'i lrlw I "4.) f (I U441 r. u7 kp rT r3 76+ i \, fit' 'D New,- - MID TOTAL P.09 / JU1 1U tPU-1u: oaa `ta GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Me o Ta: Tryy WynquizA Comparw. Address: 0 13256 NE 20tb Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747•-5618 FAX 747-8561 JK*. 813136 itns Marc R. McGinnis Dater July 19.1909 FAX: (206) 637-1:1341) Phone: (206) RE Piers for Slope Stahil"aetion (Degas iliesaidence) 9150 EdTK nos, Wa Minglon DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C'fih. CITY OF EDM0N94 This memo follows the discussions I have had with both you and the Degans regarding methods for stabilizing the slope movement that is occurring at the southwest caner of the rear yard. Based on my observations, it is likely that the current movement appears to be affecting the loose fi and heavily-firactured silt that Terra Associates encountered in their original test pits. I under;tand that ttwe was originally a small svAe in this area that rrwy have received enfl fill than elsewhere in the rear• yard. Besides installing a row of heavily -reinforced piers across the slide, there are no practical methods to stabilize this slope moverent_ During our recent site meeting on April 9, 19se, we gold -out the minimum extent oT this row of piers. If desired, the piers could be extended beyond these limits to stabilize more of the slope's crest. The piers should be spaced no fudher than 3 fed edge4o-edge. Soil ardling will retain the soil behind the piers WAm aru $round am(avti, W li111ilJ4x taggiivi liud be addiad to the piers to allow filliity of the depnesst caused by the landslide. Any backfill placed behiind the lagging should be fneetiraining and compacted. A coarse -grained pitman sand and gravel would likely be the most suitable fill material. In the future, when slope movement occurs in front of the piers, it will be nicoemary to add tagging to any portion of the pier that becomes exposed. We recommend the following criteria for design of the piers: Active Soil Pressure — Equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcF) acting over the center to center pier spacing to a depth of 15 feet_ The active pressure does not deed to be applied below the 1 Vioat depth. Passive Soil Pressure — Equivalent fluid density of 3W pcf Wing over twice the drilled pier diameter below the 154bot active zone. It appears that the piers could stick up approximately one foot above the existing top44ope to create a slightly gentler grade behind the hackieled lagging_ As we have discussed, this type of a wall is only adequate to retain a slide occuiing in fhe loose or fraotured sills tf,.,t overlie the hard sifts. If a failure surface from future slope movement extends down into the hard &A, it could cause movement of failure of the pier vrall. The only way to prevent this would be to install deeper piers roctn*iie t by tieback anctrxs, which would he "nifcanfly more expensive. Please call we if you have any questions. cc: Torn and Marilyn aegan 15520 95th PI. W. Ed»onds OR= �G OF WAS�1 j�� 27M ry�11 �Sfr3NAL��v 7f/y� EXPIRES _ 10_l.2=q Tryg Winquist Construction Co. 3839 W. Marginal Way S. W. Seatde, WA 98106 Phone 206.937.1948 FAX 206.937.9940 #TRYGWCC160CN June 25, 1999 Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, .AICP Community Services Department Planning Division City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Bullock: As per your request from Wednesday's meeting on June 23 regarding the Degan project, please note that the Seattle area experienced heavy rains this past winter which caused the Degan's southwest corner of the rear yard to slide over the steep portion of the slope. A retaining wall has been designed by Kyle L. Buslach to stop any future movement of soil in this area. Access to the site will be through the southern adjoining property (Aldridge) of which the Degans have permission (see enclosed letter). Theresa Aldrich is going to begin construction approximately August 1 so the Degans need to be completed by August 1. Your assistance in this regard would be much appreciated. If you have any questions please call me at 206-937-1948. Sincerely, k--- Tryg K. Winquist 0 ff LE 1:8L r= A V 18330 olyltp40 Yle*Ddve Edaxmds, WA 9=0 7uoe 21,1999 ab Wbm It May Cm=n; The Deg= have my petlWss*u ID go th=gb iny FfvpcFY at 15W Vb Flaw WtSt l± tx1% WA., Ow2o, for t%r oomtnlcbon p>Aposm si�wclyl 41 y IvIemJN: 8066 Tor Tryg Wyngt" Flaarc Mans rt W-Gbr is t:+or>Aparr� Dato April 26,1999 Addres= pax: (206) 937-9940 tee, (2X) — ►. • r I is � This memo follows the d&msslons I have had with boar you arid the moans egganding methods for stab ifiaing the slope movvemerrt that is occurring at the southwest corner of the rear yard. Based on rry observations, it is likely that the current movemerd appears to be affecting the loose fill and heavily -fractured sill that Terra Associates etmuntered in their original test pits. was understand that there was originally a small sale. in thL,; area that may have received more fill than elsewhere in the rear yard. amides installing a row of heaviy-reinforced piers across the slide, there are no practit ai md#tods to stabilize this slope movement During our recerd site meeting on April 9.1999, we laid -out the minimum e)dent of this row of piers. If desired, the piers could be extended beyond these limits to stabfma more of the slope's crest. The piers should be spac6d no further ttmn 3 tea! edgefio-edge. Sol arching will rrstain the soil behind the piers below the ground surface, but timber lagging must be added to the piers to avow filing of the depression caused by the landslide. Any back placed behind the lagging should be fre"rairung and compacted. A Mamie - grained pit -run sand and gravel would likely be the most suitable fill material. In the future., when slope movement occurs in front of the piers, it Wit be necessary to add lagging to any portion of the pier that becomes exposed. We recommend the following criteria fardesign of the piers: Active Sat Pressure -- Equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic fod (pd) ading over the center to center pier spacing to a depth of 16 fcct. The active pre4wry does not need to be applied below the 1 5-foot depth. Passive Soil Pressure — Equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf atfing over twice the drilled pier dianvWr bck w tho 'r 5-foat active zone. It appears that the piers could stick up approAmately one foot above the eDdsbng top -of -slope to create a slightly gentler grade behind the bacWlecl lagging. As we have d'rsca,tsssd, this type of a wall is only adequate to retain a -skle Downing in the loose or fractured soils that overlie the hard silt& if a failture surface from future slope movement extends down Into the hard sift; it oauld cause movement or Ware of the pier wall. The only way to prevent this vubyld be to install deeper piers restrained by tieback anchors, which would be significantly more ecpensive. Please call me if you have any questions, c,� Tom and Harr"fyn Degan 15520-75M Pl.VL Edrruwrt_s SO= _•...,..._.__.., y - - """ "- - 2068214334 -> 425 742 01 04 • Page 2 Received: 3/12/99 9:08AM; 4 PAGE ID�206B2 0 ,`MAR—'12-8,9'09:00 FROM: TERRA SOCIATES 2/16 TERRA A Inc +�• ASSOCIATES, Consultants in Geotechnical Erig►neering, Geology " and Environmental Earth Sciences . ly (0 - vt"o+Q t e:. je t N. T 1474 415 - Project No. �'-1474 Mr. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield and Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single Family Residence Lot 1, Lunds Meadowdale Tract 156thStreet Southwest -and 75th West ' Edmonds, Washington. .Dear Mr. Butterfield: We have completed the,geotechnical engineering study you requested for. a single family residence to be constructed on a lot located at 156th Street Southwest •(not open) and 75th Place West in Edmonds; Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of -our study was to assess landslide hazards...on the property and to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in order- provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, and earthwork construction procedures. The scope of our work included test pits, 'laboratory tests on representative soil samples and geotechnical engineering -analyses. We also reviewed existing geotechnical reports including landslide investigation reports, and other information in our files regarding the Meadowdale area... This report presents the findings of our study and summarizes our conclusionand recommendations. Our work is intended to satisfy the requirements for a geotechni •ll checklist Outlined u d by Ordinance 2661. • - However, completion of the .environm environmental. Ordinance is outside the -limits of our services and is not included in the scope of our nity Service Department if. they intend .to work. We recommend that you ask the Commu require completion of an environmental checklist for this project. 12525 Willows Koad, >URE iv 1,- oL,....... 14 el C'1•6 7777 . C.- (A10 011-dZZd . 4erro0Tarr-: Aa riaicc r•rnm Received: *3/12/99 9:08AM; 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; MAR-22-99 l09:01 FROM:TERRA OOCIATES ID:206621* Page 3 PAGE 3/16 Mi. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 SUMMARY The subsurface conditions of the property were explored with one deep test boring and two backhoe test pits. We found the site to be underlain,at depth by hard clay. The clay is overlain by as much as thirty to forty feet of loose to medium dense sandy, silty material, probably landslide debris. Some fill has been placed in the upper areas of the site. The property is believed to be part of a large ancient landslide. The area that failed extends along 75th Place West from Meadowdale County Park southward to about the 165th block and from the bluff on the east -to the shoreline. The original landslide probably occurred several thousand years ago. Parts of this landslide have been active into recent times and possibly are still active. Records indicate that landslides occurred in Meadowdale during the winters of 1946-47,11955-56, and during the• 1960s and 1970s. In 1979, the 40-year record of landslide events in the Meadowdale area was studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. A map that identified landslide hazards and estimated failure probabilities was developed for the entire Meadowdale area. A portion of the map that includes this property is shown on Figure 3. Based on the conditions then existing, Lowe's conclusion was that the probability of landslide failure on most of the property was 35 percent during any 25 year period, and 90 percent at the southwest corner. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as probably the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, in 1980 through 1985, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed around and within the Meadowdale landslide. In 1985, GeoEngineers, Inc. evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in much of the area believed to be most'susceptible to failure. On the subject property, the estimated probability that old slump material might move again within a 25-year period was reduced from 90 percent to 30 percent in the southwest corner and from 35 percent to 10 percent elsewhere. The probability that landslide material may encroach upon the subject property remains at 2 percent. For this property, we agree in general with the landslide hazards assessment in the Lowe report and with the revised occurrence probabilities suggested by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our, opinion, the present risk is low enough to justify construction of the proposed residence. However, the present and all future property owners should be properly informed of the landslide hazards that exist, as required by the City's Ordinance 2661, and accept full responsibility for them. Project No. T 1474 R-eceivecJ: - 3/12/99 9:08AM; 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 4 ID=206621�4 PAGE 4/16 MAR-=]2-99'09:01 FROM: TERRA OCIATES W. Robert Butterfield July 28,1990 Siting the residence on the low -risk area, as proposed, will minimize the landslide risks to the residence, both during and after construction. In addition, we recommend supporting the house on piles that extend below the ancient slide material. By keeping the footprint of the house away from the higher risk area, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period that would affect the proposed house is about 10 percent, according to the evaluation by Geo-Engineers. The following sections of this report describe our explorations and explain our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for the exclusive use of Robert Butterfield and Associates and their representatives. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on the site plan and the preliminary drawings provided us, we understand that the proposed house will have two stories over a daylight basement. The basement excavation is anticipated to be about eight feet in height along the eastern edge of the excavation. The western portion of the basement floor will be above existing grade. Before a building permit can be issued, the Ordinance requires a declaration from the geotechnical engineer that the plans and specifications the city has been asked to approve conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In order to provide this declaration, we must examine the final plans. We recommend that you provide us a copy of the final plans and specifications before they are submitted to the City. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on June 29, 1990. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by drilling one standard penetration test boring to a depth of 54 feet below existing grade. In addition, two test pits were dug with a backhoe to depths of twelve feet below existing grades. The boring was drilled by Drilling Unlimited of Olympia, using a truck -mounted drill. Continuous flight, hollow -stem auger was used to advance and support the borehole. The test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Backhoe Service of Bellevue. The approximate test boring and test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. In the boring, standard penetration tests were performed at five-foot intervals by driving a split -barrel sampler with an outside diameter of 2.0 inches using a 140-pound hammer. falling 30 inches. The results of these tests are the N-values reported on the boring log. To allow monitoring of groundwater levels, an observation well was installed in the borehole. Project No. T-1474 Morro Nn •2 - •Received': 3/12/99 9:09AM; 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 5 ID-2066*34 PAGE 5/16 MAV712-99 09,02 FROM:TERR*SOCIATES Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28,1990 The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit and the test boring, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance witj the Unified Soil Classification system described on Figure 4. The logs of the test pits and test boring are included in this report as Figures 5 and 6. Representative soil samples obtained from the boring and the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured, and is reported on the test boring and test pit logs. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The property is located on 75th Place West, north of North • Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. It is a nearly rectangular shaped lot with 91 feet of frontage on 75th Place West and an average depth of 175 feet. It overlooks Puget Sound and abuts the Burlington Northern Railroad on the west property line. The ground surface of the site slopes downward from the street, first moderately and then steeply, to the railroad. Topographic relief is on the order of seventy to eighty feet.- Vegetation consists of dense underbrush on the steep portion of the slope and several older deciduous trees which have been recently topped. Subsurface Portions of the eastern half of the site have been filled. Fragments of; asphalt pavement are visible on the ground surface near the boring location. Approximately six feet of loose fill was found in the southernmost test pit. Underlying the fill is landslide material consisting of loose to moderate, and occasionally stiff, sandy silt to sandy, clayey silt. The landslide material is believed to extend to a depth of nearly thirty-eight feet at the boring location_ Underlying these soils is a hard, dark gray, clay encountered to the maximum explored depth of 53.5 feet. -Groundwater No groundwater seepage was encountered in the boring or either of the test pits. A ground water observation well was installed in the test boring to monitor the static groundwater level. On July 11, 1990 the water level was measured at a depth of 53 feet, approximately 6 inches deep in we1L mof the borehole. It is quite It should be noted that groundwatb1 leeat Ls can this water condensed in the observation vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. Project No. T-1474 paan Nn d Recelved% 3/12/99 9:09AM; 4.12068214334 -> 425 742 O1 Page 6 •IAR=12�99 09=02 FROM=TERRA SOCIATES I D : 2068434 PAGE 6/ 16 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28,1990 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS neral Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as planned, provided our recommendations are incorporated into design and construction of the project. The risk of landslide activity, both large-scale and small-scale, is now low enough to justify development of this site. As required by the City's Ordinance 2661, present and all future owners of this property should be fully informed regarding the residual landslide risks, both large-scale and small-scale, and their purchase agreements should require them to accept full responsibility for these risks. The property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Two categories of possible landslides were identified on this property, and as shown on Figure 3: 1) avalanches of slope debris from upslopeareas; 2) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first category was considered to have relatively low risk, only a two percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. On this site, the possibility that a failure in the second category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent in the southwest corner and about 35 percent elsewhere. After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater from the Meadowdale landslide area. In 1985 GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrence probabilities of 90 percent and 35 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively. By siting the house as far north on the lot as possible, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period which would affect the house is reduced to about 10 percent, according to the GeoEngineers evaluation of the Meadowdale slide area. In addition, we recommend supporting the residence on deep foundations that transfer the structural loads through the fill and loose, disturbed soils to the underlying hard clay. Deep foundations will virtually eliminate the risk of significant differential settlement that could occur if spread footings were placed on fill disturbed soils. Additionally, deep foundations will provide some protection in the event that localized areas of shallow instability were to occur between the house and the railroad. However, a pile foundation will not provide protection against deep-seated earth movement similar to those that have occurred on this and other sites within the Meadowdale landslide area. Project No. 'T'-1474 Paee No. 5 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 7 Received:' 3/12/99 9:10AM; PAGE 7/16 MAR ! 1 2-59 09 = 02 FROM : TERRAOSOC I ATES I D - 20662 #4 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28,1990 Deep foundations for this residence could be either augercast concrete piles or driven timber piles. We recommend auger cast piles. Pile driving in residential neighborhoods often elicits complaints of damage, real or imagined. For this reason, we do not often encourage use of driven piles in residential areas. if desired, we can provide design criteria and driving requirements for timber piles. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing this site. AnLyeicc St Concrete Piles Augercast piles should be installed with continuous flight, hollow stem auger equipment Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as the auger is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawal should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a fourteen inch diameter pile with five feet of penetration into the hard clay, an allowable capacity of twenty tons may be used. When wind or seismic loads are included, the allowable load can be increased by one -thud. We can provide capacities for different pile diameters and embedment lengths, if required. Based on limited test boring information, we estimate that average pile lengths will be in the range of thirty to forty feet. The piles should be reinforced their entire length. We estimate that total settlement of single piles will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied. The remaining post -construction settlement would be realized as the live -loads are applied.. We estimate differential settlements over any portion of the structures should be less than about one -quarter inch. We recommend that the installation of all piles be observed by a qualified technician who can fully evaluate the contractor's operation, collect and interpret installation data, verify bearing stratum elevations, and who would understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's equipment and procedures be reviewed by Terra Associates, Inc. prior to the start of construction. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures acting against sides of grade beams, pile caps and other buried structure, and by lateral loads transferred to the tops of piles. We suggest you develop lateral load resistance by deepening the basement walls so that they penetrate the native soils. Passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot acting on the downhill portion of the basement wall that penetrates into the ground. In addition, an allowable lateral load of one kip per pile may be used. if the needed lateral load resistance cannot be developed in this manner, we will be pleased to provide you with supplementary information. Project No. T 1474 Dn n_ TIT^ 4 ReceYV&C1:. 