Loading...
15706 75TH PL W.PDF111111111111 6048 15706 75TH PL W �sLu� ADDRESS: /✓ 7-s—.,�� TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): < Z 052 COVENANTS Co7*70q 3 0030Z �S- CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 4�4111 PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:rLi�%��/1!.!J Ankt-u tiCwvr of bweme✓r Gllb620 -,:OS!2 PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: (6 /T� I SEWER LID FEE $: SHORT PLAT FILE: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: 7� SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S)#: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: l0`30-9D STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 2-1--qJ LOT: LID #: ZJ0 BLOCK: 3Ce /sw b ,0� t//J! u,✓i� /`r,�t, CPk ,G�'-R-�.le �I'LGfO�-dr LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc F c�Tg��EbM�oE vs Address of Construction: �7 c Pit - Property Legal Description (Include all easements): Owner and/or Contractor: 61JA RE Gek3! O� 0 N 0 SIDE SEWER PERMIT State License No. 51JARG C [-1z L0 Building Permit No. ,WSingle Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public PERMIT N° 8444 Invasion into City Right-of-Way:,K No ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property:1KNo ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certiby fhat I have read and shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. 'A114173 Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL PUB�LIIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: �771-d By x Trunk Charge: • 11 L�'eJ Date Issued: 99 Assessment Fee: /V Receipt No.: !�9 Lid No.: c2 Partial Inspection: Date -Initial - Comments Reason Rejected: Date -Initial - Final Inspection Approved: Date Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Butt Copy: Applicant Revised 3!90 —Revised 4)90 SIDE SEWER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 1. Side sewer permits shall be posted at job'-site-and available•to inspector at time of inspection. Inspection during normal working hours only. One (1) working day notice required. Side sewers must be left uncovered until inspected. A water test is required. 2. Property owners can•obtain a permit to install side sewers on private property. Licensed side sewer contractors must be employed to construct side sewers in the City right-of-way. Invasion into City right-of-way requires a separate permit. 3. The side sewer contractor assumes full responsibility for each installation for one (1) year. 4. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original conditions. Street restoration fees shall be.paid in advance under a right-of-way permit. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure due to poor compaction of fill. ' , 5. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected to a side sewer system. 6. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines through other than granular soil. 7. Cleanouts at property line and at house will have risers installed to within 12" of surface grade with removable cap. 8. Commercial establishments require a minimum of six inch (6") side sewer line. 9. Side sewers may not be installed closer than -thirty .inches (30") to any structure. 10. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. 11. Side sewer lines must belaid 0at a minimum grade of 2% (1.150) and maximum grade of 100% (45 ). 12. No turn inside sewer gre 50 (1/8 bend) is allowed be Veen cleanout. All 90 turns must,be constructed of a .45 (1/8 bend) and wye with removable cap for cleanouts. 13. No cleanout shall be paved over. If located in pavement, cast iron lids.will:be installed. 14. All connections will be of gasketed type. No solvent joints .-unless prior approval is granted. .X71 . C r' - � ,W4rr,.,,(Y4`��yo �f�., r '.•,.- �,;�:PnHyr,;;,..�iiEi��l..'NYxP,xr-µ,t''�w�1rr-,�:vzr wf��;--,^,. �'�'rf{,�,�n„r't4�'�'"' �"'a�-ta•n..arwi�+!" �'�"�^�+�-'1�'. yt"i✓' r .,�„/r Q�11Y'%`'�>t,x�^'•�^•^w•2:lY.:r, "t�aynSk+^a w , ra'Mu+ "'kaNi:'"�',�!}'" r �,.` FILE r �- .811REdf CITY. OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER, PERMIT r890, 19"10 _ .. •• PERMIT .N2 ..84444 75 PL Address of Construction: E Property Legal Description (Include all easements): 11 LYNNWOOD' LINE RECEIVED Owner and/or Contractor: 64JA PE FEB d' 3 1993. State License No. SuA kE C `l2 LO PUBLIC. WORKS DEpr Building Permit No. .