3/12/99 9:10AM• 2058214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 8 MAl.Z-42-99.09:03 F20M:TE22A*OCIAT£S ID:20662104 PAGE 6/16 I& Robert Butterfield July 29,1990 Lateral loads may also be transferred to the ground by using batter piles to develop tension or pullout resistance. For computing resistance, a friction of 500 pounds per square foot acting around the perimeter of the pile may be used. No friction should be assumed in the portion of the pile within the slide debris. Ground Floors We recommend framing the lower floors over a crawlspace. Crawlspaces should have vapor barriers. Slab -on -grade floors should not be used in living areas where pile foundations are used. The garage floor may be a slab -on -grade supported on native soils in areas of cut or on structural fill not more than five feet deep. To provide a capillary break, we recommend placing at least four inches of free -draining fill, such as pea gravel, beneath the slabs. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a plastic vapor barrier at least ten mils thick should be placed on the gravel. An inch or two of sand may be used to protect the membrane during construction. Permanent Retaining and Foundation Wails Retaining and foundation walls, including basement walls, should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls free to rotate should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot. Walls restrained at the top from free movement should be designed for the above load, plus a uniform stress of 100 pounds per square foot. The above pressures assume a maximum wall height of twelve feet and that no surcharge loads will occur due to adjacent footings or other applied loads. It is also assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall. If surcharges are applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be bacldlIled with compacted granular soils that meets the criteria for structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Perforated pipe drains should be installed at the base of the walls, as descriiW in the Drainage section below. Excavation and Slopes Excavation slopes should be constructed in accordance with the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four feet may be made vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four feet, temporary cuts should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:verticaI). All permanent cut slopes into dense native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1. Fill slopes should not be made steeper than 2:1. Where unretained fills are placed, the existing ground should be stripped and benched, and thefill compacted. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be provided with appropriate vegetation to reduce erosion. Project No. T-1474 %an Nn. 7 2068214334 -1- 425 742 01Page 9 Received: 3/12/99 9:10AM; 4 PAGE 9/16 •.MAfZ-12-99 09=03 FROM=TERRA�SOCIATES ID:206B20 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28,1990 Drainage We recommend the use of footing drains at the base oft mohes o£ entwient nes and retaining washed walls. The drains should be surrounded by at least six rock wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). Roof drains should be separately tightlined until into the storm drain system. We understand that stormwater may be discharged into the railroad right-of-way with Burlington Northern's approval. Under no circumstances should storm water be infiltrated into the ground or discharged onto the steep slope above the railroad. Site Preparation and Grading Building and pavement areas should be stripped of any vegetation, topsoil, loose surficial soils and any other deleterious material unsuitable as subgrade for the building or pavement - We recommend that any soils to be imported for use as structural fill be evaluated by Terra Associates, Inc. before they are brought onto the site. For import fills, we suggest that no more than five percent of the soil fraction passing the 3/4-inch screen should be finer than the No. 200 sieve. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal layers and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent relative compaction as determined by A.STM -D-698- The fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The allowable thickness of the fill layer will depend on the material used, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the layer. In no case should the layers exceed twelve inches in loose thickness. No fill should be placed on this site in any area where the existing slope is steeper than 20 degrees. Additional Services To observe the contractor's compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. These services should include: 1) observing installation of all piles; 2) observing all earthwork operations and the placement and compaction of any structural fill that may be required; 3) observing all slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement; 4) performing field density tests on compacted fills and backfills; 5) observing and testing the subgrade under pavement Project No. T 1474 Page No. R _,_.. 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 10 Received: 3/12/99 9:11AM; PAGE 10/16 09 : 04 FROM =TERRA SOC I ATES ID=20662#4 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 LIMYTATIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from a deep test boring and two test pits. However, subsurffue conditions at locations not explored may differ from those observed in the test boring or test pits. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. CLOSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Fide 2 Vicini Ma Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report Figure 4 Soil Classification System Figure 5 Test Boring Log Fie 6 Test Pit Logs We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Dennis B. Green Project Engineer Anil Putail, P.E. President DBG/AB:tc Project No. T-1.474 D--- AT,. 11 Received: 3/12/99 9.11AM; 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 11 MAR-12-99 OS:04 FROM:TERRISSSOCIATES ID:2068#34 PAGE 11/16 l PUGET .S_QUND- MEA This figure copied from THOMAS BROS MAPS, Snohomish County, Washington, 1990. TERRA Vicinity Map go, Meadowdaie Residence ASSOCIATES Edmonds, -Washington eotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 1 s Received: 3/12/99 9'72AM• 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; page 12 ID:2066434 [1A2-12;99 09:04 FROM:TERR SOCIATES PAGE 12/16 `o D a 2 E m c D o C JO Q �y Gi !yy6 J 0 > IL c m� d moo 10 m E N m d W IL U. V O V% H W 1so M tf2 -L-� 141 112 10 102 ; 100 too 96 02 go m / 5 � � • -�-"�-�' -:=:= � � C6 to W 1 `_ may!' •. - _ _ �J Ba 10 � 82 so 76 ��/ LLL.JJJ 76 TA 84 72 60 76 -F 70 66 72 .'�' --� ram•—� ..%� �� �� µ " -r -�' ��� 60 r-� so N E L t C 7 H O Received 3/12/99 9'12AM 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 13 ¢1A}2- 1 2 ;$9 09 : 05 FROM : TERR 50C I ATES ID:2066*34 PAGE 13/16 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS :, 0_ , 4A Renewed mowoments in old stump material 2 2C Avalanchcs of encroaching landslide material 3B Dcbris slidcs in materials that have not - previously failed \ she estimated probability : 2 �. • \` 1 os �. SITE The two trailing digits indicate p i - _ , _ -• -•- o('un=ce, percent, during a 25-year Period i�in l U'1 'ibis figurefrom Figure 5 is roPlad the final import on the Meadogrdalc Area Landslide Hazards Investigation a' I�L- by Roger Lois Associa les Inc,1979 e� �/ i ( •, 3 '02' ,� all • i _ N 1 SCakr 1'a300' 2 f -- r�I 1 • I r � Ir �. Dfl y- 1 t 3662 • �'•M Sf r 4A•35' 4A25 4A 2 r o 2 0 �q \ LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT :Y:•�: TERRA MEADOWDALE RESIDENCE ,. . ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7190 Figure 3 206B214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 14 Received: 3/12/99 9:12AM; PACE 14/16 =206B34 _ ATES vv =v_ ID I%JIN J }2 rIA— 1 2,g9 09 = 05 FROM = TERR&SOC, LETTER GRAPH. MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean' GW o; ; :Q,':o. Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, GRAVELS Gravels =`•�; ": little or no fines. O More than 50°/, of (less than GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, 5% fines). little or no fines. co C', coarse fraction GM Siity gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, 0 ro is larger than Gravels non -plastic fines. Z'i`n No. 4 sieve. with tines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. 'plastic � fines. D- o aE .y Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, CD 0 p SANDS Sands little or no fines. W c N (less than SPfines. Poorlyaded anus or gravelly sands, z More than 50% of 5% fines). no nes c coarse fraction SM Silt -silt mixtures, y sands, ,sand - 0 C is smaller than Sands non -plastic fines. U �° — with fines. Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, No. 4 sieve. SC VIA plastic fines. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flow, cn SILTS AND CLAYS ML Ailly or clayey fine sands or clayey sll!s with O CUr) 1 Liquid ('unit is less than 50%_ o CL o cc CVDL w z oz E c� AND CLAYS U' `ELiquid MH lr CO +. is greater than 50%. CHN o OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT I (novelly clays, sandy claysesilty clays, lean i�l����'i► Organic silts and organic clays of low ►���i����� plasticity. %inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. - Inorganic clays of high plasticity; fat clays. I Organic clays of medium to high plasticey, orrganic silts. Peat and other highly'organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS• 2' OUTER DIAMETER . SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING,-tsf 2.4' INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER qU PENETROMETER READING, tsf SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL• LIQUID LIMIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical COnSultants PI• PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot I Soil Classification System Meadowdale Residence Edmonds, Washington Pro!. No. 1474 Date 7/90 ' Figure 4 -Received: MA.R- 1 2-9 9 3/12/99 9:13AM; 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 15 09:06 FROM=TERROSOCIATES ID:206803-4 PACE 15/16 a nc•e i`v ed^. 3/12/99 9:13AM; MA' 2068214334 -> 425 742 0104; Page 16 • i COUGH LINPO TERLUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CORPORATION Structural Calculations for the Degan Shoring Wall Tryg Winquist Construction June 3,1999 I.. Project Number S99-0901-01 EXPIRES 7/25/99 Prepared by: Kyle Buslach COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CORPORATION SOLDIER PILE DE516N (GANTILEI/ERED PILE) . FILE NAME: =(--,kN Z • EAR PILE 5PAGIN6= A' oc. BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION o cV O v- ksf ' ks w z I x 53 - 1F�-Ae� Fb zo, A-r, p =,09 I PROJECT DESIGNED BY: IL14 DATE: 67."_� ..A MAT AIA AI WAIT / �I �/ nurrVcn tlV. CUM Af I COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY TaAus�-olzat w 2-1 S7 m COVcrr-r—r-- Pt U--- W Z1 � s.o � s ' o.. G --> usF- z¢o T>iey--S 2(")1Z- �• 9 A 2t,q = I-ZO in 2 �y d t Zi o 2 Z" 77 Project: 1-�EGKO 004I G Designed By Date Project No: Client: TAN C._ Checked By Sheet of Z - ...r..��� .....��...... nrwrr. r .A#A no4M4 .O.OACMA9JIAR(1. C• 9nrlld'3_SRQi COUGHLINODIRTER LUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY S•7000 � = 3, (o09,9.q 7P �9 ¢ 7r = /6 286" ¢ Foe'=r�"a5 = rr 39 76/ "¢ &,+ Z4" = S8 7// wo 6 Ps '4 = /4 3 3; 2) 7,/0 6 Project: IiF-GAN '5P?012(NCv Designed By: 4-G6 Date 6, 1'9� Project No: Client: T W4� Checked By: Sheet of 717 PINE RTRFFT . CI IITF 4M . CFATf F WA QR1 nl . P. 9nAnd3-nAAn . F. 9Q6/343-5691 O O 0 0 0 Y 0 +X 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 24 in dia.m. Code: ACI 318-95 Units: English Run axis: About X-axis Run option: Investigation Slenderness: Not considered Column type: Structural Bars: ASTM A615 Date: 06/07/99 Time: 13:09:41 !'WP (kip) 1600 M PCACOL V3.00 (PCA 1999) - Licensed to: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc., Seattle, WA File: C:\-PROJE-I\KLB.COL Project: Soldier Pile (cantilever) Column: Pile Engineer: KLB fc = 4 ksi fy = 60 ksi Ag = 452.389 in^2 Ec = 3605 ksi Es = 29000 ksi As = 13.00 in^2 fc = 3.4 ksi e_rup = Infinity Xo = 0.00 in e u = 0.003 in/in Yo = 0.00 in Beta1 , 0.85 Clear spacing = 2.73 in Confinement: Tied phi(a) = 0.8, phi(b) = 0.9, phi(c) = 0.7 13 #9 bars Rho = 2.87% Ix = 16286 inA4 ly = 16286 inA4 Clear cover = 3.38 in IE 0 .P (kip) 1600 0 0 0 O O O y O 0 +x O O O 0 0 0 O 0 24 in diam. Code: ACI 318-95 Units: English Run axis: About X-axis Run option: Investigation Slenderness: Not considered Column type: Structural Bars: ASTM A615 Date: 06/07/99 Time: 13:06:52 PCACOL V3.00 (PCA 1999) - Licensed to: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc., Seattle, WA File: C:\—PROJE—I\KLB.COL Project: Soldier Pile (cantilever) Column: Pile Engineer: KLB fc = 4 ksi fy = 60 ksi Ag = 452.389 inA2 Ec = 3605 ksi Es = 29000 ksi As = 12.64 inA2 fc = 3.4 ksi e_rup = Infinity Xo = 0.00 in e u = 0.003 in/in Yo = 0.00 in Beta1,= 0.85 Clear spacing = 2.17 in Confinement: Tied phi(a) = 0.8, phi(b) = 0.9, phi(c) = 0.7 16 #8 bars Rho = 2.79% Ix = 16286 inA4 ly = 16286 inA4 Clear cover = 3.38 in Its] C O U G H L I N- P O R T E R- L U N D E E N Pc CONSULTING STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGR. CORP. engr. proj. no. S 0 L D I E R P I L E A N A L Y S I S P R 0 G. ( 6/ 7/99) Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECT: degan res PILE ID: p-1 4 CZ •� STEEL SECTION ID: w2lx83 MIN.ANC.LEN.(LD.ZONE)(ft) = .00 STEEL YIELD STRESS Fy (ksi) = 50.00 NO LOAD ZONE OFFSET (ft) = .00 SPACING BETWEEN PILES (ft) = 4.00 NO LOAD ZONE ANGLE (deg) = 25.00 BASE HOLE DIAMETER (in) = 24.00 NO LOAD ZONE MX.PROJ.(ft) =450.00 DEPTH OF EXCAVATION (ft) = 15.00 SKIN FRICT. ON PILE (ksf) = .75 ADDED DEPTH TO FIX. PT.(ft) = .00 PILE TIP BEAR. CAP. (ksf) = 40.00 NO. OF TIE BACK ANCHORS = 0 PILE TIP EMBEDMENT (ft) =.20.00 ITERATIVE METHOD USED YES PASSIVE TRIB.WIDTH FACTOR = 2.00 SHEAR SURCHARGE LOAD (kips) = .00 SUB -GRADE MOD.WIDTH FACT. = 1.00 MOMENT SURCHARGE LD. (k-ft) = .00 ALLOW. OVER -STRESS FACTOR = 1.00 S 0 I L L 0 A D S U M M A R Y A B 0 V E E X C A V A T I O N ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOIL START END START END TRIBUTARY EQUIV. LOAD LOAD DEPTH DEPTH PRESS. PRESS. WIDTH FORCES NO. TYPE (feet) (feet) (ksf) (ksf) (feet) (kips) ---- 1 ------- ACTIVE ------ .00 ------ 15.00 ------ .00 ------ ------ .75 4.00 ------ 22.50 TOTAL FORCE = 22.50 S O I L L 0 A D S U M M A R Y B E L O W E X C A V A T I O N ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOIL START END START END TRIBUTARY EQUIV. LOAD LOAD DEPTH DEPTH PRESS. PRESS. WIDTH FORCES NO. TYPE (feet) (feet) (ksf) (ksf) (feet) (kips) ---- 2 ------- PASSIVE ------ 17.00 ------ 35.00 ------ .00 ------ ------ -5.40 4.00 ------ -194.40 F.S. associated with Passive Pressure = 1.50 TOTAL FORCE = -194.40 S O I L S U B G R A D E M 0 D U L U S I N P U T S U M M A R Y ------------------------------------------------------------------------ START ENDING START ENDING TRIBUTARY ZONE DEPTH DEPTH MODULUS MODULUS WIDTH NO. (feet) (feet) (kcf) (kcf) ------- (feet) ------- ---- 1 -------------- 17.00 35.00 ------- 1000.00 1000.00 2.00 5 C'O U G H L I N- P O R T E R- L U N D E E N A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGR. CORP. i i engr. proj. no. S 0 L D I E R P I L E A N A L Y S I S P R 0 G . ( 6/ 7/99) Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECT: degan res PILE ID: p-1 AXIAL PILE LOADS ------------------------------- APPLIED TIE BACK TOTAL LOAD LOAD LOAD (kips) (kips) (kips) ------ ------ ------ .00 .00 .00 AXIAL PILE CAPACITY ( OK ) ------------------------------- SKIN END TOTAL FRICTION BEARING CAPACITY (kips) (kips) ------ (kips) ------ ------ 94.25 125.66 219.91 MINIMUM DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT REQUIRED FOR STABILITY OF THE CANTILEVER PILE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MINIMUM DEPTH OF PILE EMBEDMENT BELOW DREDGE LINE (F.S.= 1) = 16.56 (ft) AXIAL , SHEAR , MOMENT & D E F L E C T. S U M M A R Y ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEGMENT LENGTH AXIAL SHEAR CHK M 0 M E N T S (k-ft) DEFL. ------ --------- No. type ------ (feet) ------- (kips) --------- (kips) ------------------------- (top) (interior) (bot) (inch) 1 CANT. 15.00 .00 22.50 OK .00 -14.06-112.50 2.09 2 EMBED 20.00 .00 29.28 OK -112.50 -232.87 .00 .61 A.I.S.C. CODE COMBINED STRESS CHECK - STEEL PILE SECTION: w2lx83 +---------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+ SEGMENT STABILITY CRITERIA STRESS CRITERIA No.type I -.( 1.6-la ) (Cm = 1) ( 1.6-lb or 1.6-2 * ) +---------------------------------.--------------------------- 1 CANT. I 000 + .263 = .263* OK 2 EMBED I .000 + .545 = .545*. OK -----+------------------------------+ V COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY s�r�v�1 2-4y0 C_orj uLF_rE —\3 P I LE 4 is = -lwoej � J e 4 ' 'vac - FWSSUIRZ T'rZ-i A-r-FlD 4-1,1 Z LA6Cn/'v6 CFl W_ IN L� CAE-OTF-G ld f`1 I e-A IL- FN 61 iN E fL�S t 1 l 11 P I LF- 9L-F-VAI ►I► � I r;{ Project: 6I-N S14024616 WkLL Designed ByAR Date L GJ _ Project No: Sqq -Q Client: TW G Checked By: Sheet of COUGHLINP&TERLUNDEEM LAGGING DESIGN w = 0.375 klf D = 24 in bf = 16 in a = 4 in L= 5 ft Fb = 850 psi F„ = 75 psi Cf= 1.1 Cr„ = 1.15 CD = 1 MMAX = w (L2 - (2a)2) 8 MMAX = 1.15 k-ft SIREQ'D MMAX = Fb(Cr)(Cru)(CD) '3 SIREQ'D= 12.85 in w = 501L PRE55URE, (GEOTEGH MAY DE(,REA5E LOADING DUE TO ARCHING, UP TO 50%), LOAD PER LAGGING WIDTH AT BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION D = DIAMETER OF HOLE Q = 0-bf 2 bf = FLANGE WIDTH L = PILE 5PAGING - bF STRE55 INGA�E5 51ZE ((F) 4 FLAT U5E FAGTOR (Igg4 UBC. TABLE 23-I-A 1) (FOOTNOTE5 545) LAGGING MEMBER Q (NO. 2 OR BETTER) Cfu 2xb, 3xb 1.3 1.15 2xb, 3xb 1.2 1.15 2x10, 3x10 1.1 1.2 2x12, 3x12 1.0 1.2 4xb, 4xb 1.3 1.05 4x10 1.2 1.1 412 (MOST EGONOMI( AL) 1.1 1.1 VMA" - w (L - 2a) 2 DURATION OF LOAD FACTOR: (Igg4 UBG, 2304.3.4) (Gp) UP TO 2 MO..... 1.15 UP TObMO..... 1.12 VMAX = 0.81 k H FIR #2 ..... Fb = 850psi F„ = 15psi D FIR #2 ..... Fb = 815psi F„ = g5psi AIREQ'D 3 VMAX 5 in' Ain' = 2 Fv (CD) 412 '545' 23 3q.4 412 'ROUGH 5AWN' 21.5 44.1 s bx12 '545' 5b.1 61A AIREQ'D= 16.25 �n bx12 'ROUGH 5AWN' 64.1 b1.6 (NOTE: 'ROUGH 5AWN' LUMBER 15 LARGER THAN TYPICAL '545' LUMBER PROJECT , jJl PROJECT NO. CLIENT 7-t JC DESIGNED BY: DATE: 6/3/99 CHECKED BY: - SHEET of 7 COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY ;"T L=lily rIL fit I11=III -yllr= r- e SE-tTlD0 Project: bP-GAW W ALL. Designed By: Date f,o- & Cl y Project No: SA�•D9171-b Client: I-W L Checked By: Sheet of W c7 ' o F=-Cn m z z iLriH ~ M z 0 co W O z m m m z W W U W D W Cn W O D F- = CC Q O O 0 LL U Q F- LL Z►+F- M LLN m z 0 aJ z W O 0 m> 0 N LL W' J Q J N S O Z>- W M m m m X r 0 S J S Q W F- =OLL U m W W O Q O F- wUm m Cn U N O a ❑ S LL Cl) (n WB:: LL) ❑ F- m 0 O Z Cn Y O S ^ Z O z C/) w o a z U) O F- N U F- F- v) LO w (D �} h Q ZSZ N ^ z UQ QO)0 O F- m m W F- 0 W Q Co O W r= "' ^ ►•+ O Q m Z Z O w •• CO Cn ❑ 5 -., N I--• S W W N O ❑ N F- W O r M Q Z H U F- m m J U m W z F- F- W C9 CC w m ❑ F- N W J Q O cn Q r N W m O U 0 Z Q J U J Q '7 S m m m O H LL Z •, , F- 0 m < z HS O U) O LOCO mC.) 0zQ !� ;Li Q U O w Q O O OZXQOc f� U i'Ci o U) V) ar rnZ V)OM UCC M :r. .... N CD J O Z J O L] Q - U m Z O N LL z W❑ W ❑O J LL z S Cl) 0E-0 LL a C') CC m WM Q Q ZF- M}QH W m W F-OQ CO J❑ - mF- Q U Cl) LL C7 cn z 0) O Z 3F-W N Cn X Q O Z d O O M HUZ Cn aQ oz O 0) F-Cn N zw W O '�. Cn X ¢ W W a H N Q) U W U Cl) 0 W F- F- O Cr m zB:: I r W J Z Z W w O '�:' �-2:•" •• O Cn O a C)O Q Q co W- cc ¢ cc: H cr ?. Cn wzm N U Hm ❑ H UUwaaLL CD 2 O F-0Cn z S J JJ F- O Q z (O W N U O Z Q F- CC N m z JQOZU II Z ❑ U QN Uw ❑ aB::Uow 4 m LU O O S J z Ct U N n. 4- �e� ' Q Cn O F- Cl) .J F- O 0 Q F- N CC Y Z ¢ w a F- Q 0O W H m m ❑ CC 0 w ONJ - cn m W w z =O Q Q f- F z 3:z W cc cc o Itt '4 W F- m Q ❑ O LU cn z W F- z ❑ ❑ O a O 0 O LL W U N W QLL W L F- ❑ z S HJ z W U cn w¢mF-Z� H❑ ;'+ Z z O F- C7 N LL O Q F- z J Cn F- a CD Q H F- en Q ,.r-+•eve �r� a O QO►•+ W za N= Q QJW W CD N am U F- a Cn n W LL m Cn W Z ❑ O O Q .J m CO Q F- J- m= U Y S Q N 0 O z (D W W _j 0 > (n H 0 U) cr z W w F- = m O W m N Z O S Q O U O O W Cn0E-N O m C 0 F- L) t7C Q O U X 03: 2 z co ^ LL Z F- N z O Z Z Q N- Q W >• z O .J i s>x.P•i� z W CnLL ❑ z W �0 m Q 2LO QOOmJO (OJ � o o z =M ❑L-L o m z UF-za Q �x Q U W zF- LL O N0LL LL Cl) OCo II = O W W W U Q Q Z 2 NCD W Z O N ❑ W OQ JZ0cnm Cn A -jUwQ z OJ W x z m W a ❑QQZ W 4-Cn Q OS O W 2 ZO UN UHF W> N-4 _I CD i S'r = O F-- CO Z N F (D NLL z N(D LLa U QCl) O CD0LUF-QJ JaJ zmzQUO -•Z 01-4 ¢ LL O 0 W F- m N N Q Z CL cn Q a H H N LL CO O N N Q S W U -j N O S a LL F- ❑ Q �^^'? z �•-� F- U F--' m H U) LU ❑ O Q U Q z Z Cl) W m O m H W O W W CL ❑ Z O ^ Q N Z ❑ O a ❑ m ❑ H Cn z Cl)Q -W W¢ F- F- N ¢ W i F Cl)z a m cc F- It U m 0 z co 0< ¢ w U Cl) z0 CL JN m= z ❑ LL W mmF- 0 O z0U >- ❑ JJ O W Q W II ❑ mOOZ F- 'a3 ::..., :': '• m F- O N N F- --j F- W W m F- W Q N = F- LL m J Q F- W Cn U N W U [L Z U W Q ^ U7 Z Cn F-NN LL C) LU U)O ccw > >- CL W ❑mm rO Z N00 ¢ WZ W 0Cn Z4- JmLLZ (D H.-•• �' . g O ❑zCn m aN mO W¢ z O 0 QF-OQU-m ¢S 4 U ZO U)0 Oz Zz O ULLF- Nm Ow U 000D J zz F- F+►+ U 0 mQO❑ N 20 U Z J N w >- U 0 Q - O W a F- J m J F- Cn a z ❑ N Q U ¢ Z m = ❑ S W F- w z w w a Cn CD w F- W J z m cn LL ❑ U LU F- z Q O O" w a Q N �i`''^-•a= `CC zF-Cnm m mQLLI F- W W Z0O m 0>zD ¢ NUNm O L)0 zJ J❑ F- 0zN CD NCn O FX O NQ W F- Cl)Z Q W C F- ❑Z ,--' .- (D Cn a WB: J Z U S U Q W F- m m O N F- Z m w HZ NX LU Q=C7 N CD mH0 00 W W W O �F- .� "•'j Cl) O X w w } -j S U z CD w z •• 0 co a N J= m LL O W N ❑F- w S Z zF-¢ m N O W H F-F- Z J NN S C7 I Uz w a O F- H F- U W Cr 0>•CL N= ZSO 0 z LL N J O Cn F- O U) m a W N U m¢ a F- m w 0 F- F- z >- <�.'; ❑ J LL CD z Y z W w O F- 0 z a❑ z ❑ U U O J a w Q❑ N Z O m W CD F- S CD O C7 W W W W Q U J W N a 0 �t Cn Z W¢ Q ^ m m M= J ^ m m ¢ 2� Cn m U Cn '3: W W O J W O N W F- U a F- J U 0)0) LL Q OZ W U=w w J LL W J U zmCOZ JN .., Z C) N m W m W Q F- N = J W •• w X Q -1 ❑ N O J O Q LL r Q ^ W OUm = LU J LL CL F- N m = z m F-0 N Q LL z J Q L) mZ= 0<J CO F- coL) •O3 X > w 0 0 m mJ ❑ ''wi N F- NCO J F- w¢-- m z 0 m w Q OF- m wQ cocnQ ^N In /y 3: m JON J cn o Jm J o -10 N W O z F- 'Q` F-Q O > CL mF-0 F-w=0mCD F- z z W Cn H m F- JU w Q Cl) F- Q LL CL O m Q W W J Q Q O z F- 0 z J OHXQCO W W cn F- cc •X'` =Qm Sm UO NCC U m 0 CC com =.' �.��.�•; :, �.�" Cn Jw Cn O m w o Cn W a W z ••aQ F- O QN LL X ww J -� = J Q Z" X O ti Q` Q O 1 Q W N I 1 cn U ¢ Z m Q W cn Q Q W F- ►-L U 0 ~ mwSm m0 zz❑ Oa =' ^ U S� M W ZMO Z ti CC U O� F- a O F- 0" w J CD ►-� ICn 0 J U W O H U w F- F- N > cn z z W w U m Q z M LL U z ;:. *• W' F-a UCnzm U0 F-W0 > W Wa IF+ _ �.. F-W N HmQWOF- U m0 oN �='. ¢z < 0 0 w mz LL ¢w mCC 0mm w a F-N NF- Cl) Urn JO wrn C� wF-m zoC.) mw❑ NF-m • 3 Q LLF- w+ 0 F-Hzz F-H aJa J F- F- 0) =Z, USU MUOCLwm za �.1 JJ _j z��N 0000 zO 00 Cl) JQ z¢ NJ F- =Or W' ON Or U)Z W Up`. - ZU OLLWHF 0zm wcc >z NW LliU V: Q o U¢=z Uw N=z ❑F- �= o C7 �o IN V.: UOW =F-wQw0 Iva F- m a m U mx IW co I❑ Cn W Im ICn Q I= F r N (n Nr LO (O ti CO O � WW n cc -i Q F- H W co z 3rn o m W U m a Q } r co O p LLI ~ 3 N .. Cn Cr N T O � co = LL. CL J M i Q Q W m W H co z CL LU Q H crQ ►z-� Z J U �p C7C7 It Q W C7M J W I--• W C7 = Z Z N m Z W Q Cl) H Z LL1 0 O H H = O Q H H Cn F-- F- J Cr F- Cn W H p H Q J COCn H W J = M CD SU Q Cn UQ Q C7 }S Q O J W CO F- W ¢. CL w U W CD W F- F- = H x ac O H(L C7 C..) W" -iQ= H U)C, C.) M Q W z �Cn x LC) z >Z JF-J W W QH W Q F- O I` Q -i = F- H W W F- LL F- M Z 0Cn Cr CC p OU Q ZCrmCnCr U Z►•4 J ZLLJ Q Q 11 Cr > W CO W W H Q :3F-J0(7 Q HCC W 0 0 zF- F- W WCLU) U 0ZQHz OC }= Z > U } 0H0 QJ Z z W F-F-W = J O O Q LL. U J z W S H 0 O J J o U z U F- CL W F- F- Q Cn Q >- (D F- C1 W W CL H Q U Q O W J U mU CO 0 = Q mZCn0H •DNJ Q O 00 0 H Z W O pMW OF- HLLI Cn0 W OH LL0 CL U [C W Cl) �-+ F- W z = CO z Cn Q Cr W m Q Cr W rr F- CL ai Cl) m CL o z =) Cl) F- W 0 F- W CL 0 O z Cn F- 0 (nz Q 0 U HzCn0(n JZ= S z0 O CL J o W F- CC 0 W Q oH- JO mU W W Z _L X LO > W J C7 F- F- F- 7 > Q Cr co Q O W m 7- H J W U Cn CO H Cl) O W O m 0 co = Z O m H F- LU p O O F- H LL Cr J Q F- O J (n 0 m H 0 C.) -i LL Cr II Q3 H 0 W LL CL W 0JH ►•.HX W 0 CI- W 0 3 Cn J F- Q x 0 �a > Cr M W Cn CO (n Cr W C7 m 0 O z m m Q O Q Cr 0 CZ) Z F X 0 F- o U Q LL- Q Z F- Z LL W x W (n O Q z U H W F- F- H H = M 0 O Z= W H Q C4 F- Z o= H J Cr CO z 0 0 F- Cr 0 Z W HF- W z 3F- W O O JU U OJ Qo0> W QF- W Q F- W H m Q co Cn Cr O Z Z Z H m U Q Cr > Cn • Z F- LU Cn CL Cn F- Q C.7 W Q Cr J O. Cr z W O J H J [r U� W Cn W O Z O O JJ WOx W Oo-< m W J W Z Cr W W m OOHO O QJ=F-N U) C-) Q F-Ct m U Q CL Q F- Z J x Z> W W O Q F- m z= _ CO Z = H Cn Cr Z J F- Q Q CO U F- Z 3 C7 z O LL Q W F- Cn OQ Cn 0 cc 0= J H U Q H CnzM OpmU l` z O H Z m Q 3 Cn Cr J Cr W H H LL W O W Q¢ I Q LL m C7 Cr ^ = W m O CL 0 0 x 0 LL o F- X W m O J z H W N Cn OJO LU CDZ 000E- LL W F- O 0 M F- W H Cr O W Cr _I H Q 0 m W Q LL Cn J F- Z W CD U Z W Q X Z J CL LL Z m CL .J O .J F- H Q LL LL Q .__1 Cl) O F- Z O-It O _L Q Q Z = F- 2 W W Q 3 Q U Cn Z 3 H H p Z -1 F• H F- 0< CD LU M W S = W C HO NU 2 W F- CrWOCn J W CO Z: Cn=H> 0 W SF- CnH 007 C7 a J H F-m Q OJH W QCn ZW ZO W Q =LU=F- > F-Z z Q O J Cn H > JL••' Cr x Hm OSSU rL=F- O Cn W H H W O O Q J Q W Q U= Cn O H H X F- L Z F- Cr 2 F- U F Y LL z m J U m F- LLI p F- W W F- H g W C) F- Q z = Q Cr Cl) CL O Q X Cn F- W N m C7 Q 3 H W U W Cr O U O Q Q W Cr m W= W J Z O U W W Q O m C7 F- Z W W m O LL H LL U S H= F- Cn J H LL O J F- J Z Z J H z H F- CO W W z0 z F- LL- Q J Q CL CL H W -i WHXH "m0= Q CL H U C] H W 0 H =} CL c- CC Q Q n O Q m W m CL N W O 0 W W z 0 � z Cr z O Cn J LL U = Cr m Cl) m = F- W CL U J Cn Cr m U QF- W H F- Cn 000 W z mO O p CnF- W JQW J M Q x 0 Cn = Z F- O U O W } W O m J Q W z J F- Cr LL O x W CD 0 W o M H Q U CD W W x Cn Cn O F- J m z Q Cr O Cr W Cn ¢ Q Z J H O C7 z z • Cr Cl) F- co J Q x0 LL = OH =)-i Q 0>007 CL W HO O O QOCrJ= p U) IL Cn Q z Cn = W = H W Z C7 W Cn a- Cr J F- W Q U) >- Z W Cr = C!l 0 cr 0 F- F- 0 -j - X O 0 x J Q} p m CL O C7 = W z W CL W J Q J Cr W LL 0 Z Cr Cn Z W J W W W LL Cr F- H J W Q cc J H W Z 10 O O F- ^ W p } > m W CL LL CL H C3 J o LL W LL F- = C7 ►+ U) N Q Cn J F- O Cr m 0 d z Cr 0 LL Ct Y Z O Cr 0 Z F- Z W F- H F- ►+ W CL U O Cn W = H W x •• W U H 0= H= H J Q 0 Cr F- 3 W LL JZ co to m= IO mQCDF-CLOD CC > W O CL z JO W •• W F-0 F-W m m z z W O W ••CLQmCLQ W O Z = Q H m J Cn •• 1 0 O W z 3 H W = Cr O F- X Cn Um W m Cr O = F- m -im I •. a z O W O F- W O H H W W LL X H Lr Z CL H Cr Cl) H W Q J W 1 z Q Cr Z m J m -i m -1 0 Z Cr 0 LU ►� O F- W 0 7 = Cr Z HOO W W J QQQ> 0E-= 0 F-J U x IW CnIt Y< = O CD m UQ JU UQ UF-Z ••W Q Q W F- Ct X _-: O H 0 W CO m Q 1 J H W H W U O O H F' to WH F- O W F- 't CD 'rvW.;3 W F- H WO Jm OQZSZO 07=W LLQcc Cr CL O m Cn z `��.''� U H 0 F- -1 U CL H z x S F- x F- Z O Q F- W H O W Q W F- Cr CL p z 2 W = F 0-4LL CD 0 ? $ _' o c¢ J o = 0 W W o x Cc W Cn H Cn L) U CD W F- W z cr 0 C/) - W cc CL (n W Q O O z 2 Q • Q J Q C7 C7 d m J x J Cr C7 J F- H F- W o J CL z J H U 2 O W J Z Q Z W O F- W Cr H= Q H O M O Y S W 0 LL. CL W C7 H W F- O ' " i' 0 H J O W, CD O = H S O CL O J O W H W Q 0 x Z W= W H Z x LL F- H W cc C) z3 ,�`• Z C7 �+ z I 13 F- LL- 1 = ICn C7 J U F- IF- Q O Cn m LL W H U H 2 W Q W z Cn } m Z OU F- Q m J m W �y O Q m U = H Q Z = 0 .0,. LL = H W a�i: Cl) M 0 M I LL I J F- Cr I rn o T r • N it i COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGtNtEAJNG CORPORATION 1 Z ,` i17•�j�}'It it of I: Ii �11�I11. ��►I1 LA CDG j AI G S�G.Ti p�f Project tE(=%AN Designed By: Date 7. 9.99 Project Na: Client:'M7f 6 L-JIMO)(Sr Checked By: Sheet Of 801-1 10/80'd 801-1 loss-spe-902 MOW H.Wd 61INM004084 man RA-An-)n U io COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN.. A CONSULTIMG STAUCTIl4AL AND CIVIL ENGINEEPING CQRpCaATtCN Z TOP OF RE5TRAINm 501E t�l24 Pr L ;:—S e 6- O c SSC-170 9 TIMBER LA66IN(S ' BOTTOM OE EXCAVATION If I! li 30,4 11 It y II II If AZERED HOLE q if I! II �I .E EODED FMTION or PILE 0 i II To BE GROW CLEAN or - MILL 56ALE, Fj6T, Eto. 11 11 II !l 4 II tl L-u Ntst CvAI T-2ArC7'a 2 c raAtL 10120v I De xlD P 2oP eA A;-v- 41DIZ. rDS t o 1U p►Zo7 --crio ! vofL srp- t-r°tGE Project: �C��11J _ - _ — Designed gy: KitP,;* bate I- I?- l? Project No: Client: ii—%G W1AjQUCSZ-_ Checked $y_....__ _ -Shoct Of 217 PINE STREET . SUITE 300 • SEArrI.E. WA 98101 • P. 2%1343-0460 • F 2W343.5691 801-A 1080-d 601-1 1899-98-902 N3301i01 a3160d NI1H0000-ou 12:80 88-80-10 • Lei G GING DESIGN w = 0.375 klf D = 30 in bf = 9 in a = 10.5 in L = 4.25 it Fb = 850 psi F„ = 75 psl C} = i.1 Cf, = 1 1 Co = 1 w s MmAx = 0.70 k-ft Sl��n•o �Mnx = Fs{GF)(Ca)(Cb} SIDEOD = 8.20 M3 w (L - 2a) 2 VmAx = 0.47 k AIuEOb 3 Vm4x 2 F. (Cb) AIRM= 9.38In a COUGHLIN PORTERLUNDMEN w = 501L PR 5 , (6WTEVA MAY Dip LOADING DM TO ARCMN6, UP TO W%), LOAD PER LA661W-5 WIDT4 At BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION D = DIAMETER OF HOLE a = D + laf = FLANGE INIDT4 L = FILE SPAGI4+1G - V 5r1--INGR�, 51ZE Lr-d I FLAT USE FACTOR (I4d4 IIBG, ,rA8LE 23 I -A :) (FOOTNOTES Wji LA&SIN6 Gf (IaO. OIZ BE-fiM CPU 2x(?, 5xb 1.3 1.15 2x8, 3xb 12 1.15 2xIO, 5xco 1.1 1.2 2x12.3x12 1.0 12 4xb, 44 13 1.05 410 12 11 412 (MOST EGONOMIGAL) DURATION OF LOAD FACTOR: (Ig44 L%3 -2304 (GD ) Up tO 2 MO... _ . 55 Up TO 6 mo..... 1.12 H FIR #2 ..... Fb = 850ps) F, = 15psi D MR 02 ..... ti, = 815psi Pv = 45psi 5 ►,' Aw 4x12 '545' 23 34.4 4x12 'ROLASH 5AM' 2't5 44.1 bxl2 '545' 5b.1 b1.4 bx12 'ROUGH SAWN' 64.1 611.6 (NOTE: 'ROWH 5AM' L UMBM 15 LARbER THAS TYPICAL 1545' LUMBER PROJECT Degan Res. PROJECT NO S99-0901.01 CLIENT Tryg wnquist DESIGNED BY- KLB DATE. 7/&V9 CHECKED SY: SHEET Of W-1 10/10'd 601-1 1899-sts-902 Man bdla0d 4111H9I103-HOW END 66-60-10 • C O U G H L I N- P O R T E R- L U N D E E N A CONSULTING STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGR. coRp. engr. proj. no. S O L D I t R P I L E A N A L Y S I S P R O G . ( 7/ 8/99) Page 1 --------------------------_--- ---_ _ PROJECT: began res ------ ----- PILE ID: Degan2 STEEL SECTION ID_ w24x76 MIAt.ANC_LEN_ (LD_ZONE) (ft) = STEEL YrELD STRESS Fy (ksi) = 5o.00 NO LOAD ZONE OPFSET (ft) .00 = SPACING BETWEEN PILES (ft) = 5.00 NO LOAD ZONE ANGLE (deg) .00 = 25.00 BASE HOLE DIAMETER (in) = 30.00 NO LOAD ZONE MX.PROJ.(ft) =450.00 DEPTH OF EXCAVATION (ft) = 15.00 SKIN FRICT. ON PILE (ksf) _ .75 ADDED DEPTH TO FIX. VT. (ft) - .00 PILE TIP BEAR. CAP. (ksf) = 40.00 NO. OF TIE BACK ANCHORS = 0 PILE TIP EMBEDMENT (ft) = 20.00 ITERATIVE METHOD USED YES PASSIVE TP.IS.WIDTH FACTOR = 2.00 S14EAR SURCHARGE LOAD (kips) = .00 SUB -GRADE MOD.WIDTH FACT. = 1.00 MOMENT SURCHARGE LD. (k-ft) = .00 ALLOW. OVER -STRESS FACTOR = 1.00 S O I L L O A D S U M M A R Y A B O V E E X C A V A T I O N SOIL START END ----- STAREND--- T' --- TRIBUTARY EQUIV. LOAD LOAD DEPTH DEPTH PRESS. PRESS_ WIDTH FORCES -NO_ TYPE (feet) - -- (feet) (ksf) r (ksf)(feet) (kips) 1 ACTIVE .00 1.5.00 .00 ' .75 5.00 28.13 TOTAL FORCE = 28.13 S O I L L O A D S U M -------------------------------------------------------- M A R Y S F L O W E X C A V A T I O N SOIL START END START EM TRIBUTARY EQUIV. LOAD LOAD DEPTH DEPTH PRESS. PRESS. WIDTH FORCES NO_ - -TYPE (feet) (feet) (ksf)- (ksf)(feet) (kips) 2 PASSIVE 17.00 35.00 .00 - -5.40 5.00 -243.00 F.S. associated with Passive Pressure = 1.50 TOTAL FORCE = -243.00 S O I L S 'U S G R A D E M O D U L U S I N P U T S U M M A R Y START ENDING -------------.------------------------- START ENDING TRIBUTARY ZONE DEPTH DEPTH MODULUS MODULUS WIDTH NO. (feet) (feet) (kcfl (kcf) (feet) 1 17.00 35.00 1000.00 1000.00 2.50 901-1 10/90'd 601-1 1B9B-Eti£-902 N33001 431NOd NI1HM03-490Nd Z2:80 RR-Rn-)n C O U G H L I N- P O R T E R- L U N D E E N A CQNSULTING STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGR. CORP. engr, prof . no. S O L D I E R P I L E A N A L Y S I S P R O G _ ( 7/ 8/99) Page 2 ------------------------------------- ----- PROJECT: degan rea PILE ID: p-1 AXIAL PILE LOADS ------------------------------- APPLIED TIE BACK TOTAL LOAD LOAF? LOAD (kips) (kips) (kips) .00 .00 .00 AXIAL PILE CAPACITY ( OK SKIN END TOTAL FRICTION BEARING CAPACITY tkips) (kips) (kips) 117.81 196.35 314.16 MINIMUM DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT REQUIRED FOR STABILITY OF THE CANTILEVER PILE ---------------------------------------------- MINIMUM DEPTH OF PILE EMBEDMENT BELOW DREDGE LINE (F.S.= 1) = 15 56!(ft) AXIAL , SHEAR , MOMENT & DEFLECT SUMMARY ---------------------------------------------------- SEGMENT LENGTH AXIAL SHEAR CHK M 0 M E N T S (k-fit) bBFL. No. type (feet) (kips) (kips) --- - (top) (interior) -- (bot) - (inch) 1 CANT. 15.00 .00 28.12 OK .00 -17,58-140.63 2.27 2 EMBED 20.00 .00 36.90 OK-140,62-291.09 .00 .66 A.I.S.C. CODE COMBINED STRESS CHECK - STEEL PILE SECTION: w24x76 +---------+-----------------------------+------------ SEGMENT I _STABILITY CRITERIA STRESS CRITERIA No.type ( 1.6-la ) (Cm = 11 1 ( 1-6-lb or 1.6-2 ) - -------+---------------------------------------------- 1 CANT. I 000 + .320 = .320+--IL O-- 2 EMBED .000 + .662 = .662t OK 4----------+------------- $01-4 10/90'd 601-1 1699-EPE-902 N330W �aLSOd Nllnnm4m Man as -an -in • • 0 W w U- u r is uj U 0 m Q } to to W fl a LU oW tL uw am W .J m J -s J N fn Qa m O � Inc fl Z 111 LU Y O ul fJ3 rt c[ v rn uL m G a J d Ul N ' In V W d 00 - .LL. W W • J Q d � C7 O ►►-r ¢ � a ¢ 111 � O U J U. Z Z O v Q - J tL W J t WQQ V O tY) 4 Z � fn <U w W a W -j ¢ to w ai f x J x tLi t! A w yW t- to C5 Z Q H � ¢ O Z) t- LU 0 V 3L tr 7 w Ir -1 O F- .J co } M Is N C7 —A lu W H N r f $01-1 10/ti0'd 001-1 1699-SPE-902 N330Nn1 MdOd NnHonw-f oNd MOD 88-60-10 0 1 4 r L i, MEMORANDUM Date: June 24, 1999 To: Street File and upcoming Building Permit Application I S5Zo -7 S R t,a, 1'L.er* cuEc�c 99-Z3� From: Steve Bullock Senior Planner Subject: Degan retaining wall After conversations with both Rob Chave, Planning Manager, and Ray Miller, Development Services Director, it was determined that the slope failure on the Degan property is an emergency. Emergencies as defined by the Edmonds Development Code and the Washington Administrative Code may be exempt from Critical Areas and SEPA review. This being the case, any building permits applied for to install a retaining wall to keep any further slides from happening will be issued without Critical Area Determinations, studies or variances. And without a SEPA Determination. This exemption applies only to permits applied for to install a retaining wall to contain parts of the slope that have slid already. Critical Areas review and SEPA review will be required for all future projects on the property. Attachments 1. 2. PC: City of Edmonds cue Planning Division DEGAN MEMO. DOC 08/03/99. hpr eb yb i i I -toa t'ti:fbf 04-/-aZ)bi P. i GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Memo Tee Tryg t,Atynq kd OMUMEW AdSrosc RE ftm her aft" Stabiiadioo Degan Residence 15520 -- 751h Place West Edmonds, Washington 13256 NE 2Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 JN; 8066 F� Marc R Nlo iris Da6w April 26,1 M r=ax {, W 0 37-OW Phomw (206) This memo follows the discussions I have had w th both you and the Degans regarding methods for daufiaing the slope movement that is occurring at the southwest comer of the rear yard. Based an my observations, it is likely that the current mmvOmect appears to be of ecUng the loose M and heavily -fractured silt that Tema Associates encountered in their original test pits I understand that there was ofiginaly a small sarale in this area that may have received more fill than elsewhere in the rear yard. Besides installing a row of heaviy-rdWorced piers across the slide, there we no practical mdhocis to stabilke this slope movement. During our recent ske meeling on April 9,1999, we lald-out the minimum Patent of this row of piers. If desired, titre piers could be.odended beyond these 11mb to stabilize more of the slope's crest. The piers should be spaced no further than 3 6W. edge -to -edge. Soil arching wilt retain the soil behind the piers below the ground. surface. but timber lagging must W lidded to the piers to allow tiling of the depression caused by the landslide. Any badA placed behind the lagging should be free -draining and eompaded. A coarve- grained pit -run sand and gravel would liked be the most suitable fill material- In the fuhuw, when slope movement occurs in front of the piers, it VAN be recessary to add lagging to any portion of the pier that becomes eposed. We recomrneW the fotlawing criteria for design of the piers_ Active Sal Pressure — Equivalent fluid density of So pounds per cubic foot (pct) aging over the center to center pier spacing to a depth of 15 feet. The active pressure does not need to be appiled below the 15-foot depth. Passim Soil Pressure — Equivalent livid derrslty of 300 pcf acting over twice the drilled pier diancteter below the 1 Moat active zone. It appears that the piers could stick up appra*Weiy one foot above the wds ling top -of -slope to create a slightly gerdler grade behlrld the bac>allled lagging. As we have discussed, this type of a wall is only adequate to retain a side occurring in the loose or fractured soils that overlie the hard sits. If a failure surface from future slope movement extends down into the hard silk R could cause movement or failure of the pier wal. The only way to preverd this would be to instal deeper piers restrained by tieback anchors, which would be significantly more otpensi". Please call me if you have any questions. = Two and Nanlyn Degan 15520.75M Pl. K Ednummis 98M �J 1hc.189v - BAR$ARAFAHEY CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Dr. & Mrs. Degan 15520 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, 01&014� Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Inc. 1S90 BARBARAFAHEY CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Dr. & Mrs. Degan 15520 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please _contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan III S c10 • CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering March 1, 1999 Thomas & Marilyn Degan 18208 Ridgefield Road Northwest Seattle, Washington 98177 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Degan: BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR Today, March 1, 1999 City Officials observed slide damage on property you own at 15520 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Since you may be unaware of this condition the City recommends that you visit the site with a professional Geotechnical Engineer to ascertain the damage and prepare a plan for restoration. The engineer should prepare a report and plan for temporary and permanent slope protection and slope mitigation. Any work deemed "emergency" by the geotechnical engineer within such a report should be immediately installed (provided no City permits or discretionary approvals are necessary). If the geotechnical engineer requires substantial improvements on site it is highly likely that permits :from the City would be required since all work must comply to City Ordinance #2661 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Please keep the City informed on the action you are taking regarding this slide.. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. Cc: Ray Miller, Development Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager • Incorporated August 11, 1890 ° Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 8g0_lq°Iv CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220•. FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering April 22, 1993 Mr. Peter Bennett Bennett & Bennett 400 Dayton Street, Suite A Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: SF Residence Victor Chynoweth LAURA M. HALL MAYOR I am responding on behalf of Ms. Nolan regarding your letter dated April 19, 1993 for the referenced project. The original Chynoweth permit application was received by the City on 6/24/91. Section 19.00.01 OD of the Edmonds Community Development Code, (ECDC), states that permit applications expire within 180 days from the date of application or 90 days after approval. According to City records the Chynoweth application was approved for issuance on 3/12/92. Mr. Chynoweth failed to take advantage of the 1992 construction season and the City did not receive any communication from his lead design professional. Therefore, it appeared the project was abandoned. The ECDC allows the Building Official to extend the time for action on an application for a period not exceeding-180 days.. The ECDC does not permit more than one extension on a permit application. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant must submit the exact same plans, pay a new plan review fee, and complete a new application form. If the plans are exactly the same, with no changes, the plan review fee could be waived, however, it has been brought to my attention that the Chynoweth application was reviewed under the 1988 Uniform Building Code, and the 1986 Washington State Energy Code. The City adopted the 1991 editions of both codes in July of 1992. Therefore, the new application would need to meet the new codes and a review'would be necessary. The Cityycould:charge on' an,,hourly basis for this'revtew.,inorder to reduce costs. Also, prior to accepting a new permit application all outstanding professional consultant fees, as required by ordinance, shall be paid. These, as indicated in your letter, total $1,758.45. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 • Mr. Peter Bennett April 22, 1993 Page Two Once the City accepts a new permit application, it would expire 180 days after the date of application or ninety days after approval for issuance. One written extension to the application may be granted by the Building Official for not more than 180 days. The following items were required prior to permit issuance under the expired Chynoweth application: 1. A Local Improvement District, (LID) fee was due for the storm sewer, contact Karen McKay in the Finance Department for the amount. 2. A grinder pump was required, contact Ron Holland in the Water/Sewer. Division for details and cost of installing this pump. 3. A Site Restoration Bond in the amount of $33,000 was required prior to the issuance of the permit. Typically, the general contractor posts the bond, however, the owner may as well. The City is able to accept other forms of financial security other than a bond from a bonding company. For example, frozen fund accounts at private banks, portions of construction loans could be held and there may be other options to prove financial responsibility that the City could consider. 4. Building permit fees are based on the square footage of the residence. The permit fees would have been $1685.50 and included plumbing, mechanical, grading, engineering inspection and review fees, and state surcharge. This quote does not include other development fees associated with this project that may have already been discussed or may be unknown to me. 5. The Official Street Map indicates sidewalks for this project. The contribution fee was $920.00 or the owner had the choice to install the sidewalk during construction. Contact Lyle Chrisman in the Engineering Department with any questions. 6. Regarding the two Planning Department zoning permits, please contact Jeff Wilson directly to ascertain the status of these approvals and expiration dates, if any. 7. Mr. Chynoweth has the ability to transfer a valid building permit and/or valid permit application to a future owner. The new owners would need to change the ownership information on file with the City, and all declarations, insurance and covenants would need to be resubmitted by the new owners and/or applicants. Mr. Peter Bennett April 22, 1993 Page Two Please be advised, permit applications are not fully vested until all fees associated with the application are paid to the City. See attached ECDC 19.00.110. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. Thank you, 6kl-6�11 Jeannine L. Graf Acting Building Official 19.00.110 FULLY COMPLETE APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions, --of RCW 19.17.095, an applicant's rights shall vest when.a fully complete building permit application is filed. --A fully complete building permit application-is-an.application executed by all of the owners of the property for which the application is submitted or the duly authorized agent(s) for such owners, containing each and every.document.required under the terms of•these ordinances and the Uniform Building Code and substantially complete in all respects. It is anticipated that minor changes or revisions may be required and are frequently made in the course of any building application review process, and such minor revisions or changes shall not keep an application from being deemed complete if a good faith attempt has been made to submit a substantially complete application containing all required components. Where required, the application an� supporting documents shall be stamped and/or certifiedd y the appropriate engineering, surveying or other professional consultants. A fully complete building permit application shall be. accompanied by all fees, including but not limited to building permit fees and.plan check fees required under the provisions of this ordinance and the State Building Code. (Ord. 2769 §1, 1990.1 (07/31/90) 195 J 890-199 April 29, 1993 • • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering Mr. Peter W. Bennett Attorney -at -Law Bennett & Bennett 400 Dayton Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Bennett: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Subject: STATUS OF CHYNOWETH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING (FILE NO. CUG-92-3) AND SETBACK ADJUSTMENT (FILE NO. A-33-90) APPROVALS I have recently received your inquiryregarding the status of the above referenced permit approvals, which was originally submitted to the City's Building Section on April 20th. It is my impression that your letter not only included an inquiry into the status of the above referenced, but also implied that your client wished to seek extensions of these approvals in order to avoid a lapse of approval of the permits. The current structure of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) addresses the lapse of approval dates for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and Setback Adjustment approvals in two different fashions. In the first instance, an approved CUP is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval, unless a request for one one-year extension is applied for prior to the expiration of the original permit. In the case of Mr. Chynoweth's CUP, the approval date was April 20th, 1992, and therefore, the expiration date was April 20th, 1993. With respect to the Setback Adjustment, the ECDC does not specify an expiration date, and therefore, the current approval is still valid. As I indicated earlier, I understand your letter of April 20th, to be an inquiry into the status of Mr. Chynoweth's permits, as well as a statement on your clients intention to seek an extension to the approved permits, if necessary.. That being the case, your client does not need to apply for an extension to the Setback Adjustment, as the approval does not include an expiration date. 92-3STAT/4-29-93.CORRES/LETTERS Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities international — Hekinan. Japan • • However, you do need to provide some additional material to complete your request for an extension to the CUP, which you initiated with your letter of April 20, 1993. Specifically, the additional materials. needed to complete your request for - extension of your Conditional Use Permit for a maximum of one (1) year are: 1) an application fee of $132.00 (this represents 50% of the original application fee, as is required by the ECDC); and 2) a letter which specifically states your request for an extension to CUG-92-3 in order to clarify your letter of April 20th. If you should have any additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-223. Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division r-- Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File No. CUG-92-3 Vile No. A-33-90 eannine Graf, Acting Building Official Vic Chynoweth; 7512 Braemar Drive; Edmonds, WA 98020 Brad Butterfield; 400 Dayton Street, Suite A; Edmonds WA 98020 92-3STAT/4-29-93.00 RRES/LETTERS • BENNETT & BENNETT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 DAYTON. SUITE A FEB 18 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 776-0139 • FAX (206) 778-6746 prPAR;T CHESTER R. BENNETT (1988) February 18, 1992 Mr. John Bissell Planning Division City of Edmonds, 255 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 PETER W. BENNETT LEIGH P. BENNETT My Clients: Victor L. and Nancy Chynoweth Re: DECLARATION AND STATEMENT REGARDING SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT AND GRADING Re: Plan Check no. 406 Dear Mr. Bissell: As part of our application for a conditional use permit and/or building permit for the above -referenced job (construction of a single family residence) located at 15520 75th Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026, the undersigned owners/applicants declare that we will not be grading more than 250 cubic yards of dirt within the area under the Shoreline Management Act. Based on the above -referenced statement, we believe that our construction does not require a Shoreline Management Permit. If so, please provide our attorney with some sort of letter to that effect. Thank you for processing our applications for this job as quick as possible so that we do not miss the window period for starting our construction, as soon as possible. The undersigned owners/applicants declare under the penalty of perjury that the above referenced statement is true. Very truly yours, PWB:wlb Peter W. Bennett cc. Brad Butterfield Victor and Nancy Chynoweth Reviewed, Approved and Agree / A,4 J Dated: Victor Chynowet Dated: Nan F Chy et i TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences November 9, 1991 Project No. T-1474 Mr. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield and Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Consultation Proposed Chynoweth Residence Lot 1, Lunds Meadowdale Tract 156th Street Southwest and 75th West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Review, Landau Associates dated September 26, 1991 Geotechnical Engineering Study, Terra Associates dated July 28, 1990 Dear Mr. Butterfield: At your request, we present our response to several of the written comments by Landau Associates in their preliminary geotechnical review, dated September 26, 1991, for the proposed Chynoweth residence. Each of the following paragraphs is directed toward those areas of question in the Landau letter which were highlighted by your office. With respect to the planned retention system, a 5 gpd allowable leakage rate from the system is, in our opinion, acceptable. We have reviewed a copy of the Environmental Checklist completed on October 24, 1991 for the proposed Chynoweth residence. In our opinion, the responses to the geotechnical components of the checklist are in accordance with the I findings and recommendations presented in our geotechnical study. The Landau letter stated that City Ordinance No. 2661 requires that the geotechnical report be signed and stamped by a licensed engineer registered in the State of Washington and that neither our July 28, 1990 geotechnical report nor our July 25, 1991 geotechnical review letter have been stamped. As a matter of fact, both were stamped. However, the stamp is embossed on the originals sent to your office and on our file copy but, will not appear on copies. Undoubtedly, Landau Associates was provided with copies of our report and review letter. We can provide stamped copies if desired. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777 i Mr. Robert Butterfield / November 9, 1991 Also, according to the Landau Associates letter, the aforementioned ordinance requires that the geotechnical report provide recommendations for preservation/replanting of native vegetation. We point out that the last sentence in the second paragraph under the section heading Excavation and Slopes in our geotechnical study states, "All permanently exposed slopes should be provided with appropriate vegetation to reduce erosion." It is our opinion that further direction is unnecessary, although we are available to review plans submitted by your landscape architect. Based on our geotechnical study, it is our opinion that the planned excavation can be made, provided our recommendations for excavations and slopes are followed. As stated in our report, all temporary slopes greater than four feet in height should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). If the cuts can not be adequately sloped, shoring will be necessary. We trust this information is sufficient for your present needs. Please call if you have any questions concerning this letter. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anil Butatl P t President DBG/AB:tm cc: Vic Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds, Washington 98020 Project No. T-1474 Page No. 2 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 LIMITATIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from a deep test boring -and two test pits. However, subsurface conditions at locations not explored may differ from those observed in the test boring....oz-test pits. The, nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc: should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. CLOSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report Figure 4 Soil Classification System Figure 5 Test Boring Log Figure 6 Test Pit Logs We appreciate the opportunity to' provide „these services. Please' call if you have any questions concerning our report. '.. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. /7 Dennis B. Green Project Engineer Anil utail, P.E. 1..1. ; President DBG/AB:tc 89p -199 CITY OF EDMONDS LAURAM.HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PETER E. HAHN Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering �DIRECTOR Nailed 1/3/92 January 30, 1992 j ti Victor Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Abandon piezometer tube at 15520 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Chynoweth, Before construction begins at the subject address, the disposition of the piezometer tube must be taken. In order to determine the status of the well, you will need to call the Department of Ecology and talk to Sally Perkins at 649-7235. She should not only be able to tell you if it is active, but also what steps to take to abandon it. If the well is to be abandoned, we will need a copy of the paper work. Please call me if you have any questions (771-0220, extension 324). Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt CHYNOWTH/TXTST530 �4 Alberts • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan sr RAC MEMORANDUM �rP/4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION TO: JEFFREY S. WILSON, CURRENT PLANNING SUPERVISOR FROM: JOHN BISSELL, CODE ENFORCEMTN TECHNICIANDO SUBJECT: Chenoweth shoreline permit questions. 'On 2/12/92 I contacted Don Bales of the Department of Ecology (DOE), Shoreline Management Section. I explained the particular permit and the amount of grading involved (over 500 yards total grading, but only about 60 yards within the 200 foot shoreline area). Then I asked Mr. Bales what was the interpretation of the Shoreline Management Staff of the Shoreline regulations, and could the City include the portion of the work that is being done upland from the 200 foot shoreline area. Mr. Bales said that he could not give me any legal interpretations, and that implementation is the responsibility of the City. Mr. Bales also said that in this case we he believed that we could include the are upland from the 200 foot shoreline area in our calculation of grading, or we could just use the area within the 200 feet. He. said that in this type of case the DOE would not second guess our decision. Since the DOE has no particular opinion in this matter, we could require or not require a shoreline permit and still have a legal decision. I have looked in past shoreline permit files and I can find no precedent. We have only recently started requiring shoreline permits for residential grading in excess of 250 yards, and only one permit has received approval to date. In that permit application, there was clearly more than 200 yards of material to be graded within 200 feet of the shoreline. Other previous permits have been for commercial developments within the shoreline management area. In light of the lack of precedents, and the DOE's flexible interpretation, I believe that we need to consider what this permit will do for us that is not already be done by other permits that are already required. In Edmonds, The entire shoreline that is residentially zoned has a levy with a railroad on top. In addition, any grading over 50 yards requires a grading permit and an erosion control plan, along with a truck route showing how any materials will be removed from the site. Due to these requirements that are already in place; it appears that the shoreline permit would not be a safe guard for the environment so much as it would be additional paperwork for us and the applicant to process. Therefore I recommend that the City Staff interpret the Shoreline Management Act to not require a shoreline permit on residential properties unless the house is being built for sale, or unless there is more than 250 yards of grading proposed within 200 feet of the shoreline. CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PETER E. HAHN I p Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR 8 g 0- 1 9 February 24, 1992 BUILD/Ma Peter W. Bennett FEB. 24142 Attorney At Law 400 Dayton St STE A Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Shoreline Permit Requirement for Victor & Nancy Chynoweth at 155200 75th PI W. Dear Mr. Bennett: The Planning Division has reviewed your request on behalf of Victor & Nancy Chynoweth to waive the shoreline permit requirement on the basis that only 60 yards of the total graded area will be within 200 feet of the shoreline. I have discussed this matter with the Department of Ecology, shoreline management section. The Department of Ecology believes that it is legal for locall jurisdictions to interpret that over 250 yards must be graded within 200 feet of the shoreline in order to involve the shoreline management regulations. Therefore the City has made the interpretation that, in the case of a building permit application for a single family residence proposed as a dwelling for the property owner, a shoreline permit will only be required when 250 or more cubic yards of material is proposed to be graded within 200 feet of the shoreline. To insure the intent of the Shoreline Management Act is complied with, the City is requesting that the applicant to provide the City with a statement that no more than 250 cubic yards will be graded within 200 feet of the shoreline, as well as drawings that clearly show that no more than 250 cubic yards of material will be graded within 200 feet of the shoreline. In the case of the Chynoweth permit application, the applicant has provided drawings and a statement showing that no more than 250 cubic yards of material will be graded within 200 feet of the shoreline. Therefore no shoreline permit will be required. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this me at office. Sincerely, John Bissell Planning Division c Jeffrey S. Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor F e # CU-92-003 uilding Permit Plan Check #406 TREEI-Er. DOC A • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International —. Hekinan, Japan BENNETT & BL` NNETT • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 DAYTON. SUITE A EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 776-0139 • FAX (206) 778-6746 CHESTER R. BENNETT (1988) February 5, 1992 Mr. John Bissel Planning Division City of Edmonds 255 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 PETER W. BENNETT LEIGH P. BENNETT My Clients: Victor L. and Nancy Chynoweth Re: Request for Letter of Exemption from Shoreline Management Permit Dear Mr. Bissel: As you know, I represent Mr. and Mrs. Chynoweth, who are in the process of getting a building permit to place a single family residence at 15520 - 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. That property, as you know, is not far from the waters of Puget Sound. Due to the severe grade of the property and the fact that this property is in the Meadowdale Slide area, a set back adjustment previously was requested and granted in order to place the house on the only building pad available, which is in an area farther away from water nearer to 75th and farther east from the water. Apparently, the geotechnical report indicated that 500 cubic yards of dirt would be moved in this project. That fact not only requires the application for conditional use permit, but also raises the question of whether a Shoreline Management Permit would be required. The general requirement for a Shoreline Permit, as you know, is that a development within 200 feet, would generally require a Shoreline Management Permit. However, another subsection of the RCW Code, RCW 90.58.030(e)(6), exempts the permit requirement for construction of a single family residence for the use of the owners family. Next, the Washington Administrative Code; WAC 173-14=040(g), indicates no more than 250 cubic yards of grading could occur or the single family residence exemption would not apply. I am enclosing three copies of maps drawn and prepared by Brad Butterfield's office, which demonstrate that within the 200 foot area from the shoreline, only 60 yards of dirt will be graded Most of the grading, occurs beyond the 200 foot mark heading east. (ladb\Cynoweth\LTR-BISSEL-02/05/1992) • 0 Mr. John Bissel February 5, 1992 Page 2 Since I needed to educate myself in this area prior to submitting this application, I discussed this matter directly with Mr. Don Bales, of the Department of Ecology. He is. the Department and Ecology plan review person for City of Edmonds, Shoreline Management Permit applications. His telephone number is 1-459-6762. Mr. Bales indicated that as long as it could be reasonably demonstrated that no more than 200 cubic yards of dirt were being moved and or graded within the 200 foot area, he said it did not matter how much dirt was being moved on the same lot beyond the 200 foot mark. Obviously, there will be other dirt moved outside of the 200 foot mark. Obviously, a conditional use permit will have to be obtained to move that amount of dirt. For your information, the "mean higher high tide line," was determined,by location on a.map as recorded by the Snohomish County Auditor's Office. As you know, the Chynoweth's wish to start building as soon as the wet season has passed during the time when it is permissible to build in this slide area property. Please consider this matter as soon as possible and indicate whether or not we are candidates for an exemption letter from the Shoreline Management Permit requirements. Thank you for your assistance and immediate attention. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Ver truly yours, PETER W.. BENNETT PWB:adb cc: Victor Chynoweth Butterfield & Associates (ladb\Cynoweth\LTR-BISSEL-02/05/1992) PUG ET cz- 7EA s XOAD 7/-dZ Glace.RpILIR RLjt4G-VO . . . . . . . . . . . . 5�1 IV �� I I. I TL lid I(, moo. t Ic cr) 00 r— L. b l 2 14 3 PAG E 0 5 6 • • 57 m .NA ZZ 1 cL � I � .�1 z aln _ � _z Z~ --3 0 Z 1— IZL a = N � -p lt�l • H STREET FILE STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY UNITS Property Address 15520 75_th Pl. W., Edmonds WA 98026 Legal Description : That portion of Lot 1 of Lunds Meadowdale Tracts as recorded in Volume 6, Page 26, Records of Snohomish County Washington, described as follows: All of Lot 1 of said plat, except the North 10 feet thereof lying West of the existing County Road and except that portion of said County Road. I have read the requirements for accessory units contained in Chapter 20.L of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for at least two years after occupancy by the current owner is granted and until after a Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a Conditional Use Permit. Property Owner Name Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) } COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that (-&kz v u--Y�?— signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and Purposes mentioned in this instrument. / Dated J5"%Z r'( `� Signature o (Seal or Stamp) Notary Public Title . My appointment Expires_ Z — -�� THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (2" 771-3202 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Grading of approximately 786 cubic yards of material for the construction of a single- family (File No. CUG-92-3). Proponent: Vic & Nancy Chynoweth. Location of proposal, including street address if any: Located on the west side of 75th Place West, north of approximately 156th Street West (15520 75th Place West). Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by - .1992. Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-3202 Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date. 3� �"%qZ- Signature • I•-, XX You may appeal this determination to Ro rt Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than March 20, 1992, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. - You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on March 6. 1992, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of 2 92-03 DNSl3.3.92.SGPA J� Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-i l Olympia, WA 98504-8711 XX Applicant: Vic & Nancy Chynoweth 7512 Bracmar Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Agent: Brad Butterfield 400 Dayton Stred Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachments PC: File No. CUG-92-3 SEPA Notebook Peter Hahn, Community.Services Director Robert Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 92-03DNS/13.92SEPA • SWEET FILE CITY OF E D M O 1 V D J LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Wor;cs • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering ` 890.19y_ July 30, 1991 Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield & Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, WA 9802.0 PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Re: Driveway slope waiver - Chynoweth residence, 15520 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Butterfield, After reviewing your letter of July 23, 1991 requesting a driveway slope waiver from'14% to 18%, we find no reason for denying your request. The subject driveway slope may exceed 14%, but not more than 18%. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator PC i4p; G' jo,`., CHYNOWTH.2/TXTST530 * Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ` Robert Butterf field & Associates A.I.A. July 23, 1991 City of Edmonds 250-5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Chynoweth Residence Driveway Slope,Requirement Edmonds Plan Check #406 To Whom It May Concern: As the authorized agent for Vic and Nancy Chynoweth I would like to request a waiver of the driveway slope requirement from 14% to 18/. Justification for the request lies in the the difficulty of the site. Adhering to the 14% slope requirement would cause the owner financial hardship as a result of extensive site work including the construction of large retaining walls. We also request the waiver based on it's nonimpact to the health/safety of the general public. We have made every effort to diminish the slope of the driveway and feel that the 18/ slope as currently shown is the most practical solution. Sincerely, ROBERT BUTTERFIELD & ASSOCIATES Ae---," Robert Butterfield Principal Architect cc Vic Chynoweth Steve Kieffer ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING KLf e V EL) J�Z3 Pftlr .COUNTER 400 DAYTON EDMONDS, WA. 99O20 206.775.0584 . • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 STF*T FILE COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Wor;;s • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering ( 8 9 0- 1 9 4 July 22, 1991 Vic Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR A'ef I-11Qndl76a19/ Re: Site restoration bond, street dedication and sidewalk cash contribution for 15520 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Chynoweth, Due to the slide potential in your area, it will be necessary for you to post a site restoration bond to repair damaged utilities and pavement surfaces across your property frontage should a slide occur during construction of your house. An estimate of $33,000 has been tabulated to cover the total restoration. In addition to the above requirement, construction of a five foot sidewalk and ten foot street dedication is required. Before a permit can be issued, we must have a recorded document dedicating ten feet of 75th P1. W. to the City of Edmonds and the site restoration bond. Since development is sporadic in the area, we are not requiring the construction of a sidewalk with the construction of your house. Instead, we will require a cash contribution in the amount of $920. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator CHYNOWTH/TXTST530 Alberts • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan G�-}i'iJ/)tiJ�ii�- • G%1'rF L2�fi7Y1_tET /h.J ( cJT2O ��jCtt�L ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE UNIT UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK ISSUE QTY COST TOTAL I Z K 2�' -5"f 33G� 2 4- + - �4 ate. 3 S s� r`t' T . �-� I �cx Z5 cx� 4 _ lv�r6✓L ���� CIP �f per H�1 �2PnJ �,4 1 13CD l It P1Yv� Ie►� I l z �((� T►� ZZ 35 p . 2. �2 32 sB Bee 1�olq6e 155-10 -7-S PL W PERMIT couurER 1-- 00 O � p CV .� N 00 Cl) M C) C:) LAD N r CD CDcM T C11 C) 0 O00(7; Ln O N (D 00 N Cl) LO N II II I1 11 L u u) cn U r. U n N Q M LL 4- co C CO a) (n E cA C:-j a U) O W X• Q •n 4' v U v O >. C L a) >, -p U X 4-1 r rU) QC'1-0 0,F- N> Oat Nc N U' U' O > n U n00 •r Q 0 -r O •r � co\ U L C Cl O U m Cl) cD LU r r N LO N 0 0 0 N O C:: 4-) O Or CD O .r W O 4 ca r L) - II II II 11 If 3 U O -0 a— L 70 T3 Q Q Q Q U L 06 U ;�- W N ¢ W a a o' ) O F— CO LL CA L i -t 0 0 O M 'ct O O O O O O O It N M cV M O O O O (D O I-- O C)CDu7 O ti M 1— \ . In C) U.) 00 .0 V O V OO 00 cD Lo r- co c) .- N ti I,- N r N r CO LO r 11 11 .-� 4- 4- 4- 11 II II cn to (n L Z +-) v v v i-..-� i-. L2 a Cl AZ II 4- O 4-4- 4- \ H Q L L L +-_ .0 4-.1 L L L L L L L Z -P O N N N O O r N II O+ N U Q L Q _I J J 70 �o -0 U) (n Y > > > F- •r U O +-) U c� -0 a Z (D ca H C'C L 1-'• (A •r fT Vi ••" CO O H UI 4--) E X N (v O W 0 CD Z <% CV O E L cD O T L Iv > 4-) O C . N •'L U M 'o L. +- U Cl. ti (/) U N O L. W N "O "O "a Vl C r• C. ca r E O E O II W N W L Z O 1-1 11 H O O O ca U -r T C T CO W 4-) C -4-) U U N U LL 4- C H r L •r L � L U (U N 0 0a.M: a t HANCOR Hi-Q® PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 1: STORM DRAINS PART 1: General 1.1 System Description 1.1.1 Storm drains shall include the excavation for and construction of pipe drains for surface drainage to the prescribed lines and grades at the designated locations in accordance with plans and specifications, or as directed by the engineer. 1.2 References 1.2.1 AASHTO M252: Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Tubing, 3 to 10 Inch Diameter 1.2.2 AASHTO M294: .Specification for Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe, 12 to 36 Inch Diameter 1.2.3 ASTM D1056: Specification for Flexible Cellular Materials - Sponge or Expanded Rubber 1.2.4 ASTM D3350: Standard Specification for Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials 1.2.5 ASTM D2321: Standard Practice for Underground Installation of Flexible Thermoplastic Sewer Pipe 1.3 Submittals 1.3.1 All pipe and fittings not•covered by this specification shall be approved by the engineer seven days prior to the bid letting. PART 2 - Products 2.1 Acceptable Manufacturers 2.1.1 The storm drainage pipe shall be Hi-Q pipe as manufactured by Hancor, Inc. 2.2 Materials 2.2.1 General The prescribed sizes of pipes are nominal inside diameters. Pipes shall be of the size and length shown on the plans. 2.2.2 Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe The product supplied under this specification shall be high density polyethylene corrugated..exterior/smooth interior pipe. Twelve- to 36-inch diameters shall conform to AASHTO M294 Type S; 8- and 10-inch diameters shall meet the strength requirements of AASHTO M252 with the addition that the pipe have a smooth interior liner. Material shall conform to ASTM D3350. Minimum conveyance factors shall be as shown in Table 1. 2-91/DH -1- Table 1 Conveyance Factors Nominal Pipe Diameter (in.) 8 10 12 15 18 24 30 36 15.7 28.5 46.3 83.9 136.4 293.9 532.9 866.6 2.2.3 Joints and Fittings 2.2.3.1 Pipe joints and fittings shall conform to AASHTO M252 or AASHTO M294, or be approved by the engineer. 2.2.3.2 Coupling bands shall cover at least one full corrugation on each section of pipe. When gasketed coupling bands are required, the gasket shall be made of closed -cell synthetic expanded rubber meeting the requirements of ASTM D1056, Grade RE42. All gaskets shall be installed on the coupler by the pipe manufacturer prior to delivery to the job site. A11 coupling bands shall meet or exceed the soil -tightness requirements of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Section 23, paragraph 23.3.1.5.4(e). 2.2.3.3 Fittings shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M294. ' PART 3 - Execution 3.1 Inspection 3.1.1 All delivered pipe shall be inspected. Damaged pipes may not be accepted. 3.2 Installation .3.2.1 Installation shall be in accordance with ASTM D2321 and as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. Backfill shall be ASTM D2321 Class I, II, or III soils, or USCS material corresponding to these ASTM designations. Backfill material shall be placed in 6-inch lifts and compacted to 95 percent minimum density per AASHTO T99. 2-91/DH. -2- 0 O.D. Hancor Hi-Q® PRODUCT DETAIL 8 Nominal Diameter (in.) 10 12 15 18 24 30_ 36 Inside Diameter (in.) 8 10 12 15 18 24 30 36 Outside Diameter (In.) 9.5 12.0. 14.2 17.7 21.5 28.4 36.0 42.0 Pltch (In.) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Weight (lb/ft.) 2.0 3.5 3.3 4.7 6.7 12.0 16.0 21.0 Corrugation Annular Annular Annular Annular Annular Annular Annular Spiral Perforations All diameters available with or without perforations 2-91/DH -3- HANCOR HEAVY DUTY-AASHTO TUBING AND PIPE SPECIFICATIONS The pipe shall be manufactured in accordance with the following specifications: AASHTO M252 for 3- through 10-inch diameters AASHTO M.294 for 12- through 24-inch diameters High density polyethylene resins used in the manufacture of pipe and fittings shall meet ASTM D3350. The pipe shall be seamless with annular corrugations. Pipe joints and fittings shall conform to the corresponding pipe specification and be constructed of the. same material classification as the pipe. All pipe shall be HEAVY DUTY - AASHTO Tubing and/or Pipe as manufactured by Hancor, Inc. Fittings and couplers shall be compatible with the HEAVY DUTY - AASHTO product and be manufactured.by Hancor, Inc. Installation shall be in accordance with the standard practice of corrugated polyethylene pipe and as recommended by the manufacturer. Backfill shall.be of suitable material, such as free draining sands and gravels conforming to ASTM D2312 Class I, II, or III,, or USCS material corresponding to these ASTM designations. Backfill material shall be placed in lifts as necessary and compacted to 95% minimum dry density in accordance with AASHTO T99. 2-91/DH -11- DRAINAGE NOTES 1. C.B. #7 SHALL BE A 48" DIAMETER TYPE II MANHOLE WITH A LOCKING GRATE AND A 6"PVC TEE WITH A RESTRICTION DEVICE AND STANDPIPE. THE RESRICTION DEVICE SHALL BE 6" PVC PIPE END CAP WITH A 7/8" DRILLED ORIFICE. 2. DETENTION PIPE SHALL BE 24"HDPE CONFORMING TO AASHTO M294. ALL PIPE FITTINGS SHALL, CONFORMING TO AASHTO M294. THE LEAKAGE RATE FROM THE CLOSED DETENTION PIPE SHALL BE MINIMIZED. (NOT TO EXCEED 60 GALLONS/INCH OF DIAMETER/MILE/DAY).HDPE RESINS SHALL MEET ASTM D3350. 3. THE CONTRACTOR' SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE LOCATING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND FOR ADJUSTING ALL MANHOLES, INLETS, CATCH BASINS, FRAMES AND GRATES. 4. STANDARD LADDER STEPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL CATCH BASINS/MANHOLES EXCEEDING 4 FT. IN DEPTH. 5. OUTLET DRAINLINE FROM CB#1 SHALL BE 6" HOPE DRAINAGE TUBING OR EQUIVALENT AND SHALL CONFORM TO AASHTO M252 (WASHDOT STD. 9-05.1(6)). AT THE FACE OF' VERTICAL BANK, IT SHALL BE PLACED ON THE SURFACE OR JUST UNDER THE SURFACE WITH PIPE ANCHORS 20' O.C. STET FILE � L PVGfr . BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Irate- rza, _ hs� ' 75th PLACE, 3� N W .W N lA VICINITY MAP f / +o' Row PROJECT DAT, occupancy zoning site area mae building area construction typo 50 u b c edition !+ occupancy load 0, required exits rt r.` parking required e° MEADOWDALE parking provided us PARK ,L xwr4e , r FL"s' REVISIONS eaLLL -� 4 MATERIAL AND LEGEND DATA Z • CxnT rpce '�' u....... U rft: r fe vvruy � cxu j % •t lJ We•fs �/ --c. . 1 "M'i ewes • /,h-_.,e V � p YMTtrt NLfLIt eMVK L-�T rAanlac ae.T� (n �'7''7 W SITE PLAN N4 l� aLTAL 1� �r� v ,.��• xId1D 7NLULAT10a /� U O w. 0 0 ®peot auxtR 1 xfYtAil0a r,ssT M �YnJ „ OBf.VL INON./.TOR Lo xi AfOA . "Per M •MFfT M �Va(J ®' W 3 rLTVOOD HAW cec{loH . MNL[ ® aMaH N j O W = INjY{LWR MttVMiON O C � w LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONSULTANTS z That porL/on a! Lot 1 O[ Lunde Nead.*ve,le IO.. Toracend Ao'dsofSnohslahInCoonluroy Washington. L dascrlbed as folio a, All Of Lot t of said plat, except the North 10 [eae there.*[ lylnq Waet of the axis ring County Road and oawpt 'Oat portion o! •a ld County Road. W. O C M LL W d 0 DN. t..» xe se..r or tn.n• .`.................................. ....................... STREET FILE 0 Bureriield Design Group 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 206.115-0564 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER DECLARATION for Degan Residence I have reviewed the Geoteclinical Engineering Study completed by Terra Associates, Inc. and incorporated Terra Associates, Inc.'s recommendations into the design of the Degan Residence. The risks associated with building on this lot have been communicated to the Degan's as stated in the geotechnical report. The residence has been located on the low -risk area of the site to minimize landslide risks to the residence and the residence is supported on augercast concrete piles for greater stability. Further measures as recommended have been taken to reduce potential risk of injury or damage -that might be caused by earth movement. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield & Associates % u r e \¢ �c"n ..r O Q 6 Edwin Baker Baker Engineers ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATET 4V .SREET t 1., ONENESS ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK UNIT UNITISSUE QTY COST TOTAL X 27 3 3� 2 4- �� 4 + 4. r� lVA-T-r5y� 1-1NLf-- L-F al to. V 13 r�►��2c� �L ���I �1G,2G l �l� _2�ro2 I1'I7E COMPANY 00ASHINGPON, INC. - a THIS SPACE PROVIDEO FOR RECORDER'S USE: CFATTLF OFFICE. RFIIFVIIErIi}7(;g FEDERALWAYOFF'ICF.; ' i MCI VniverQY street. Suite 2429 411 • 11aah A,~ N.R. 1, W Stmah,l,Nth Street ' h0 Scope. WAYM101 Relk.m. WA WCCM Federal Way, WAW X13 i 6N24AIP6 45I.111170 M74•3113 Fax: 6M2 :.VAi 14x:431410li Fax: 4274YM1 , FILED FOR RECORD AT REOUEST OF WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO Name Peter W. Bennett Add,ess 400 Dayton, Suite A City. State, Zip Edmonds, WA 98020 QUIT CLAIM DEED THEGRANTORS, THOMAS DEGAN and MARILYN DEGAN, husband and wife, for and in consideration of dedication to public use, conveys and quit claims to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation, the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish. State of Washington, including any after acquired title: The Easterly ten feet (10') of the following described parcel: Tract 1, LUND7'S MEADOWDALE TRACTS, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats. Page 26, records of Snohomish County, Washington, lying Westerly of the existing county road forty feet (401) in width (not a dedicated'road); less the North ten feet (10') thereof. TOGETHER WITH the right to make all necessary cut or fill slopes on the land of grantor's adjacent to the above -described real property in connection with the construction, maintenance or improvement of the above -described real property for purposes of a public roadway. Dated 1Sf M �� _ . ry 94 THOMAS DEG / i' q MARILYN DEGAN JDI VIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM: ate of Washington ,runty of SNOHOMISH } ss. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that .omas Degan and Marilyn Dman :tied this instrumenl, and acknowledged it to be (hie / herl e and voluntary as r the uses and purposes mentioned the instrument. ed Lary brie the tap OfWu1t14tyn y f� t expires ORIGINAL 4AWIeN LM• IF fly t Presw m) By (SeLmary) REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM: State of Washington County of ) SS. I certify that 1 know or have salisfaclory evidence that signed this instrument. on outh stated that (he / she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the to be the free and voluntary act of such puny for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dared Notary Public for the State of Wrshmgum My appoinmtem expircs a I EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 890_�g ITY OF EDMONDS 25 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Wnr;;s • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering } CL, tgcg. �lc�� 17�bJ 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Site restoration bond, street dedication and sidewalk cash contribution for 15520 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Chynoweth, LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Due to the slide potential in your area, it will be necessary for you to post a site restoration bond to repair damaged utilities and pavement surfaces across your property frontage should a slide occur during construction of your house. An estimate of $33,000 has been tabulated to cover the total restoration. In addition to the above requirement, construction of a five foot sidewalk and ten foot street dedication is required. Before a permit can be issued, we must have a recorded document dedicating ten feet of 75th P1. W. to the City of Edmonds and the site restoration bond. Since development is sporadic in the area, we are not requiring the construction of a sidewalk with the construction of your house. Instead, we will require a cash.contribution in the amount of $920. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, / a ,��tr�r'7zI- •� Z��-iZGc4t'�[ ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator CHYNOWTH/TXTST530 (- 4 Al its 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ITY OF EDMONDS 25 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Wor!:s • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890.194 July 22, 1991 Vic Chynoweth 7512 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA,,98020 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR "jj 7 /, �,,3 191� Re: Site restoration bond, street dedication and sidewalk cash contribution for 15520 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Chynoweth, Due to the slide potential in your area, it will be necessary for you to post a site restoration bond to repair damaged utilities and pavement surfaces across your property frontage should a slide occur during construction of your house. An estimate of $33,000 has been tabulated to cover the total restoration. In addition to the above requirement, construction of a five foot sidewalk and ten foot street dedication is required. Before a permit can be issued, we must have a recorded document dedicating ten feet of 75th P1. W. to the City of Edmonds and the site restoration bond. Since development is sporadic in the area, we are not requiring the construction.of a sidewalk with the construction of your house. Instead, we will require a cash contribution in the amount of $920. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator CHYNOWTH/TXTST530 (- 4 c,- Al berts • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 STREOt FILE � "411 �Z �tt•1 k G �' DV'�'ti� -9fe14 ICING. ���URGE I MT I A1. �40 t'.SCQl.G M� C66 75;','h BSc. Vv Z-� 1--c0N0 5 pit, fpjpe • � 1 i I R�a P��9Y A City of Edmopft 16HT-OF=WAY ONST CTION - PERMIT Permit Number: s Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 2=0 % S P 4 18 9 9 9 B. 0 1 Type of Work (be specific) 7 Q,C NCyk `N `F- I W - � ec Wzu k- 9_Q ko ~ C. Contractor: S'�n�t'i+d �5M (QUtal\( t"p.V�Qontact: Mailing Address: kAl) i S 9 Phone: (,:-7 () -eY2 Q State License #: �, (, M () 1�1 `(J S , Li A Liability Insurance: Bond: $ r D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family 9 Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: ❑ Yes No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ N SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agreed!efenp old the City of Edmonds harm esa f ' rnj� s mages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that maybe �gainat the City of F.dmon �r %'its tmenta or > employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including Boats; and attorney fees by reason o granting this permit. 7.� h 4 c THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC77ON AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BYCITYFORCES, AT WHICH TIME DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. , Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS.ieG:- Ihave read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copyof the permit will be available on s t all times for ' spectio purposes. Signature: Date: 1-9 k4 ( ontractor or Agen CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY APPROVED BYi TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER LL DAYS, SPECIAL CONDITIONS: COMMENTS: USE ONLY RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT DISRUPTION FEE/FUND,'111: RESTORATION FEE: 1�,'PERMIT,FEE:. - .TOTAL FEE:4 30 ' O 0 RECEIPT. FEE:. M DATE: ISSUED BY NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Engrg. Div. 1991 1 CITY COPY TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. �` 'i,'' "' ►" ' " ` Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences July 28, 1990 Project No. T-1474 Mr. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield and Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single Family Residence Lot 1, Lunds Meadowdale Tract 156th Street Southwest and 75th West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Butterfield: We have completed the geotechnical engineering study you requested for a single family residence to be constructed on a lot located at 156th Street Southwest (not open) and 75th Place West in Edmonds; Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to assess landslide hazards on the property and to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in order provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, and earthwork construction procedures. The scope of our work included test pits, laboratory tests on representative soil samples and geotechnical engineering analyses. We also reviewed existing geotechnical reports including landslide investigation reports, and other information in our files regarding the Meadowdale area. This report presents the findings of our study and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. Our work is intended to satisfy the requirements for a geotechnical report outlined in City Ordinance 2661. However, completion of the environmental checklist required by Ordinance is outside' the limits of our services and is not included in the scope of our work. We recommend that you ask the Community Service Department if they intend to require completion of an environmental checklist for this project 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777 0 FAX 821-4334 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 SUMMARY The subsurface conditions of the property were explored with one deep test boring and two backhoe test pits. We found the site to be underlain at depth by hard clay. The clay is overlain by as much as thirty to forty feet of loose to medium dense ' sandy, silty material, probably landslide. debris. Some fill has been placed in the upper areas of the site. The property is believed to be part of a large ancient landslide. The area that failed extends along 75th Place West from Meadowdale County Park southward to about the 165th block and from the bluff on the east to the shoreline. The original landslide probably occurred several thousand years ago. Parts of this landslide have been active into recent times and possibly are still active. Records indicate that landslides occurred in Meadowdale during the winters of 1946-47, 1955-56, and during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1979, the 40-year record of landslide events in the Meadowdale area was studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc.' A map that identified landslide hazards and estimated failure probabilities was developed for the entire Meadowdale area. A portion of the map that includes this property is shown on Figure 3. Based on the conditions then existing, Lowe's conclusion was that the probability of landslide failure on most of the property was 35 percent during any 25 year period, and 90 percent at the southwest corner. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as probably the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, in 1980 through 1985, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed around and within the Meadowdale landslide. In 1985, GeoEngineers, Inc. evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in much of the area believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the subject property, the estimated probability that old slump material might move again within a 25-year period was reduced from 90 percent to 30 percent in the southwest corner and from 35 percent to 10 percent elsewhere. The probability that landslide material may encroach upon the subject property remains at 2 percent. For this property, we agree in general with the landslide hazards assessment in the Lowe report and with the revised occurrence probabilities suggested by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our opinion, the present risk is low enough to justify construction of the proposed residence. However, the present and all future property owners should be properly informed of the landslide hazards that exist, as required by the City's Ordinance 2661, and accept full responsibility for them. Project No. T-1474 V-3" a MT 7 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Siting the residence on'the low -risk area, as proposed, will minimize the landslide risks to the residence, both during and after construction. In addition, we recommend supporting the house on piles that extend, below the ancient slide material. By keeping the footprint of the house away from the higher risk area, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period that would affect the proposed house is about 10 percent, according to the evaluation by Geo-Engineers. The following sections of this report. describe our explorations and explain our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for the exclusive use of Robert Butterfield and Associates and their representatives. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on the site plan and the preliminary drawings provided us, we understand that the proposed house will have two stories over a daylight basement. The basement excavation is anticipated to be about eight feet in height along the eastern edge of the excavation. The western portion of the basement floor will be above existing grade. Before a building permit can be issued, the Ordinance requires a declaration from the geotechnical engineer that the plans and specifications the city has been asked to approve conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In order to provide this declaration, we must examine the final plans. We recommend that you provide us a copy of the final plans and specifications before they are submitted to the City. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on June 29, 1990. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by drilling one standard penetration. test boring to a depth of 54 feet below existing grade. In addition, two test pits were dug with a backhoe to depths of twelve feet below existing grades. The boring was drilled by Drilling Unlimited of Olympia, using a truck -mounted drill. Continuous flight, hollow -stem auger was used to advance and support the borehole. The test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Backhoe Service of Bellevue. The approximate test boring and test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. In the boring, standard penetration tests were performed at five-foot intervals by driving a split -barrel sampler with an outside diameter of 2.0 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The results of these tests are the 9-values reported on the boring log. To allow monitoring of groundwater levels, an observation well was installed in the borehole. Project No. T-1474 Paize No. 3 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist -from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit and-. the test boring, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system described on Figure 4. The logs of the test pits and test boring are included in this report as Figures 5 and 6. Representative soil samples obtained from the boring and the test pits were placed in- closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test.boring and test pit logs. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The property is located on 75th Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. It is a nearly rectangular shaped lot with 91, feet of frontage on 75th Place West and an average depth of 175 feet. It overlooks Puget Sound and abuts the Burlington Northern Railroad on the west property line. The ground. surface of the site slopes. downward from the street, first moderately and then steeply, to the railroad. Topographic relief is on the order of seventy to eighty feet. Vegetation consists of dense underbrush on the steep portion of the slope and several older deciduous trees which have been recently topped. Subsurface Portions of the eastern half of the site have been filled. Fragments of asphalt pavement are visible on the ground surface near the boring location. Approximately six feet of loose fill was found in the southernmost test pit. Underlying the fill is landslide material consisting of loose to moderate, and occasionally stiff, sandy silt to sandy, clayey silt. The landslide material is believed:to extend to a depth of nearly thirty-eight feet at the boring location. Underlying these soils is a hard, dark gray, clay encountered to the maximum explored depth of 53.5 feet. Groundwater No groundwater seepage was encountered in the boring or either of the test pits. A ground water observation well was installed in the test boring to monitor the static groundwater level. On July 11, 1990 the water level was measured at a depth of 53 feet, approximately 6 inches deep in the bottom of the borehole. It is quite possible that this water condensed in the observation well. It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 4 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS neral Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as planned, provided our recommendations are incorporated into design and construction of the project. The risk of landslide activity, both large-scale and small-scale, is now low enough to justify development of this site. As required by the City's Ordinance 2661, present and all future owners of this property should be fully informed regarding the residual landslide risks, both large-scale and small-scale, and their purchase agreements should require them to accept full responsibility for these risks. The property lies within the, boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Two categories of possible landslides were identified on this property, and as shown on Figure 3: 1) avalanches of slope debris from upslope areas; 2) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first category was considered to have relatively low risk, only a two percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25. years. On this site, the possibility that a failure in the second category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent in the southwest corner and about 35 percent elsewhere. After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater 'from the Meadowdale landslide area. In 1985 GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrence probabilities of 90 percent and 35 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively. By siting the house as far north on the lot as possible, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period which would affect the house is reduced to about 10 percent, according to the GeoEngineers evaluation of the Meadowdale slide area. In addition, we recommend supporting the residence on deep foundations that transfer the structural loads through the fill and loose, disturbed soils to the underlying hard clay. Deep foundations will virtually eliminate the risk of significant differential settlement that could occur if spread footings were placed on fill disturbed soils. Additionally, deep foundations will provide some protection in the event that localized areas of shallow instability were to occur between the house and the railroad. However, a pile foundation will not provide protection against deep-seated earth movement similar to those that have occurred on this and other sites within the Meadowdale landslide area. Project No. T-1474 PaaP No- i Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Deep foundations for this residence could be either augercast concrete piles or driven timber piles. We recommend auger cast piles. Pile driving in residential neighborhoods often elicits complaints of damage, real or imagined. For this reason, we do not often encourage use of driven piles in residential areas. If desired, we can provide design criteria and driving requirements for timber piles. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing this site. Augercast Concrete Piles Augercast piles should be installed with continuous flight, hollow stem auger equipment. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as the auger is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawal should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a fourteen inch diameter pile with five feet of penetration into the hard clay, an allowable capacity of twenty tons may be used. When wind or seismic :loads are included, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide capacities for different pile diameters and embedment lengths, if required. , Based on limited test boring information, we estimate that average pile lengths will be in the range of thirty to. forty feet. The piles should be reinforced their entire length. We estimate that total settlement of single piles will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied. The remaining post -construction settlement would be realized as the live -loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements over any portion of the structures should be less than about one -quarter inch. We recommend that the installation of all piles be observed by a qualified technician who can fully evaluate the contractor's operation, collect and interpret installation data, verify bearing stratum elevations, and who would understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's equipment and procedures be reviewed by Terra Associates, Inc. prior to the start of construction. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures acting against sides of grade beams, pile caps and other buried structure, and by lateral loads transferred to the tops of piles. We suggest you develop lateral load resistance by deepening the basement walls so that they penetrate the native soils. Passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot acting, on the downhill portion of the basement wall that penetrates into the ground. In addition, an allowable lateral load of one kip per pile may be used. If the needed lateral load resistance cannot be developed in this manner, we will be pleased to provide you with supplementary information. Project No. T-1474 Paee No. 6 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Lateral loads may also be transferred to the ground by using batter piles to develop tension or pullout resistance. For computing resistance, a friction of 500 pounds per square foot acting around the perimeter of the pile may be used. No friction should be assumed in the portion of the pile within the slide debris. Ground Floors We recommend framing .the lower floors over a crawlspace. Crawlspaces should have vapor barriers. Slab -on -grade floors should not be used in living areas where pile foundations are used. The garage floor may be a slab -on -grade supported on native soils in areas of cut or on structural fill not more than Hive feet deep. To provide a capillary break, we recommend placing at least four inches of free -draining fill, such as pea gravel, beneath the slabs. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a plastic vapor barrier at least ten mils thick should be placed on the gravel. An inch or two of sand may be used to protect the membrane during construction. Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls, including basement walls, should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls free to rotate should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot. Walls restrained .at the top from free movement should be designed for the above load, plus a uniform stress of 100 pounds per square foot. The above pressures assume a maximum wall height of twelve feet and that no surcharge loads will occur due to adjacent footings or other applied loads. It is also assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall. If surcharges are applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted granular soils that meets the criteria for structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Perforated pipe drains should -be installed at the base of the walls, as described in the Drainage section below. Excavation and Slopes: Excavation slopes should be constructed in accordance with the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four feet may be made vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four feet,.temporary cuts should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). All permanent cut slopes into dense native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1. Fill slopes should not be made steeper than 2:1. Where unretained fills are placed, the existing ground should be stripped and benched, and the fill compacted. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be provided with appropriate vegetation to reduce erosion. Project No. T-1474 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Drainage We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all basement walls and retaining walls. The drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4N1?,- or similar material). Roof drains should be separately tightlined until into the storm drain system. We understand that stormwater may be discharged into the railroad right-of-way with Burlington Northern's approval. Under no circumstances should storm water be infiltrated into the ground or discharged onto the steep slope above the railroad. Site Preparation and Grading Building and pavement areas should be stripped of any vegetation, topsoil, loose surficial soils and any other deleterious material unsuitable as subgrade for the building or pavement. We recommend that any soils to be imported for use as structural. fill be evaluated by Terra Associates, Inc. before they are brought onto the site. For import fills, we suggest that no more than five percent of the soil fraction passing the 3/4-inch screen should be finer than the No. 200 sieve. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal layers and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-698. The fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The allowable thickness of the fill layer will depend on the material used, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the layer. In no case should the layers exceed twelve inches in loose thickness. No fill should be placed on this site' in any area where the existing slope is steeper than 20_ degrees. Additional Services - To observe the contractor's compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. These services should include: 1) observing installation of all piles; 2) observing all earthwork operations and the placement and compaction of any structural fill that may be required; 3) observing all slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement; 4) performing field density tests on compacted fills and backfills; 5) observing and testing the subgrade under pavement. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 8 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 LIMITATIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from a deep test boring and two test pits. However, subsurface conditions at locations not explored may differ from those observed in the test boring or test pits. The. nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. CLOSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure.1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report Figure 4 Soil Classification System Figure 5 Test Boring Log Figure 6 Test Pit Logs We appreciate the opportunity_ to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. /7=7 Dennis B. Green Project Engineer Anil utail P.E. President DBG/AB:tc Project No. T-1474 Page No. 9 �-S a ST Sw Ot';'/ .3 3Y-• l2 :143PO STS ,P U 143RD3 3 ST N SW Z I44THPLSW"A1441HST a sws ° SW SR'� Sni i ;si y Q "• r J3 - " ".�, ST PL`sw =;Er � sw QS. �314 H° °' �tV•c„ <�,¢.. fu6'H; P: PUGET RPAA B N ,H s Sw ;- =IYT PL Sw7. Pt Sw o ry �C T46 Sli_- g3 3 of w �a I.t;IH �P. y4 SW T OR gEPCH , \sltr - s�,�'- ,.iiH SSw 6^.: a'l $T SW 3 -'•_ - ORMA RD SOUND„ > RD Pl w - - - - .9TH gE H T 14eTH . Ia9rH N AC 57 49TH PL Sw a a FISHER R 1 4 <9, 3 'I sw• 2 s � 1' SLSw - / 1 PL 'I ` N SW SD H PI S,v ` 1 H... PL' SLN. -1 .'w .._ /151 $i v`�' �� Q _ 3it ; _ >[ry: 151$T $T 5' h r -CSW 150TH .{p z 3 3 E �s�sr _; 3 $T I$ ,$2N0 $T 7L O,ic $W n'el S .�ni 15TND ST n' - _ _ IS7NU 3 5' 'QI / f 3 153RD ST 3 3 3 vL sw JI 5575Do _ 31 Q a3ai:n g > -� Tw9 > - •1. iQ7PI.$W I u '.:SJRP PI <w3 141W y57H Si / SITE CC ; L, a > $w Q • 61H T _ _.JY•� — 14(1TH ST r Sw_ _ a 3 tStiTH _ Sr _ SVv i a 7TH _ ME,DOWDA,E 1S7n1 SI 3 = = o MEAD ` L'sw seat 33 ; Iv1H PI s,v S,o - I— 15 rust 1" QIP4.:n Zg57TH' PL Sw EE 156TH 21 ST w� pr'vl sw3 I i iu nF� O1 o1, P: SV.. ��• M rY SW/ . t LAESUGTON F D 1 = 1jOTTH _ I ST - SW- � '- � 60TT -� a 7 >fK pn1F�': _4 3 a WNARf 3 "'Fq IL '�TH=P�6w I , $wnl 03 w ' > I n I I ^¢¢{u 161ST PL SW x f ,67N0 IPL Sw � 1 PARKWIT Si $ISw ,A 163RO Pl SWI 3 AID£ ITH > 164TH sw_ST SWr 164 H Pl =1MARTHA >000 .w Q A 165TH PL B V RLSw w Llsw3166TH PL SW A 168TH ST C1 SW -168TH 4DO I pl^ IMEADOWDaff a r, sw I / 169TH 3 ST II 31 � S iMID Q MS 6v I TH PL W I ( - •', SW -- ' i ;y 3 J �•\:• rO (•' •.v. o`. r H' sw, IRITH PL sw H 170TH no Si rr,a 5v, .. _ • �'{ 6 t7TN0 ale 6 0° nlsT a_'a1 3'°�r, '1'n17 ND T Sw 172ND < ¢ST • Oe P M D F9r ST S n r� z ��� 171N0 ST 1)2N PL.' `F P W 9 I77ND m 3 3 • 1 / 111—w 5 u PL Sw "-- a 173M h.j• < s gw 90 sw al Sw Z x = i 7 R a_ < PL 1 sw I/�' 1 ,r;H Sw }x' ST = ,I9Tn .� PL SV/� Y = 5 $ _ 01' - > r71, h PO w V) 2 P� V 1 7 ^� �ly'ST LJ 1� ,� In £Z�1767H ji z 1761 W =:s3 - °z3, ,761H PL sw x3 LYn) h 7 PL SW Q 3 ST `. 51�.,a 178TN ST SW 'jyl! Il�`•f/H S 171TIl PL o) SW . 176TH PI $W a r - 31 _ > 579TH - 1..._ _. -o . m - - <T a 9TH ST :'•:.-iG Q1It5�_iH" W S, }N �I�■'-`..'M., Q: 3: TH Q - � PL SW = T SW ry .. Q - ? ST = 3 SW 7•,�yT.TH P r 1 PL. 1 TH ?� w ^q .3 ,.,G, ,9� w> t6sT Pt 5w" ♦P1.sW > cv, �c 1. 82ND T a 1 1 .L-i .vr. PO IBiS PL SW t•APQv 1BTN� PL 9W Q J.''9 e2 _ e. see 3 ez.r Sw :,s. .:r,::,:: > Z `'`' O 5.. '63P61PL M. s, •7R 3 182ND a P SW : 83RD PL $Y: - -I s 163P o30; PL w =, . sH. ; 3 I RO Pl Sw �lar� 18I Pt Ig7P0 s. c 184TH S7 ; 1 _ > 184TH Sl :SW 1841H PK $Ts;MsM'.1 Q S. 3 " IflSTH K• 185THi 3 PL =L. . - o I ,ggTH ST Sw = 0 -c 3 ALDERWO- Is _ __ wl; --III • 3 '`$ 3 r 166TH ST sw x. Z 186TH a W m ` ::� ='°sr" _ v. C~D BN L N1 Sw O's u ✓s D ePL Sw e; 188TH ST-sWl l' •�31 3 _ _ c.. - I TH P W PENNY LN PLISW 1B9TH PL SW 31 1H sT -; ` �sw a > fS` 19BTH PL > iBBTH ST W N• :yoTH3 Q i Taw 3: a.i790T11 ST SW 1 TH •991n >rP 1 F a t9971,sP1 SW ALD +!:v >,1915T PLSwt 'fir i915T w- -3 .P9LSSw •"' a `v t TH 19t,ST 191ST $r W MA a .I IST ST:SW ' •5 w 'a`,. '•.sw _lyy' •� .P ryl Iti7Nf $i '1" tlte' $T Sw 0.`E .�-,' ;.., $i $W 19TND ST SW 192ND CH ',yi•-0 5: :q:s+ �i•` a :_:..... +� p 192N0 ST _, PL _ISW S OF'P r� x PL 112ND PL n1 >'9210 ": Sw ° SCRrRER = 193 D el> �1 nA Sw = PO of PY�P) =J �_ ; )r Sw 1 'LAKE Q . 93R PL t 3 - = 3 i�r.. SI sw r NS ■ PL W I 41., ' i '•C N 3 _ _ °J = 19S;r1n Si Sw i3 rx3 � N This figure copied from THOMAS BROS MAPS, Snohomish County, Washington, 1990. TERRA ; Vicinity Map Meadowdale Residence ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington C)eotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 1 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS —% o 4A Renewed movements in old slump material 2C q v�^-- 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material I 3 02 t� I 3B Debris slides in materials that have not I I t 3t 55 previously failed 05 The two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability 2 ,I I f SITE a of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period %- i 'Q- — - This figure copied from Figure 5 in the final report on the Meadowdale Area Landslide Hazards Investigation ti by Roger Lowe Associates Inc, 1979 py; % J z: I I 3 02 .ern 1 4A25 N zA 4 90 It 05� Scale: 1'= 300' , 1' 2 2 3 2 �� ~ �y7• �r ` Al ' •� r 02 �a mil' - - po 3802 p 1 r . 4A35'. n \ 1 ( 'C 4A25 4A 2 t - � 0 2 0 TERRA LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT MEADOWDALE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATES EDMONDS. WASHINGTON W-Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM _ MAJOR !_ETTER DIVISIONS SYMBOL GRAPH - SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION C0 GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW Q:: _o: °: Welt -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures• little or no fines. � --- O More than 50°io of I (less th � -� GP Poorl Y-graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures. � iT r coarse fractic,,I 5°j !Ines). -- - little' Or no fines. Gravels GM C) �� �' is larger than vels, gravel -sand -sill mixtures. — - fines. W Z a`) V) ._ , No: 4 sieve. vrith fines. Enon-plastic GC rr avels, gravel-sand-clayrnixiU--; S- ines. EC CC ZP o SANDS Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, L0 o Sands little or no fines. LLI U) N Mthof ore an 50% (less than SP Poorly -graded sanas or gravelly sands, r z 5% fines). little or no fines. SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, Q 0.) - coarse fraction C� ° C6 � - is smaller than Sands non -plastic fines. No. 4 sieve. with fines. SC Clayey Y Y sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. -1 ro SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour silt or clayey fine sands or clayey si!'s vait, h O U0 .2 o M o Liquid limit is less than 50%. CL Inorganic clays of I w to, medium I ravel) clays sandy pp plasticity, Y y dy clays, silty clays, lean Q E N I s OL ;riri Organic silts and organic clays of toy/ LLI o ° z o z ' I,r,t r r plasticity. Q C:` N SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous CC= fine'sandy or silty soils, elastic. a, > Liquid limit is greater than 50%. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. LLl z ° E .Q) V) U) - — OH I it,� t t i Organic clays of medium to high plasticry, I' ' ' r organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS I 2° OUTER DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf 2.4° INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER aU PENETRO',IETER READING, tsf P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED PCi DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot e 'A ATER LEVEL (DATE) LL UQUID LII:IIT,perceni WATER ER OBSE ,VAT ION WELL PI PLASTIC IiNIDEX N Sl ANDi" RC' PENETRATION, blows per '_got T F ' R "1 Soil Classification System Meadowdale Residence Edmonds, Washington 1474 I • . 7/90 4 _r.•• ...... .:;;;. .II; ..... TEST PIT NO. TP-1 Logged By DBG Date 6-29-90 Elev. N 80 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description (%) 0 ML Gray sand and silt, dry, loose 6.8 Reddish brown slightly silty sand, medium SM to coarse grained, moist, loose. (FILL) 5 34.5 Gray clayey silt, fractured, moist to wet, ML soft to stiff. 34.5 10 Becomes hard. 33.3 Test Pit terminated at 12 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 15 TEST PIT NO. TP-2 Logged By DBG Date h-99-90 Elev. N Z8 ' 0 ML Tan -gray sandy silt, moist, loose. 34.8 Tan clayey silt, varved, fractured, moist to ML wet, stiff. 34.4 5 Becomes hard 37.3 17.3 SP Gray to brown sand, moist, medium dense 5.0 10 ML Gray silt, varved, moist, hard 17.5 Test Pit terminated at 12 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 15 Soil Logs 'TERRA Meadowdale Residence ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 5 BORING NO. B-1 Logged By DBG Date 6-29-90 ELEV, N 109 Depth Graph CS Soil Description Sample Blows. (o ) Ft. Tan sandy, clayey, silt, moist to wet, loose to medium stiff. I S-1 10 .9 5 j S-2 8 19.8 10 ML I S-3 14 26.7 15 I S-4 31 26.4 20 I S-5 16 29.3 25 Becomes stiff T S-6 20 29.7 30 I S-7 32 26.0 35 1 S-8 60 31.8 Dark Gray Clay, moist, hard 40 CL j 8-9 33 35.0 Thin sand layers 45 j S-10 100 13.8 Tan silty sand, very fine grained, SIM moist, very dense. 