®; Single Family Invasion into City' Right-of-Way:9 No ❑ Yes ❑ Multi -Family (No. of.Units. -)RW Construction Permit No. ❑ Commercial Cross other Private Property:VCNo ❑ -Yes ❑ Public Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement r a .2 I cert' hat I have read and shall comply with all city requirements Date . . as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CA NPUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: �%%r1����ued By�,� Trunk Charge:�pp� Date Issued: Assessment Fee: /y Receipt No:: Lid No.: c2� D. Partial Inspection: Date Initial Comments t ,- Reason Rejected: Date Initial 'C'P 10�6 Final Inspection Approved: Dates In�iaL"/ ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant ' Revised 3190 IN O rl w2 d � I CAA ;V U� � o � z r d a C Q o DQ z r 0 O O z � o � o o rrn WO ��a o p �• CD n P CD 3 � co • REID MIDDLETON REVISED June 4, 1991 December 3, 1991 File No. 02-86-130-002-70 ..• STREET FILE STORMWATER DETENTION CALCULATIONS FOR t &IN ME N : f f ,RESIDENCES MEAD0WDALE BEACH ON PTF ft", �28, CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Existing Site Conditions The northern parcel, Jewell property, has an existing unfinished cement concrete foundation and slab floor and the joint use timber walkway consuming 1011.35 sq.ft. of the 8508.89 sq.ft. parcel. The existing vegetation varies from light to heavily treed and dense to light ground cover on this steeply sloped parcel. The southerly parcel, Riggle property, has an existing residence with cement concrete walkway and deck consuming 1196.78 sq.ft. of the 8528.16 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from grassed areas to flower beds west of the residence. 1. Combined total area = 17,037.05 sq. ft. = 0.39 Ac. Tc = 317/(2.0)60 + 10 min = 12.6 min. Existing Prorated C = 0.29 Intensity i = 1.7 in/hr @ 10 year design storm (Everett Curve) Intensity i = 2.62 in/hr @ 100 year design storm (Everett Curve) Q existing 10 Yr. = ciA = 0.29(1.7)0.39 = 0.19 c.f.s. Q existing 100 yr. = cia = 0.29(2.62)0.39 = 0.296 c.f.s. say 0.3 c.f.s. Future Site Conditions Both property owners have agreed to a combined storm sewer collection and detention system with the recommendations of the Development Considerations of the Site Geological Study prepared by Geological Services Inc, dated June 6, 1985 File No. 853-2 and 863-3. The combined new development on each parcel both exceed the 2000 sq.ft. minimum requirement for on -site detention of City of Edmonds Code Chapter 18.30 and therefore are now subject to on -site detention. Therefore using the Yrjanainen and Warren Method for simple basin detention design the following calculation are to determine the required detention for these two parcels: 19031 33rd Ave. W, Suite 301 P.O. Boa 6638 Lynnwood, WA 98036-663S 206/775-3434 • Jewell/Riggle Drainage Calculations REVISED June 4, 1991 December 11, 1986 File No. 02-86-130-002-70 Page 2 North parcel Jewell property Impervious area = 3307.41 sq.ft. @ C = 0.90 South parcel Riggle property Impervious area = 2513.30 sq.ft. @ C = 0.90 Prorating the Future runoff coefficient = (3307.41 + 2513.30 )(0.9) + (11216.34)(0.20) 17,037.05 = 0.44 Q existing = Q allowable = 0.19 c.f.s. Qo = 0 allowable (0.19) (A)(C),) _ (0.39)(0.44) = 1.1072 T = -25 + (2255/1.1027)l2 = 20.13 V, _ ((3607)(20.13)/(20.13+25)) - 40 (1.1072) 20.13 = 717.34 Cu.Ft./AcC V,.w = V, A Cv„ = 717.34 (0.39) 0.44 = 123.10 cubic feet Sizing the Detention System Required Detention = 123.1 cubic feet Using a 24" pipe Area = 3.142 cu.ft./l.f.; Install 4011 = 125.68 cu.ft. Sizing the Orifice Discharge Q allowable = 0.19 c.f.s. Using the orifice equation Q = cd A (2g(H))12 with H = 2.2' and solving for A = 0.19/0.62(64.4(2.2))m = 0.0257 sq.ft. = 2.172 " U �_ , W -ice JewelMggle Drainage Calculations REVISED June 4, 1991 December 11, 1986 File No. 02-86-130-002-70 Page 3 Using a 21/$" orifice = 0.0246 sqA H will change therefore solving for new H = (0.19/(0.62(0.0246))2/64.4 = 2.41' gepyrdetcal. arm Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. REVISED December 11, 1986 Engineers • Surveyors • Planners December 3, 1986 File 02-86-130 0•�'<. DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR HARRISON JEWELS,/JEAN RIGGLE RESIDM ES ON PTN. LOTS 5 AND 6, BLK.28, MEADO DALE CITY OF EDMONDS, WkSHINGTON Existing Site Conditions The northern parcel, Jewell property, has an existing un inished cement concrete foundation and joint use timber walkway concuming approximatly 800 sq.ft. of the 8,423.77 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from light to heavely treed and dense to light ground cover on this steeply sloped parcel. The southern parcel, Riggle property, has as existing residence with cement concrete walkway and deck concurring approximatly 1099 sq.ft. of the 8,444.70 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from grassed areas to flower beds west of the residence. Combined