50 S-11 100 12.7 Boring completed at depth 53.8 feet. Groundwater observation well installed. Soil Logs TERRA Meadowdale Residence - ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Gcotcchnic_al Consultants proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 6 75 CITY TERRA ASSOCIATES, 161C. _. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Veology and Environmental Earth Sciences July 28, 1990 Project No. T-1474 Mr. Robert Butterfield Robert Butterfield and Associates 400 Dayton Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single Family Residence Lot 1, Lunds Meadowdale Tract 156th Street Southwest and 75th West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Butterfield: We have completed the geotechnical engineering study you requested for a single family residence to be constructed on a lot located at 156th Street Southwest (not open) and 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to assess landslide hazards on the property and to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in order provide. recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, and earthwork construction procedures. The scope of our work included test pits, laboratory tests on representative soil samples and geotechnical engineering analyses. We also reviewed existing geotechnical reports including landslide investigation reports, and other information in our files regarding the Meadowdale area. This report presents the findings of our study and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. Our work is intended to satisfy the requirements for a geotechnical report outlined in City Ordinance 2661. However, completion of the environmental checklist required by Ordinance is outside the limits of our services and is not included in the scope of our work. We recommend that you ask the Community Service Department if they intend to require completion of an environmental checklist for this project. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 0 Phone (206) 821-7777 • FAX 821-4334 v Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 SUMMAR)i The subsurface conditions of the property were e-xplored with one deep test boring and two backhoe test pits. We found the site to be un.derlain at depth by hard clay. The clay is overlain by as much as thirty to forty feet onf loose to medium dense sandy, silty material, probably landslide debris. Some fill has; been placed in the upper areas of the site. The property is believed to be part of a large amcient landslide. The area that failed extends along 75th Place West from Meadowdale County Park southward to about the 165th block and from the bluff on the east to the -shoreline. The original landslide probably occurred several thousand years ago. Parts of this landslide have been active into recent times and possibly are still active. Records indicate that landslides occurred in Meadowdale during the winters of 1946-47, 1955-56, and during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1979, the 40-year record of landslide events im the Meadowdale area was studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. A map that identified landslide hazards and estimated failure probabilities was developed for the entire Meadowdale area. A portion of the map that includes this property is shown on Figure 3. Based on the conditions then existing, Lowe's conclusion was that the probability of landslide failure on most of the property was 35 percent during any 25 year period, and 90 percent at the southwest Jcorner. The Lowe report recommended groundwater comtrol as probably the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, in 1980 through 1985, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed around and within the Meadowdale landslide. . In 1985, GeoEngineers, Inc. evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in much of the area believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the subject property, the estimated probability that old slump material mig-ht move again within a 25-year period was reduced from 90 percent to 30 percent in the southwest corner and from 35 percent to 10 percent elsewhere. The probability that landslide material may encroach upon the subject property remains at 2 percent. For this property; we agree in general with the Ian-dslide hazards assessment in the Lowe report and with the revised occurrence probabilities suggested by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our opinion, the present risk is low enough to justify construction of the proposed residence. ' However, the present and all future property owners should be properly informed of the landslide hazards that exist, as required by the City's Ordinance 2661, and accept full responsibility for them. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 2 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Siting the residence on the low -risk area, as proposed, will minimize the landslide risks to the residence, both during and after construction. In addition, we recommend supporting the house on piles that extend below the ancient slide material. By keeping the footprint of the house away from the higher risk area, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period that would affect the proposed house is about 10 percent, according to the evaluation by Geo-Engineers. The following sections of this report describe our explorations and explain our recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for the exclusive use of Robert Butterfield and Associates and their representatives. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal. standards of professional care. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on the site plan and the preliminary drawings provided us, we understand that the proposed house will have two stories over a daylight basement. 'Be basement excavation is anticipated to be about eight feet in height along the eastern edge of the excavation. The western portion of the basement floor will be above existing grade. Before a building permit can be issued, the Ordinance requires a declaration from the geotechnical engineer that the plans and specifications the city has been asked to approve conform to. the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In order to provide this declaration, we must examine the final plans. We recommend that you provide us a copy of the final plans and specifications before they are submitted to the City. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on June 29, 1990. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by drilling one standard penetration test boring to a depth of 54 feet below existing grade. In addition, two test pits were dug with a backhoe to depths of twelve feet below existing grades. The boring was drilled by Drilling Unlimited of Olympia, using a truck -mounted drill. Continuous flight, hollow -stem auger was used to advance and support the borehole. The test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Backhoe Service of Bellevue. The approximate test boring and test pit locations ,1 are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. In the boring, standard penetration tests were performed at five-foot intervals by driving a split -barrel sampler with an outside diameter of 2.0 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The results of these tests are the N-values reported on the boring log. To allow monitoring of groundwater levels, an observation well was installed in the lborehole. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 3 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit and the test boring, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification I system described on Figure 4. The logs of the test pits and test boring are included in this report as Figures 5 and 6. Representative soil samples obtained from the boring and the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test boring and test JI pit logs. SITE CONDITIONS Surface _) The property is located on 75th Place West, north of North Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. It is a nearly rectangular shaped lot. with 91 feet of =� frontage on 75th Place West and an average depth of 175 feet. It overlooks Puget Sound and abuts the Burlington Northern Railroad on the west property line. The ground surface of the site slopes downward from the street, first moderately and then steeply, to yI the railroad. Topographic relief is on the order of seventy to eighty feet. Vegetation consists of dense underbrush on the steep portion of the slope and several older deciduous trees which have been recently topped. Subsurface Portions of the eastern half of the site have been filled. Fragments of asphalt pavement are visible on the ground surface near the boring location. Approximately six feet of loose fill was found in the southernmost test pit. Underlying the fill is landslide material consisting of loose to moderate, and occasionally stiff, sandy silt to, sandy, clayey silt. The landslide material is believed to extend to a depth of nearly thirty-eight feet at the boring location. Underlying these soils is a hard, dark gray, clay encountered to the maximum explored depth of 53.5 feet. 16' Groundwater Jj No groundwater seepage was encountered in the boring or either of the test pits. A } ground water observation well was installed in the test boring to monitor the static groundwater level. On July 11, 1990 the water level was measured at a depth �of 53 feet, 1 approximately 6 inches deep in the bottom of the borehole. It is quite possible that this 1 water condensed in the observation well. It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. Project No. T-1474 . Page No. 4 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as planned, provided our recommendations are incorporated into design and construction of the project. The risk of landslide activity, both large-scale and small-scale, ;is now low enough to justify development of this site. As required,by the City's Ordinance 2661, present and all future owners of this property should be fully informed regarding the residual landslide risks, both large-scale and small-scale, and their purchase agreements should require them to accept full responsibility for these risks. The property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide area studied by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to classify the various landslide hazards that were present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. Two categories of possible landslides were identified on this property, and as shown on Figure 3: 1) avalanches of slope debris from upslope areas; 2) renewed movements of existing landslide materials. The first category was considered to have relatively low risk, only a two percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. On this site, the possibility that a failure in 'the second category would occur within 25 years was believed to be about 90 percent in the southwest corner and about 35 percent elsewhere. After the Lowe report was issued, the City of Edmonds installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains in an effort to remove excessive groundwater from the Meadowdale landslide area. In 1985 GeoEngineers Incorporated evaluated the effects of this drainage. They concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in those areas that had the highest, risk. Areas that originally were believed to have occurrence probabilities of 90 percent and 35 percent in 25 years are now rated at 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively. By siting the house as far north on the lot as possible, the probability of a landslide occurring in a 25-year period which would affect the house is reduced to about 10 percent, according to the GeoEngineers evaluation of the Meadowdale slide area. In addition, we recommend supporting the residence on deep foundations that transfer the structural loads through the fill and loose, disturbed soils to the underlying hard clay. Deep foundations will virtually eliminate the risk of significant differential settlement that could occur if spread footings were placed on fill disturbed soils. Additionally, deep foundations will provide some protection in the event that localized areas of shallow instability were to occur between the house and the railroad. However, a pile foundation will not provide protection against deep-seated earth movement similar to those that have occurred on this and other sites within the Meadowdale landslide area. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 5 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Deep foundations for this residence could be either augercast concrete piles or driven timber piles. We recommend auger cast piles. Pile driving in residential neighborhoods often elicits complaints of damage, real or imagined. For this reason, we do not often encourage use of driven piles in, residential areas. If desired, we can provide design criteria and driving requirements for timber piles. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing this site. Augercast Concrete Piles Augercast piles should be installed with continuous flight, hollow stem auger equipment. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as the auger is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawal should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a fourteen inch diameter pile with five feet of penetration into the hard clay, an allowable capacity of twenty tons may be used. When wind or seismic loads are included, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide capacities for different pile diameters and embedment lengths, if required. Based on limited test boring information, we estimate that average pile lengths will be in the range of thirty to forty feet: The piles should be reinforced their entire length. We estimate that total settlement of single piles will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied. The remaining post -construction settlement would be realized as the live -loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements over any portion of the structures I should be less than about one -quarter inch. We recommend that the installation of all piles be observed by a qualified technician who can fully evaluate the contractor's operation, collect and interpret installation data, verify bearing stratum elevations, and who would understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's l equipment and procedures be reviewed by Terra Associates, Inc. prior to the start of II construction. Lateral Loads j' Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures acting against sides of grade beams, pile caps and other buried structure, and by lateral loads transferred to the tops of piles. We suggest. you develop lateral load resistance by deepening the basement walls so that they penetrate the native soils. Passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot acting on the. downhill portion of the basement 1 wall that penetrates into the ground. In addition, an allowable lateral load of one kip per pile may be used. If the needed lateral load resistance cannot be developed in this manner, we will be pleased to provide you with supplementary information. 1► Project No. T-14" Page No. Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 Lateral loads may also be transferred to the ground by using batter piles to develop tension or pullout resistance. For computing resistance, a friction of 500 pounds per square foot acting around the perimeter of the pile may be used. No friction should be assumed in the portion of the pile within the slide debris. _ Ground Floors We recommend framing the lower floors over a crawlspace. Crawlspaces should have vapor barriers. Slab -on -grade floors should not be used in living areas where pile foundations are used. The garage floor may be a slab -on -grade supported on native soils in areas of cut or on structural fill not more than five feet deep. To provide a capillary break, we recommend placing at least four inches of free -draining fill, such as pea gravel, beneath the slabs. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a plastic vapor barrier at least ten mils thick should be placed on the gravel. An inch or two of sand may be used to protect the membrane during construction. Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls, including basement walls, should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls free to rotate should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot. Walls restrained at the top from free movement should be designed for the above load, plus a uniform stress of 100 pounds per square foot. The above pressures assume a maximum wall height of twelve feet and that no surcharge loads will occur due to adjacent footings or other applied loads. It is also assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall. If surcharges are applied, they should be added to the above lateral l pressures. J Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted granular soils that meets the criteria for structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Perforated pipe drains should be installed at the base of the walls, as described in the Drainage section below. Excavation and Slopes Excavation slopes should be constructed in accordance with the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four feet may be made vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four feet, temporary cuts should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). All permanent cut slopes into ' dense native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1. Fill slopes should not be made steeper than 2:1. Where unretained fills are placed, the existing ground should be stripped and benched, and the fill compacted. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be provided with appropriate vegetation to reduce erosion. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 7 Mr. Robert Butterfield J61y 28, 1990 DrainaQe i We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all basement walls and retaining walls. The drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed 1 rock wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi MON, Supac 4NP or similar i material). Roof drains should be separately tightlined until into the storm drain system. We understand that stormwater may be discharged into the railroad right-of-way with 1 Burlington Northern's approval. Under no circumstances should storm water be infiltrated into the ground or discharged onto the steep slope above the railroad. Site Preparation and Grading Building and pavement areas should be' stripped of any vegetation, topsoil, loose surficial soils and any other deleterious material unsuitable as subgrade for the building or } pavement. We recommend that any soils to be imported for use as structural fill be evaluated by Terra Associates, Inc. before they are brought onto the site. For import fills, we suggest that no more than five percent of the soil fraction passing the 3/4-inch screen should be finer than the No. 200 sieve. "J All structural fill should be placed in horizontal layers and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-698. The 1 fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The allowable thickness of the fill layer will depend on the material used, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the layer. In no case should the layers exceed twelve inches in loose thickness. No fill should be placed on this site in any area where the existing slope is steeper than 20 degrees. JAdditional Services To observe the contractor's compliance with the design concepts, specifications and -1 recommendations, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface J conditions differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. These services should include: 1) observing installation of all piles; 2) observing all earthwork operations and the placement and compaction of any structural fill that may be required; 3) observing all slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement; 1 -- 4) performing field density tests on compacted fills and backfills; 5) observing and testing the subgrade under pavement. Project No. T-1474 Page No. 8 Mr. Robert Butterfield July 28, 1990 LIMviwj IONS The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from a deep test boring and two test pits. However, subsurface conditions at locations not explored may differ from those observed in the test boring or test pits. The. nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. CLOSURE The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report Figure 4 Soil Classification System Figure 5 Test Boring Log Figure 6 Test Pit Logs We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Dennis B. Green /Tzz-7 Project Engineer Anil util, P.E. President DBG/AB:tc Project No. T-1474 Page No. 9 _: la]RII7 S 71• �T•�'.7..T ' • •al°`j jz`� 3 x sr t y P gi; �. II r_ 4 �. WH T (7AA c^iL S F�I1 iH P, PUGE �' aRMA 1Ei1 1�1..N TH 51 Sw 3<: ilA6T i S H6t"A5• Sw j m Pl SW a ry a $ 1 NORM REACH _: t:l ;��� Ure.. �w 4 T : m ST nsw ; IA4t" 1a9n1 NORMA BEACH RD T SOUND l FISHER' °Iq = 3, ` a' '; r �1 1 g 1 sv l S. Si a9 (H PL $w a c 21 Di _ - - 1H Pl $w 'v; .. PI 5'w' 150TH PL. 5wj " \L.j.•. �151ST �"yd �, 150TH Q Jq < 3 3 ca ac` ` S '1:. �SVJ ' . 15151^5r7 S' !;T % '.. 152N0 $7 s Sw i t ` •'•+d 157N0 S t a _ _ - _ - 117N� ..:.I; s. 153RD ST ; a c : u :B P1'S'w L J J1 ST SW4 '_� 1 > '1 _ I a P•]RD PI SITE 5w s 1561H a: Si .� Sw �f a�> l5 i.� 5, gw - r 7n, nrfafN7lvDalr (may Sr e = 'DAA np. M E A D C• ' C' ; BEAc� 3 3 ; �a 11s7IN P + _6 I cW > v 1 Sw SLt i H �- 15 IHst I I PAAA ZR57TH PL .1w 156TH 2e $T W a 156I" P; •.:. J I i i56T1) M •; _'T• _ Pt Swi 1 a n 2 I>t,. 1 ^ A LAEBUGrON . Ifi0 , Z I§QTH ST .. S.w- H gi N 60TTrtjit 1 < p^,AtP?�� W144Rf 3 3 MFgO . 1 :ry 1'40TH x PL Sw D3 KEELErp1J' Sf A47ND♦ I ( .nild 161ST PL SW �' CORNER A- w .T, 9 f 10.0 rIP1 Sw � '- 1 PARK 6 16)R0 ST $ISW $ 163RD et 5VV I RIDE ■ ,�`:¢1R I ?164TH_ ST sw ,y t 'a 164TH SIfAIH ST •1 sw w a —Z— i/^y1 / \GS'Q.. =IMARTHA Q I� r � .'n. 165tH PL 0 V RlP __ 2 !•-. SW /, �. • %�,F_ _.. - �r �P ;7\,.*.r�r.. �� e a I ¢ ,'Zd :an"3 s �Ll4w 3 p t-u 166TH PL SW _ !` 1 TH' T UUU w' g r i �168TH ST ❑ SW I 1 R SI Sw -16en4 dm'" I �' MEADOWDALE ¢ I rlt sw 1 I 169TH3 ST w ? ,7 t, ; H MID Q I /vS "'41n 1 TH LV I t �. J SW e' c.',9°^`• 9�r' .v...