total area = 16,868.47 sq.ft. or 0.39 Ac. Tc = 317/(2.0)60 + 10 min. = 12.6 min. Exists = 0.28 Intensity i = 1.7 in/hr at 10 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Intensity i = 2.62 in/hr at 100 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Q existing 10 Yr. = c i A = 0.28 (1.7) 0.39 = 0.18 c.f.s. Q existing 100 Yr. = c i A = 0.28 (2.62) 0.39 = 0.29 c.f.s. Future Site Conditions Both property owners have agreed to a combined storm sewer collection system in compliance with the recommendations of the Development Considerations of the Site Geological Study prepared by Geological Services Inc, dated June 6, 1985 File No. 853-2-and 863-3. The combined new development area does not exceed the minimum 2000 sq.ft. of City of Edmonds Code Chapter 18.30, therefore is not subject to dentention requirements. The following data therefore is to assist the City of Edmonds Department of Public Works with the review of the the sizing of the combined storm sewer system: New Developed Areas: Jewell Parcel = 1270 sq.ft. Bldg. and decks + 316 sgq.ft. Existing common walkway. Total = 1586 sq.ft. 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-3434 Jewell/Riggle Drainage Calculations REVISED December 11, 1986 December 3, 1986 File No. 02-86-130 Page 2 Riggle Parcel = 1790 sq.ft. Bldg. and decks + 200 sq.ft. proposed carport + 48 sq.ft. of existing walkway to remain. Total 2038 sq.ft. New combined impervous areas total = 3624 sq.ft. @ 0.9 Future Runoff Coefficient = 3624 (0.9) + 13244.47 (0.2) 16,868.47 = 0.35 � = 60/2(60) + 50/10(60) + 210/2(60) + 5 min. = '7.3 min. Intensity = i = 2.2 in/hr at 10 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Intensity = i = 3.3 in/hr at 100 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Q max. 10 yr. Developed = Fut. c (i) A = 0.35 (2.2) 0.39 = 0.30 c.f.s. Q max. 100 yr. Developed = Fut. c(i) A = 0.35 (3.3) 0.39 = 0.45.c.f.s. All storm sewer pipe shall be Sch. 40 PVC Mannings n = 0.012 Sizing the discharge pipe uusing Manning's Equation Q = 1.486 2/ I/ 0.012 A R 3 S 2 2/ A R 3 4" pipe = 0.017; 6" pipe = 0.049; 8" pipe = 0.106 Slope of discharge is 38.3%; Capacity of 6" pipe = 3.76 c.f.s. Slope of pipe between Cleanout No. 1 & 2 = 3.75% Capacity 6"pipe @ 3.75% = 1.17 c.f.s. All pipes shall be securely anchored into the hillside at intervals of 20 feet or less as required. See attached plan/profile for design and details. Q 1,7 uOz;nu6Zsap au271 ((I) R4?007OA 0 w j D/b 02:;I7}y (A) ZZ'zi fiq?ooy A o� (Q) aa4acmsg ad2d adoZS ; M M tfq6ua7 adzd +� 1* Mqq b) Sdj 0 0 0 0 0 '14"/s V4/ (?) atj/us `Rg2suaquj 4` N . �% N iv N 11 tV :;aZuj o; aurc,y u 0 0 0 (0) quaw7,.,r;a00 jjound °� Q (Y) sa,wy °na,zv 0 0 o d os v 4 a � � w0al AIM A 0 1- I I t i i I i c o 0 o O 3 o I, � I 4 0 p e O o 'aQ c o 0 REID. MIDDLETON do ASSOCIATES. INC. DES. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 121 - Stn AVE. N. , Edmonds. Washington 96WO DR. CH. 1010 on IN ISS 206/TM3434 c�re��,dG FILE NO. r.e. 0z-96 —/30 SCALE SHElr / Or / STREET FLE OCT 3 0 1990 11ZI r� RMRT COUNTER Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. REVISED December 11, 1986 Engineers Surveyors Plonners December 3, 1986 File 02-86-130 X ,- S y DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR HARRISON JEWELL/JEAN RIOQE RESIDENCES �. t ON PTN . LOTS 5 AND 6, BI,K . 2 8, MF,ljDOhIDAI,E M i �� r CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Existing Site Conditions The northern parcel, Jewell property, has an existing unfinished cement concrete foundation and joint use timber walkway concuming approximatly 800 sq.ft. of the 8,423.77 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from light to heavely treed and dense to light ground cover on this steeply sloped parcel. The southern parcel, Riggle property, has as existing residence with cement concrete walkway and deck concuming approximatly 1099 sq.ft. of the 8,444.70 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from grassed areas to flower beds west of the residence. Combined total area = 16,868.47 sq.ft. or 0.39 Ac. Tc = 317/(2.0) 60 + 10 min. = 12.6 min. Exist c .= 0.28 Intensity i = 1.7 in/hr at 10 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Intensity i = 2.62 in/hr at 100 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Q existing 10 Yr. = c i A = 0.28 (1.7) 0.39 = 0.18 c.f.s. Q existing 100 Yr. = c i A = 0.28 (2.62) 0.39 = 0.29 c.f.s. Future Site Conditions Both property owners have agreed to a combined storm sewer collection system in compliance with the recommendations of the Development Considerations of the Site Geological Study prepared by Geological Services Inc, dated June 6, 1985 File No. 853-2 and 863-3. The combined new development area does not exceed the minimum 2000 sq.ft. of City of Edmonds Code Chapter 18.30, therefore is not subject to dentention requirements. The following data therefore is to assist the City of Edmonds Department of Public Works with the review of the the sizing of the combined storm sewer system: New Developed Areas: Jewell Parcel = 1270 sq.ft. Bldg. and decks + 316 sqq.ft. Existing common walkway. Total = 1586 sq.ft. 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Woshington 98020 (206) 775-3434 Jewell/giggle Drainage Calculations REVISED December 11, 1986 December 3, 1986 File No. 02-86-130 Page 2' Riggle Parcel = 1790 sq.ft. Bldg. and decks + 200 sq.ft. proposed carport .+ 48 sq.ft. of existing walkway to remain. Total 2038 sq.ft. & L '.l New combined impervous areas total = 3624 sq.ft. @ 0.9 Future Runoff Coefficient = 3624 (0.9) + 13244.47 (0.2) 16,868.47 = 0.35 Tb = 60/2(60) + 50/10(60) + 210/2(60) + 5 min. = 7.3 min. Intensity = i = 2.2 in/hr at 10 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Intensity = i = 3.3 in/hr at 100 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Q max. 10 yr. Developed = Fut. c (i) A = 0.35 (2.2) 0.39 = 0.30 c.f.s. Q max. 100 yr. Developed = Fut. c(i) A = 0.35 (3.3) 0.39 = 0.45 c.f.s. All storm sewer pipe shall be Sch. 40 PVC Mannings n = 0.012 Sizing the discharge pipe uusing Manning's Equation Q = 1,486 2/ 1/ 0.012 A R 3 S 2 2/ AR 3 4" pipe = 0.017; 6" pipe = 0.049; 8" pipe = 0.106. Slope of discharge is 38.3%; Capacity of 6" pipe = 3.76.c.f.s. Slope of pipe between Cleanout No. 1 & 2 = 3.75% Capacity 6"pipe @ 3.75% = 1.17 c.f.s. All pipes shall be securely anchored into the hillside at intervals of 20 feet or less as required. See attached plan/profile for design and details. u0zjnu6Z0ap auz71 (n) �t�;caolaA 0 w a a/b . 0?4nY (A) 11nd FtlZDOJaA � o` o: R zavdv e- o (a) zap m. -iG adzd - : adogg tt:;6ua7 adzd M (v70 = b) sd6 `(w2d c o o a o !* voiZt.(/U-1 R:;zsuaquj N N N N N tv :#ovl;i %0o1 as .Zn�os 4; .9 W gazul oq a4t2,r o a- 0 0 o c oo�o oaoa (0) qua;t..a j;ao,? jlound o- Q 0 o d o (v) sa,zDy `nazy N o r 4 0 0 0 0 1 o.r 4 Afro woaj MM A IN arl EMEMEMEMEN SEEMENMENE INEREMMMI NEEMEM1001 NEEME 1 Ecullool I ME111000111 EME111 nm 3 V CQ I REID. MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES. INC. DEB I SURVEYORS - PLANNERS DR "ENGINEERS 121- Dtn AVE. N. , Edmonds. Washington 98020 CH. I � Immu 206/77S,3434 N I I I ' lm DATE,./� `G FILE NO. R.e. D2-94 =/%Ta SCALE SHER / OP BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Mb& 2000 First Interstate Center STREET FILE 999 Third Avenue PACIFIC DIVISION Seattle, Washington 98104 C. DAVID GEORGE Telephone (206) 467- 3329 Permit Department Fax No. (206) 467-3315 October 26, 1992 Reid Middleton p, 0: Box 6638 Lynnwood WA 98036-6638 Attention: Allen Morgan, Project Engineer RE: SUPPLEMENT to Permit Number 245,260 for R/W Pipeline placement of a 6-inch storm water runoff at MEADOWDALE WA Enclosed, in dup licate, is the above -mentioned Supplemental Permit ed in the and Addendum draft.tn dTforosign ture. pies must beOne ncopy will bee ned fir Vour and re you will be provided with information for your file. At that time, y on contacting the Roadmaster and schedule work on our property • There is no additional charge for a SUPPLEMENT to an original Permit. s, the following must be returned to our To complete the proces office: 1• Signed and witnessed permit with completed ADDENDUM. An original RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY POLICY or your check for $350.00 to cover artici ation in BNRR's Blanket Railroad Protective Liabilit, Pro ram. sens- 3. vidence of General Liability, Vehicle & Workers Comp ation Insurance as required for Permittee, Contractor and/or Sub -Contractors. THIS DRAFT PEMIT DOES NO LI GTON VE YOU RIGHT-OF WAY THE LEGAL RIGHT DO NOT PROCEED CONH [Y WORK OR TO ENTER EU)t ANY WU ION UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN EXECUTED COPY OF THE PERMIT. STR Sincerely, C. David George Permit Coordinator Enclosure File: 8254 Meadowdale WA oct2692d303 a r This agreement is effective 16th day of. NOVEMBER, 1992. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written. t BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY BY: Manager of Engineering Witnesses to Execution by: CITY OF EDMONDS c Title: Witnesses to Execution by HARRISON JEWELL Signature ell JEAN RIGGLE gnature oct2692d301 This agreement is effective 16th day of. NOVEMBER, 1992. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY BY: Manager of Engineering - 1 Witnesses to Execution by:, CITY OF EDMONDS BY. /% / �47 Title: Gam/ Witnesses to Execution by 14ARRISON JEWELL Signatur Wi ne s to Exe tion by JEAN RIGGLE jignatu�re����- GREET FILE CITY OF E®81/1ONDS 250 5lh AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES February 3, 1988 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR H a r r i s o J�ej- 5535 Seaview Ave. N.W. Seattle, WA. 98107 SUBJECT: BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD PERMIT Dear Mr. Jewel: Enclosed are the signed copies of the subject permit for your submittal to Burlington Northern Railroad. Thank you for your patience and good luck on your project. Very truly yours, v4A JERRY W. HAUT , P.E. Hydraulics Engineer JWH/sdt Enclosures BNRRPERM/TXTST530 PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING h M SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT 245260 BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, the description in that certain permit numbered 245260, dated October 1, 1983, issued to CITY OF EDMONDS, whose post office address is Civic Center, Edmonds, WA 98020 by the BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (formerly BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC.) a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Railroad", authorizing an 18-inch stormwater pipeline, hereinafter referred to as the "facility,", located at or near MEADOWDALE Station, in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington is hereby amended to read as follows: For Mr. Harrison Jewell, P.O. Box 17481, Seattle, WA 98107 & Mrs. Jean Riggle, 15714 -.75th Place West., Edmonds,.WA' 98020 the placement of a 6" storm pipeline, as shown colored green on the plat hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A" dated October 29, 1987, an�this reference thereto made a part hereof, which will attach to the "facility" as described in that certain permit numbered 245260, dated October 1, 1987, and located at Survey Station 1242+03 - Milepost 21.56 at or near MEADOWDALE Station, in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, with said pipe to be anchored into the hillside with a six foot fence posts at 20' intervals, or less, to adequately support the pipe, installation to be done by hand with the slope to be restored to its present, or better, -conditions under the supervision and inspection of the Railroad's Roadmaster. Except as hereby amended, all other terms and conditions of said permit shall remain in full force and effect. This agreement is effective as of the 16th day of NOVEMBER, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written. Witnesses to Execution by APPROVED AS TO FORM: PA -F± City Attor y BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY By Division Engineer CITY OF DMOND By �r Witnesses to Execution by HARRISON JEWELL ..�•a �Tv N[..J 7c-r .-' e ,�fJEa 7c3'[,/�7�15 � ,.a'" Witnesses to Execution by — JEAN RIGGLE 4 i r ly C. 4� !\,• �Q lie `q1 - I i. ,►,,d+ ELT Op a \ oti ° Vol qp IQ 01, y :., •Fab •. •i o.� • ® .: v4 isa t d ,.,t k � Jr •a• „A � ' 9 to 7 ' �`2 a rr0'a � ni �?•-�I .r� �_ ,t4 _" , t 1- �� ' , 9 r •. • �3��r••�• 1 r� � � 4 1.• C � t Y1'�1 ,a ... F 4' � �� �� s y {� a r a YT t ' QS • • +`+4 �'. , r ''d ,R,�'�y -_ 1 ice, 6•. k t h � • � � i s- :` 0 j 4 . �Z. yC - , f • � Q 43� 0 ' } k , 7-tl Ji Y � ; I:;r 4 O � { i µ •� C. t ��j X r?+ '4Ee �t X't v f 1 a o s, t s: d .� .' \• !''Ct O �j rye nfitns i r� t ;7 y n 'fi I f+ n p 1 ti r t5 t r' P.. Z =.60 :r\ Z CD to O -fir � $- •q , ��p �,. ct Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. 121 5th Avenue North - Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 Att t' Al 2000 First Interstate Center ..999 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1105 206-467-3289 October 29, 1987 en ion. lan R. Morgan Associate Engineer Gentlemen: RE: Supplement to Permit No. 245260 for additional.storm pipe line at . MEADOWDALE, WA Enclosed, in duplicate, is the above -mentioned agreement. BOTH copies should be signed in the presence of witnesses and returned. for signature on behalf of Burlington Northern Railroad Company. One copy will be returned for,your records. At that time, you may contact the roadmaster and begin occupancy of Burlington Northern property. There is no charge for this supplement as in.this way the Railroad may update their inventory of facilities on Railroad property and/or Right of Way. Kindly refer to file number shown below.when phoning and/or correspond- ing about this permit until finalized. Sincerely, Bob Luckey Permit Clerk/PACIFIC DIVISION Enc. File: 5133 Edmonds Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors ® Planners November ..9, 1987 File No. 02-86-130-001 Mr. Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave. N.W. Seattle, Washington 98107 Subject: Burlington Northern Supplement to Permit No. 245260 for New Storm Sewer Additions Dear Mr. Jewell: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, enclosed please find the two copies of the permit and a copy of Mr. Luckey's transmittal with instructions for you to follow. Please note that there is a signature line for Jean Riggle on this supplement. If she doesn't wish to sign the document please contact our office so that we can contact Burlington Northern regarding possible problems. If you have any question please contact our office. Sincerely, REID, MIDDIMON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Allan R. org Associate Eng' eer Encl. ARM:bb:ALLAN:JEWELL BN 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Woshington 98020 (206) 775-3434 • January 20, 1988 City of Edmonds Engineering Department Dear Mr. Hauth: Enclosed is my permit from Burlington Northern Railroad authorizing attachment to their drain pipe which runs under their right of way. The city required me to provide plans showing where the water off my roof and lot were to be discharged. I hired Reid, Middleton & Associates to draw the plans and get the necessary permit from the railroad. It would be appreciated if you would have the engineering department sign the supplement. I will then forward it to the railroad and another requirement of the city will be satisfied. Thank you for your help regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave NW Seattle, WA 98107 789-5010 or 789-1382 J C� SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT 245260 BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, the description in that certain permit numbered 245260, dated October 1, 1983, issued to CITY OF EDMONDS., whose post office address is Civic Center, Edmonds, WA 98020 by the BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (formerly BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC.) a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Railroad", authorizing an 18-inch stormwater pipeline, hereinafter referred to as the "facility,", located at or near MEADOWDALE Station, in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington is hereby amended to read as follows: For Mr. Harrison Jewell, P.O. Box 17481, Seattle, WA 98107 & Mrs. Jean Riggle, 15714 - 75th Place West., Edmonds, WA 98020 the placement of.a 6" storm pipeline, as shown colored green on the plat hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A" dated October 29, 1987, and by this reference thereto made a part hereof, which will attach to the "facility" as described in 'that certain permit numbered 245260, dated October 1, 1987, and located at Survey Station 1242+03 - Milepost 21.56 at or near MEADOWDALE Station, in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, with said pipe to be anchored into the hillside with a six foot fence posts at 20' intervals, or less, to adequately support the pipe, installation to be done by hand with the slope to be restored to its present, or better, .conditions under the supervision and inspection of the Railroad's Roadmaster. Except as hereby amended, all other terms and conditions of said permit shall remain in full force and effect. This agreement is effective as of the 16th day of NOVEMBER, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written. Witnesses to Execution by APPROVED AS TO FORM: y- City Attorhby BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY By Division Engineer CITY OF EDMOND By Title Witnesses to Execution by HARRISON JEWELL 7 4>> Witnesses to Execution by JEAN RIGGLE � t � SOUP rl � \\ •.\ \ \ �� ' 1 , 4 i ... a •mil' � � to L44yvyN . a •\ ea► Af. ot ..•t j' a� 4 2q2 � ` \ �. 5 ti r u n 1t t ad �t s t M t r; r ,P\ , . ., • • 9r tt Yq4 cq `� r .��M t�•�t*�9 � I I s J • � tl, l• e$x. t -b, 1 ra.f2 I'R '! ` 2 ��b�R'f f=`"• t? \• ,d { fit•. S imp . O p J , O n !4 iv. i r om r "SI m+`Y X t, .'e C�' t\ Sit�si � �''c{ � , t } ` s e Jt�' •y s p �'\ {. m D o Zk = } o . f tit , . t✓' u „r. is � STROET FILE FILE NO: 50 Edmonds APPLICATION FOR PIPE LINE PERMIT BURLINGTON FOR DRAINAGE NORTHERN To BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY Date 17, 1. At what City or Village is permit desired? CitV of Edmonds, Washington Pir. Harrison Jewell, P.O.Box17481,Seattle, Wn. 98107 & 2. Full name and address of Applicant Firs. Jean RigcTle, 15714-75th Pl.W.. Edmonds. Wn.98020 3. If. Applicant is a corporation, in what state incorporated? N/A If an individual,. under what firm name is business conducted? N/A If partnership, give name of all partners N/A 4. Product to be handled in pipe line Storm Water 5. Pipe Data: CARRIER PIPE CASING PIPE CARRIER PIPE CASING PIPE a. Outside diameter 6 S/8" f. Actual working pressure 0 b. Inside diameter 611 g. Type of joint Solvent Welded c. Pipe material Sch 40 P _V C h. Coating None d. Specifications i. Method cf installationCUt & COVer and grade AP__TeTA A 'AR _'10% j. Will cathodic protection . e. Wall thickness 1) _ 319S" be provided?