� . ` `1' sw IroDrH PL Sw � 31 3t $(/�/ ��1 ., 0 MOTH u ST ���')i•, .��{ QI = oq -ST a_•a—_3Cat7 N T SW 172ND 7rc ST a T' B� cc 0 171N0 'P ST Sw 1 ; ' 7)AD C Si SW 1 •`J/. o> 171ND 47 172NO P� +H Pt. w 9 Ir7ND •T I 3 (,: •�;.�'�. +G�': .: 5• 10q_%•:nPosw < y �i Pt Sw -- �173RI Pt Sw [ 75Tn �l Sri _ .- /' sw 'yT H,.� 1 O V PL $W Z .Z 175T1 STt\� �. ; r r*+� - ; N• vl : ST 2 Z .r r" :� �I i Y r- Z. ST $ �1 _ �� 1776 �l =R�StiN -ST ,t `- 3 1N �3sW ]S lP • `yf ccci 1Si11/6TH >I 176T 'E••• •; i ? i ( 1 L S •'i• 17ETH PL SW x 3 �� T / PL $W 3 ; 5T •. ^178TH: ST Sw L 177TH PL s1 Sw I N S o O < ,'-. ? �'Ti� I; !n I - 7_J..`•• ;176TH Pt SW a (�• x Q 179TH ST 179TN .. ^ _. ,:' t. )a 2 >' ,.I 7H I Q PL Sw SW ¢ ti O . �' r- , .:`$T z? W a. •t P = 1 P TH L W .f... -�' i. ,r:G, ••> ISIST PL Sw • _ ♦ r, $w S L, s ' P �` Lv. .ter t ,L'r •••' ti i 3 'ffiN `i Qa 161ST 5P W .'h.• ]laP r.•In 1$: .n P. SW MAQ3 ffiN Pt $ww Q Z NJO .,- :A1RDD:�u1 ♦toA si •1 lR "��' > •.182ND P SW Y 63R PL $VJ - 4? P $w:: ^.S N > 8J 0 L 184TH 7 I R o3 ? '1 a ) 1 R P Sw t83.0 St Sv1 S . _ :A.tn i 184 PL .. 2 r•:' ",' 1 > i• > 164TH $T •$W 1641H Pl siM1" n r SR :1: ". 1': .tn....' • a i . _ 1 THS T Q u pK r•*_1., .s•r •�^Seg, _ f x 3f $ 1eytH 1� p 185TH�3 PL xL.. i 1651H ST Sw = ALDERWO. r "I S __ e�1•i; - n • 166TH ST SW I. Z 186TH J w= '- P :park 3 7r"o M BN L E Q '' 11 LJ 'a"..�Pi Sw� 1O �a fd a'vt wte 188TN ST SWI r1 3+ - --:;''. 1 TH w > f > 168TN ST W E1. PENNY LN 1 TH PL Svv > _ n5 S ` IBSTH PL v' ` 3 1�7 PL Sw _ PS 5w Q Pr > R. w;� a 31 TH STSW •9a" i r 9f�i I 169TH P w' ALD r!9NTH>.19�S7 PL Sw f $ r 1915T +•:� is .,p�LQ$w _ ;r a i Sw 1 in I 1915T 1915T Si w . 1-I MA -z-1 Y7S'•' .r a - r� : 197ST STLS ,ST ■ x: " Sw . 1.. ...1 o' 157NP. Sl - $7 5w DgIE x wy r ST $w 192N0 St Sw 192N0 I. C�rl•.D s: 'y"7 '" �` a •T: )A , .z.,l :97ND 6t Sw / > '•t 192ND ST P • t 10 •. r e .._ s•RA — a Z,> PL = SW 192N0 PL Sw QrT,. SCRIBER r9JNC " 19 R P a ' R sT sw 4AKEt 193t�,D :'�> �� 1,8¢ P\�i. PL SW .. a 1.1 a '' I `'• NS ■ '- ■ `~ S i. 9,iH St Sw InTH St sw z 2? 196TH As �; 5C SW:'�.. & — I N This figure copied from THOMAS BROS MAPS, Snohomish County, Washington, 1990. Vicinity Map TERRA Meadowdale Residence ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Geotechnical Consultant~ Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 [Figure .1 T ® 7 TP —1 Test Pit Location and Number I I i ® $ — 1 Boring Location and Number I I i I i I i I 0 20 . 40 Scale in Feet O N A O) CO O Site Map Meadowdale Residence Edmonds, Washington tang. Proi. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 2 } LANDSLIDE HAZARDS - U: 4A Renewed movements in old slump material 2c d—� 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material 3 02 .. 3B Debris slides in materials that have not l ; _.3A05— previously failed 1 �1 S `✓ 2 1 ", 05 O The two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability ' SITE I � of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period j �, _ ... _ - _ I Cr ) o ,t� A2� + � I`�D - 3 02 0 350 . 1 4 A 2 s \ l GI a 2 •I'I . j�j� i l p 4 90 11 l A06\ # 1, r 2' 2 y y Jr- ; l A02 i 1 a 3e02 This figure copied from Figure 5 in the final report on the Meadowdale Area Landslide Hazards Investigation by Roger Lowe Associates Inc, 1979 N Scale: 1'= 300' 2 I \1 �. aA 35 ` I n 1 I ' 4A25 4A ' c ' 2 0 01�4n is LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT TERRA MEADOWDALE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Weotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 3 1 1 F_ SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL _ GRAPH SYMBOL_ TYPICAL DESCRIPTION U GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, _9:: little or no fines. J c`, More than 50% of (Ic3ss 01Ua 1 GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures. Cn CT coarse fraction -- 54% fines). little or no fines. GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, W is larger than Gravels -plastic fines. za, Cn No. 4 sieve. with fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. Q � plastic fines. CC �' v' SANDS Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, t oo Sands little or no fines. SP Poorl Y-graded sands or gravelly sands, W c N coZ (less than U) More than 50% of 5% fines). little or no fines. - Q m coarse fraction SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, r is smaller than Sands non -plastic fines. SC Clayey sands, sand -:clay mixtures, U No. 4 sieve. with fines. plastic fines. SILTS.AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silt or c01alaye fine sands or clayey silts with a IQ-- CL Inorganic clays of Ipw to.medium plasticity, rlavelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean U o Liquid limit is less than 50°,G. 0 W ca N o ° OL ,�i�i�i�i'it Organic silts and organic clays of low Z o z 0LID i��;iii�i��� plasticity. C ti SILTS AND. CLAYS MH — Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous rr � N fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. . �, @ ° Liquid limit is greater than 50%. CFI Inorganic clays of higli plasticity; fat clays. W v, OH ii Organic clays of medium to high plastictty�, I organic silts. HIGHLY _ORGANIC SOILS PT •��••: ••"•,;,°�- _ Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS 2" OUTER DIAMETER I SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER . C TORVANE READING,-tsf 2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY QU tsf TUBE SAMPLER PENETROMETER READING, P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight. SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED PCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot Q *WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent' WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foal T f� Rf�. Soil Classification System Meadowdale Residence - - ASSOC IA I E-S Edmonds, Washington Proi. No. 1474 0s:ta 7/90 Figure 4 BORING NO. B-- 1 Logged By __Di3G Date. 6-29-90 ELEV. N 109' Graph upt CS Soil Description D(ft.)h Sample Blows (° ) Ft. Tan sandy, clayey, silt, moist to wet, loose to medium stiff. I S-1 10 .9 5 j S-2 .s 19.8 10 ML I S-3 14 26.7 15 j S-4 31 26.4 20 I S-5 1s 29.3 25 Becomes stiff I S-s 20 29.7 30 I s-7 32 26.0 35 1 S-s so 31.8 Dark Gray Clay, moist, hard 40 CL ®r/z I S-9 33 35.0 Thin sand layers 45 1 s-10 100 13.$ Tan silty sand, very fine grained SM moist, very dense: So S-11 100 12.7 Boring completed at depth 53.8 feet. Groundwater observation well installed. Soil Logs TERRA Meadowdale Residence ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1474 Date 7/90 Figure 6 �T FILE a usE CITY OF EDMONDS VINE PERMIT 9Qd189 NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION D. SUITE:AP OWNER NAME NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS • j© \ 75 � / --o,A 4 MAR,L_YN D�,�N LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO LID —NO w MAILING %ADDRESS U �'�^'�' �`�' I `� �V vv • PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approve O_ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTI_4A �IrfoJ RW Permit Required JT��LEiVA, 9�1� �� ���� PROPOSED E g7®® REQUIREDOEDICAnON Street Use Required `-� PROPOSED -3 0P Inspegtik Required NAM,EE . 1� Sidewalk Required ��n'_'tZKIMyD��$ic�NG1R�.�� IMG ME31RZEA LIN PIZE NO.OFF�TVRES PRV REQUIRED U ., 1.o 3 /) YESV NO L1. MDIypJ EXPIRATION DATE - include all easements fL Tax Account �j9 — typ,© _ I01 Parcel No. �i''�/ '" NEW RESIDENTIAL ® PLUMBING ElADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REMODEL APppppT. BNNryNLOC. j� `J SIGN ggqqpppFENCE REPAIR ® CYDS. ❑ II-x_FT) EIpEMOLISH O WOODSSWIM INSERT POOL HOT HOT TUB SPA ®GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ CAR`O T ROCKERY RENEWAL ;TYPE OF•I:�SE;,BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: NUMBER �' -f^' NUMBER OF OF ,/ DWELLING STORIES 44 SP`M A,Y/ UNITS 1 CRITICAL AREAS" NUMBER ak_ DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) REMARKSis = J•b. wrsrNy �mr� , 776 fug _:� � �.I/T��' w z ENGINEERING MEMO OA `"•III(! 1W4*0 FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY N SIGN AREA SEPA VIEW AOB ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLET /N) i JEXEM SHgR LINE Y EX `/ V"AARRRIIANCE OR CU PLA VIEW BY 2 1 pA E SETBAC FEET .s.1C XEI LOT C✓OVERr/QGE _ _ FRONT SIDE REAR g REMARK a - u 1t�270153 .2, 5 .. SPECIAL INSPECTOR REOVIRED AREA ` OCCUPAN LOAD YES 1'k a C7 ! IV MARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UzBC 305 s J 46 Its FINAL INSPECTION REOUIRED I I IOT, Lt) ,E 30, 7 `o /��)^ j(�/j 53 ,ny' t PLAN CHECK FEE •'+�• A+ � "• P5 eUILDING HEAT SOURCE: ( GLAZINGdQ ^� ! s (�. D%d PLUMBING Plan Check No. <''a 1•-n°"� F-L.. MECHANICAL/ l L A IQ .� This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewPlks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application:180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE 7G Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENO. INSPECTION FEE w successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages Of a whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT r ft = of this permit. Issuance Of this. -permit, shall not be deemed to C 17 d 'mollify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance i nor limit in any way the Cityls.abillty to enforce any, ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I provision." I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly avihorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with City and THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work Buthoriz• AUTHORIZES signed by the Building Official or his/her ad the(eby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLv THE WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is Coda of the Stale of Washington relating to Workmen's COmpensa• acknowledged in space provided. tion Insurance and ROW 18.27: INSPECTION S G �OWNER OR ENT) SIGNED DEPARTMENT O F IALs sl NATURE OnrE JDATE CITY OF EDMONDS 47'Ij ATTENTION CALL FOR INSPECTION RELEA DATE 1 S IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ��� - O��O ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 'PERMIT EXPIRES . 3Q-99 CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE DOE PERMIT � NUMBER91,qC`604, CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITEIAPTY ADDRESS \ t/N OWNER NAMEfNAM^E�-O/F�BUSINESS 5 t0 VA r„�� �j AN LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. ZMAILING ADDRESS {� P Y N ( 'y 0 U PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TCP Approved ESCY CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING �' - REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required '� a Street Use Permit Req40 Inspection Required 4 a N - PROPOSED Sitlewalk RequiretlN 0 NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED _ f O YES NO ¢ ADDRESS - - REMARKS w ` 2 o 0 n/ Z W CIT ZIP TELEPHONE p 4Gin r NAME ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY nJ a U ¢ ADDRESS S1311,9 O � MFu,n n/w�xcJD y;Fwc�J�rR. w /FJ��/ p/ dR aan va--w � 30^l� " M".<r a e /K i CITY ZIP TELEPHONE U 210 (' VARIANCE OR CU + ADB# SHORELINE 8 STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKEDBY '„i .7 f �K, SERA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT Y 1® COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY -.INCLUDE ALL EASE ENTS ' Hr`Rt, F a EXP U 'LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FL) rn ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR 0 C mm� ^^ Z q PROPERTY X ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. �- z J �^ LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE a ❑ NEW wI RESIDENTIAL j❑�' ❑ PLUMBINGMECH REMARKS ❑ ADDITION COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE OF USE - ',,.. ❑ REMODEL ❑ APARTMENT ❑ SIGN .I it REPAIR ❑ GRADING CYDS ❑ FENCE FT) DE' ( X CHECKED BY TY" nF CONSTRUCTION C OE OCCUPANT OTHER ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK I Lj GROUP c (R® INSPECTR AREA OCCLOAUPANT GARAGE RETAINING WALL ❑ ❑ ❑ RENEWAL REOUSPECTAL IREDV YES ¢ CARPORT RO K RY F (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: REMARKS O PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 0 w NUMBER NUMBER OF �r m O OF '^ m DWELLING AR AI SAL ?'1i1�t' e '.. O STORIES UNITS NUMBER lF '',.. DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE i h/ .t+ FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED r r VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % 'BUILDING PL N CHECK N u VESTED DATEdAk pl iiyeRrt MECHANICAL THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO .. F BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS,SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES,ETO.) WILL REQUIRE GRADINGIFILL r_ SEPARATE PERMISSION. STATE SURCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS STORM DRAINAGE FEES m j "APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF,.HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS ND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE IN INTEREST, AGREES [O; INDEMNIFY, DEFEND. RND-H.Ql9 HARML TMB CITY OF ¢ EDMONDS, WASHINGTONj' ITS OFFICIALS, EM PLOYEES, AAD AGENT I�Etl,$NV AND = ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTIYORINDIRECTLY '3 O FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE PLAN DEPOSIT C' p DEEMEDTOMODIFV, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OFANY CITY ORDINANCE CHECK = NOR LIMIT IN ANYWAY THE CITY'S ABILITYTO ENFORCE ANVORDINANCE PROVISION." TOTAL AMOUNT DUE HEREBY ACKNO LEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION;,THjkT,THF� INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORF4T�AND THAT I AM.YHE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF AGRI TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION Building Otlicial or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid. and WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27, receipt is acknowledged in space provided. ' SIONATUR OWNER O DATE SIGNED (425) OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE -,2 V _" 771-0220 RELEASE DATE ATT ION T IS U WFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL AI;'/ J A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 / /t ORIGINAL- FILE • YELLOW -INS PECTOR PINK�OWNER GOLD-ASSESSOROR 5l98 CITY OF EDMONDS EILE PERMIT ONE �— NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION J08 SUITE/APTIt OWNER NAAfE NAML' OF UUSINESS ADDRESS S _•.y p� V CX CJ _ ` LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID N0. ¢ MAILING ADDRESS PUBLIC RIGH1 OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved 0 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NU BER EXISTINGLlt2l REQUIRED Pw Permit Required J } L •?'74- 'U 1 �l r t G7 ` DEDICATION _..(` /'�'� :J•� - Street Use Permit Req'd D Inspection Required NAME PROPOSED Si tl�Yrelk '� O C 1 REMARKS Z w ADDRESS Z L -oc, 7 : 0 Z q CITY 2P TELEPHONE NUMBER[•ZJLar pP/,tfof�e/dtt/Mi°y� 0- L.: r6:t1TL±/N� NAME 4ef/' /`�(�' ,(j F /i-lv— Cf i.l� Iit,6f, 1� a `C ,',te GJ Il�C3-'" 1 -'-' j.'1 I'le - ENGINEERING MEMO DATED �r Q �7 REVIEW BY lII_f/�T ' ¢ ADDRESS OF l.) U METER SIZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE NO.OF FIXTURES `ZIP L!wct.11,2,0 PHONE NUMBER L (D-6 � l REMARKS 3 O STATE LICENSE NUMBER ''_ l — G V- — F (✓ I - .. 11,-J 7 SIGN AREA BEPA REVIEW ADS NO. Legal DeSCriprn of Prop rty - in lude all �aSe�Bnts a[ - to - ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT tw.i .t:I iT u v LL�i zl SHORELINE EXP VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE W o ^��C'Y11;1F GL4> ( Lt�j I Uk a (- r:.LLCc1 ?�ai,,-,PYci? !V `i a 11// l0 W 9 6ti SETBACKS —FEET HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE ? z 0 1 Yy 111�, 1iv L 7 [' -� , (i �� 10 v ✓,I Y't` L'! Parcei,No. FRONT SIDE REAR REMARK Z Tgx Acdount .� IL ® NEW RESIDENTIAL PIUNJBING DADDIALTER COMMERCIAL D MECHANICAL DREPAIR D APT, BLDG. D SIGN GRADING FENCE C ECKE�D�"�}08�)pytl ="rYK TYPECONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT , 4 DEMOLISH CYOS. i x_FT) S �7 CARPORD swim . REMODEL D GARAGET D POOL, ECIAL SIPINSPECTOR AREA GROOUPPANGY REQUIRED YES R.� LOAD D WOO sERT DRETAININWALL/ D RENEWAL RENEWAL EMARKS ROCKERY g jrvPE of usE, euslNEss oR acnviTv) ExPLaN; PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 z 0 t N NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF O / - DWELLING ' UNITS O -' DESCRIBE WORK TO BEGONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) -' FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED ' n SF/L/ VALUATION FEE SD/G i _7 y 7ZX001 PLAN CHECK FEE c% 16 06,4x&-e— A6101,*r" BUILDING �. 1e6 '- PLUMBING, Plan Check No. / , %� MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curCs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require Separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE I` Permit Application: 160 Days p CJ Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, �y0`b iG Qemployees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of w5D �� whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance = of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance O ° not timit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMID provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL 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 This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the Stateof Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is ti n Insurance. IN acknowledged in space provided. GN RE IOwNE R A N7) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DATE .. II 1 (CITY EDMONDS ATTENTION CALL FOR RELEASED BY:. DATE INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE --771-3202 'ITIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW = Inspector - ' 4_ / CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC APTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 12-87 fill-) Noi /Suru� aoYlansowurs �1 :YJI•'s r /•6%0.-....r. d-..- �imnrl SKlWi —� / � • \ i I..... bird1d- Q310N Sb 03110�IddV , soNeV+03 �o AllO l -rLr»•r y19.S�'JIA4l3S 1N3ndol3A3e r'Q 3"m 141 00 SL&IMl tYiJ F �0Lw,;�lfNtR�• +onnnr.nYr,uMipiuovY �_ / l n .9n /^AYNM It "m FI JiIM:f A<M1iRN f N NV ooZ E �5?-L- f.�: na an. 16 1, 01,6 M !2 •14�.wi�dwl; 31ON ( m AdO i I�sr LtiZ��,1 � - _ .. �, •:.� l r S3M �g0d1 ; 28 n> 'n L.bl LHl•1r.S1I 0 -�,��n 7r�1�''� :{ ... / {{ 1 '�• � :... , � � :-�:�� ;may �� 1N3W31y.l�1SnONj 'rtO -' � 1 .~rCS` / �.+,•. 1Nlw��dl - _ NpC%yNN�QIsIA108fts '\ f f 4-1_ ^.OI--' i � -III• \ � Y � .. � ��� //f� 'J1 1 -.j ;,h'/.. 114013H ON101ino to 39Y89AOOlOI Cot j"t f� . _.Zl. 93' 1�f1td 4 I l i• . At f „cr '.)�1t - % t :.N'-' Y f �-� N�7, <J, �, o ems71, 791 5r 'I'o Sr nmo.-• 1 h1' f4 �/ I_: r Id o )PY JN1NNtlld A8 03AOdddtt 1 '- ddp21 5 7 jf7%'M M­3 (v fvlv%l klas�mu of (11)- RU i iel01=1=10 •oa sl 131Vo a3AOaddV s -+uY+ 8BNMO ssa V iN VdM_ JNICI I'In' waM, dc� azrcldl L� , 3,4 a(q£0£0 W1SV8£ ,. �Ad 04 M Slr' "P 'iVi8311"M 3NIl1HED 13'18V1d3 ov volleoilloeds opoo of l ; r- � ' :' IJ 714 ' cum! due onoiddn lou soop Mal olais jo opoo All- 'l`�l`.��< •i%�J uolslAoidolupdo)ddno414tiMoouep)000eullalol;�. a 111v u N a3 H1P N N O l: ? N of � eycl dde e41 Aq poioplsuoo pua pales ;: II r Alleollloeds uoeq lou se4 eauel a U314m.rol pus opoo Apo 4lim Aidwoo lou op yol 9OL86 VM `3111V3s suolSlAojd Ouiuleluoo veld ao laid �tuapo,-l/ync Mis AVM 1VNIJaVW -,IV 'rnllllllnnl n*,w inn pn ln�, F n d ��Fl� M DZIM 1 11 nui. n c icr Y '00Nouond1SNOOisinDNIMDAHl .' " "'ll"''"1" lm 1' �a410 fu aaueuen vo4eogp)ow )Oi isanbel At is -LL4 r. F. +: do z < M oo o z < to < z < 40 �yPa os-Ez-b 8 PH oa-e - vH ossucxsva HSINOxous {� zr :z Hai eaaP - ao xa aas°ae° are �za xxvaa ^+ t10B NSsrtHSP,UTT38SOH r� G 3hT ABdI 3777dNI000N FJdANfit 00091 - xHjvHf)odo L JIQ y W O d �- 0 Q .sg Q C, Q Z { �l�L Uw cam.ODD'' W D W ✓7, , i n J W Q W s LIJ di O C7 d z 'O C- L i1 G H Z Ld W d O W J Li< J = X y ' Y P j e i � �a �„ to 75tn Ala a ^ 1 9 _ u u Li J} x< dtC, e7 IY �N1a0 NQl�N1i2318 4 zc aiva as-ez ro aJea os-sr-a aava zrM�xe asaaxaae„ as au asa =xe nwvaa NOSJNIHSVM HSIS4SH4N6 'ham saw [B9 £L.. 9aZ e [i4@ t &SL'�t ?t3£FLaY 7A iPN 3't77.7NI000N 9.LIh'4:tF OE091 AiHvHo orY p o�Wirt 4 AOUt ,40 1rT1 lY.�}IrS.�Q QL�'SI.'�[lvRSaLII[1 n, o z. W w go4�r ID Z.q x _r O o c W C w U H ti Zug.. s t- g'C('j�—.z �OW z Q a xx LLj Cz vu a W ID O LLEL �ai a r how wv - z w Q i ps 7.Jt-12 114 Y1 °-1 2�s,�Ni23i i LA Ld w Q LLJ �t E 9C. a z lot 1— C� _. f .SC,LZtO N �. 'CO CV,0�17VXJ N23HHiCJO 1 NOIONnHHB 11 xilk 1 d m Jt�l� ©Da�Qy� f oz;oee 'VIM `Spuowp3 vsso•SU VM,SGNOW03 Nol"v ooa M'S''IS '4;99L T 'M 93e1d u1SL 1S —�—�NVtD3C St/WOHl SUN 'a -Ha 'tfIV S3XWIMOSSV1n C3-la tdaLL.Lf!S-WaS®t� a g .E g o ;tea w 6y m :s € a a I _HSI- -21a 2w gt �XY l I.I�: !n .. u g 1� �� az � � ��� t S,�l� �� 1 1 •, � l'�i �� � \�;� ���, � � � I � �. �� r��U � � £ � ��� I £ ap : t `'E'd8$NIS 13�t9:l.S`M1I�9S3.- F m �4 "'' is a S, g 9 x_sS. ua ,,Zi, i t, a $- *.•�'#kd ,� wn �p 3 ;as $I�§ s a g£t x t 'a r s,Ss$t s£€'T ' a s �' I ) ( it -d Sz`Y ry, YS S yys s €as § a 4t v ° an z 5 g a T3 26 a, . n o } - m gas �£ 8Y-sacys € z ,E a 3-z § va } 3 f 'aSs3# ?-Rsa£ax• I z$ »a�.. g'ng& fr3= x 3 y a-� aEs's: aW-a. cI g5 g �3"a•«3 ,� • a a d, $ ,zg$a _ a s `-a".£3 ` a" § § - a�a E 3 r s a,,:-. €ee i'..-8 z,k s ga a k .,j $ a a g:8 } { YXtg° aa� _ Ra k"Nu 5a'g..n�#Ze v{�u,.ss: 9aa s�sas-" €#E° iEnxa 5t.:'� a5 S g�S 3 gam g e-�. §£ a "ED", E"< Pi. y a ak s 8 Sn : a a •• 5a s ' Y�c'S' w s v • �tlaP. @frk �s9 sg sc,sE3: €a Ru -i^ .. � F �j 3 a 6 5EY 8 3 8 £ Y k k a %. 4 ' 2 3Al 3 E �9& y S o a a - £Y §@. S.25X 3nE n4 2H I £X�2+'& J 41 m a {} `gg�� �, 3 $o s of s a £ £ t C4 8 a- }jjgac K8 3 _ se §e t} I� a s H, a s .- z " $ €su m.as Xa�Ra s N £ g L $ € $ � Y�� G $.•, b Y 3 a E g�8 a� £ ai qqp y H, $g$ aeN 4 4� .. 'SOtdWC3 NOIAVG OOtr "WIV SM.0 "6930S 's '-, '.L-Lns Lumsots Q �4 M 7a/ 80=1 3ON3(]IS38 wu 4" ul 16 � i Lu L Oln" I Ll B ID PP� J t�4 T -1Z �si ul Me mmls '4199 si �J pA uip Huh —" v ti m o j" K 'H K-N V—P 4, TH Nat! e, 4!J, .. ....... q -U J-- 11-1 o ,-K jA'a ad "y Sl � `�� : sssoscc /, �vmi'saeawa3 No "Q oov, IT E +;, --------- A9� .s 39 s riil Ii�l LM �LM Ql��$.c 10 j Mflk JA ten. use `�'.. �t.�- �� sae d �✓ .x-<� �' ~�x� i � -�a x a 3 -i xa•xs #e xxy� € n{x5xk k F '_ � s � s,� s _ _ t `g ss x $ xy - €>s 3 x ��a� z •`fi*i �� �x Ia�� a fix;: x€ � �sx�s a € a x s xxs � ag 2€ �.� � � j x �x°€ � 9 �.. saxTa 9 €e s ag xp �.1'.c 'xx3" � tg°c p' xf pEF ta- ss _ -V-V�. yxg,a € � x z es IA xi ay:.t� fixes s z� & x , NO, €S, s s ` I $ x x ga sxzka Asa ^ c J �g e s x s s a - ;NH `xx a kx s $ $P$ sa k e c E3. }_, p Q 6 ,es` xa x y iYRupE € 3 1 sga E 4 ato _2 g 55 I Cx $ S 2 $& Y3 e 2 xeU 8 $ £ k5kk R a€ 3 ® £ In _.� c t ; a € s E $ a: z:3 sE a x a y "� �; a si $ a x •ka�zx xx� s€ s kzax Z 3 y �£§_ s a t9 TP .qn biz b L Z x N}t 8-}{ E5 C aq - rK Im V9'3� i gx. to =a 53 �n J 4. 3