_ None EgQ. 6. a. Depth of pipe under track (top of tie to TOP of casing) N/A b. Angle of crossing 90 Existing 18" Conc. Under Permit NO 245 (258-260} City of Edmonds c.In city street? O YES n NO 7. If pipe is to be placed longitudinally with track, give a. location of pipe in relation to centerline of nearest track b. depth of coverage (ground line to top of pipe) 8. If installation is to be by jacking or boring method give location of jacking and receiving pits and submit plans . a. Depth N/A b. Distance facing wall of pit to centerline of nearest track (measured normal) 211+ East face of Catch Basin 9. Reference plans (to be forwarded with original application) a. Drawing Number 1 b. Prepared by Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc.,Edms,Wn. 10-Submit jacking pit plans if applicable. Applicant agrees that if installation requires any or all of the following work; removal and replacement of track, bridging, protection of track or other railway facilities by work or flagging, engineering and/or supervision; such work is to be performed by railway employes and the cost borne by Applicant. If in the opinion of the Railway Company sufficient hazard is involved the Applicant will be required to furnish liability and property damage insurance in form and amounts satisfactory to Burlington rthern. (Applican (Title) RECOMMENDATIONS: (If additional space is required attach supplemental sheet). Date APPLICATION APPROVED: 19 (Superintendent) (Asst. Vice President —Operations) (General Manager Leases) FORM 16002 1.73 (Regional Manager Engineering) Printed In U.SA. STREET OtE REVISED December 11, 1986 December 3, 1986 File.02-86-130 Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR HARRISON JEWELL/JEAN RIGGLE RESIDENCES ON PTN. LOTS 5 AND 6, BLK.28, MEADOWDALE BEA1 CITY OF EDMONDS, 'WA.SHINGTON Existing Site Conditions The northern parcel, Jewell property, has an existing unfinished cement concrete foundation and joint use timber walkway concuming approximatly 800 sq.ft. of the 8,423.77 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from light to heavely treed and dense to light ground cover on this steeply sloped parcel. The southern parcel, Riggle property; has as existing residence with cement concrete walkway and deck concuming approximatly 1099 sq.ft. of the 8,444.70 sq.ft. parcel. Existing vegetation varies from grassed areas to flower beds west of the residence. Combined total area = 16,868.47 sq.ft. or 0.39 Ac. V� Tb = 317/(2.0)60 + 10 min. = 12.6 min. (, Exist c = 0.28 ` Intensity i = 1.7 in/hr at 10 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Intensity i = 2.62 in/hr at 100 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Q existing 10 Yr. = c i A = 0.28 (1.7) 0.39 = 0.18 c.f.s. Q existing 100 Yr. = c i A = 0.28 (2.62) 0.39 = 0.29 c.f.s. Future Site Conditions Both property owners have agreed to a combined storm sewer collection system in compliance with the recommendations of the Development Considerations of the Site Geological Study prepared by Geological Services Inc, dated June 6, 1985 File No. 853-2 and 863-3. The combined new development area does not exceed the minimum 2000 sq.ft. of City of Edmonds Code Chapter 18.30, therefore is not subject to dentention requirements. The following data therefore is to assist the City of Edmonds Department of Public Works with the review of the the sizing of the combined storm sewer system: New Developed Areas: Jewell Parcel = 1270 sq.ft. Bldg. and decks + 316 sqq.ft. Existing common walkway. Total = 1586 sq.ft. 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-3434 Jewell/Riggle Drainage Calculations REVISED December 11, 1986 December 3, 1986 File No. 02-86-130 Page 2 Riggle Parcel = 1790 sq.ft. Bldg. and decks + 200 sq.ft. proposed carport + 48 sq.ft. of existing walkway to remain. Total-263.8-- sq.ft. ,j21111� New combined impervous areas total = 3624 sq.ft. @ 0.9 52kD ►1(0,19 .zg Future Runoff Coefficient = 3fi24" (0.9) + ,0 16,868.47 = `05- Tic = 60/2(60) + 50/10(60) + 210/2(60) + 5 min. = 7.3 min. Intensity = i = 2.2 in/hr at 10 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Intensity = i = 3.3 in/hr at 100 yr. storm (Everett Curve) Q max. 10 yr. Developed = Fut. c (i) A = 0.35 (2.2) 0.39 = 0.30 c.f.s. Q max. 100 yr. Developed = Fut. c(i) A = 35 3.3) 0.39 = 0..45-c.f-.-s All storm sewer pipe shall be Sch. 40 PVC Mannings n = 0.012 ' �8 Sizing the discharge pipe uusing Manning's Equation Q = 1.466 2/ 1/ 0.012 A R 3 S 2 2/ AR 3 4" pipe = 0.017; 6" pipe = 0.049; 8" pipe = 0.106 Slope of discharge is 38.3%; Capacity of 6" pipe = 3.76 c.f.s.// Slope of pipe between Cleanout No. 1 & 2 = 3.75% Capacity 6"pipe @ 3.75% = 1.17 c.f.s. All pipes shall be securely anchored into the hillside at intervals of 20 feet or less as required. See attached plan/profile for design and details. I Ix uozgvu6zsaQ auvy (n) Fc�zoo2a� 0 w j &/b ozvy (A) 22nd fiq aVO A fri o► (a) 22nd R4;wvdvo t� (Q) zaga=V ads d Q• �9 �9 ado2S P t^ M ril.6ua,y adzd Qo m (v/ .q = b) SdS `cw13 M o M � zzvu2 rh;; Suay;ul N N :; a2 ur o; auras 6v 4 Y 0 6 o d 6Y o o �' 0 v o o a .(0) quvsozj;aoo ;.round o 0 0 d (y) sa,zoy °nazi/ N o � q 0 0 0 0 V os S A ilk ro U10-4d M' h lVV , L� 81��■ IMF 11MOM � � 4 I REID. MIDDLETON do ASSOCIATES. INC. ENGINEERS 121-5th AVE. . SURVEYORS . KANNER5 N.. Edmonds. Washingfon 98020 r1DR. 206/77S-3434 DATE,./� tG FILE NO. r.a. OZ-8.6 -/30 SCALE /HEIrr / OF I /7/e,4 /DQO CAL. 2-C SePTlC TAAIK h,*/or LD.V6/TU17lN�4L r i r v oee1AArORCep il CAP ,0 la" qe% E,-- S "o- —�..j END IMSTAI.=0M at 15706 - 75th Pl. W. - Harrison Jewl Install in place with 6 ins. walls and.bottcm. Reinforce with #4-rebar - 12" centers hosiaeatal and vertical both walls ar'' bottom. Reinforce lid with #4-rebar - ZV centers on grid basis. MAY - 5 1979 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 *PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE* STATUS: ISSUED ENG20060407 RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT (7-EUC Standard) Permit Number: ENG20060407 Expiration Date: 12/5/2006 Job Address: 15706 75TH PL W, EDMONDS Location: APPLICANT O. COMCASr OF WA, LLC 1525 75TH AVE SW EVERETT, WA 98203 LICENSE 4: EXP: Open trench in the shoulder of the ROW approx 4 ft, bore roadway approx 2811, open trench approx 911 and set caison to extend and bury catv service drop to the above address. DISRUPTION ASSESSED VALUE: $0.00 PROPERTY AREA: 0 SIDEWALK: (OXO) DURATION IN MONTHS: 0 FEE: $0.00 STREET DISRUPTION TRENCH CUT: (0 X 0 ) PARKING' ( OXO) DURATION 1N MONTHS' 0 FEE' $0 00 YEAR OF OVERLAY 0 FEE' $0.00 ALLEY: ( OXO) DURATION IN MONTHS: 0 FEE: $0.00 INDEMNITY- The Applicant has signed an application which states he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense ofany legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason ofgranting this permit. TH E CO NTRACTO R IS RESPONS ISLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD O F O NE YEAR FOLLOWING TII E FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCEOFTHE WORK. • Traffic Control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion ofthe required training in their possesion. • Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the workday- NO EXCEPTIONS. • Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIALrA-DIG (1-800424-5555) BEFOREANY EXCAVATION CALL FOR INSPECTION (425) 771-0220 EXT. 1326 24 HOUR NOTICEREQUFRFD FOR ALI, INSPECTION REQUESTS THIS APPLICATION IS NOTA PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS/HER DEPUTY: AND FEES ARE PAID, AND RECEIPTIS ACKNOWLEDGED IN SPACE PROVIDED. Printed: Friday, October /O -fie -D DATE ❑ FILECOPY XiNS PECTOR COPY APPLICANT COPY 1 4 STATUS: ISSUED ENG20060407 • Restore ROW to City standards • Restore Landscape to like or better conditions. • Call for locates of underground utilities prior to any excavation. • Alert affected residents and/or businesses prior to work start. • Conform to approved working drawings and Traffic Control plan. • Public utilities maintain 5' separation from City Utilities. • Verify clear bore crossings • Utility patch restoration to be in accordance with Edmonds Standard detail E2.3 • Maintain erosion & sedimentation control. Keep street clean. • Construction hours are Monday -Friday 7am-6pm and Saturdays 10am-6pin No work on Sundays or Federal Holidays. • Call for required inspections as noted. INSPECTIONS • &Engineering Final PARTIAL INSPECTION DATE: INITIAL: NOTES: PARTIAL INSPECTION DATE: INITIAL: NOTES: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED DATE: INITIAL: 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 DATE: Friday, October 06, 2006 PERMIT #: ENG20060407 PROJECT ADDRESS: 15706 75TH PL W, EDMONDS PROP OWNER: JEWELL HARRISON 15706 75TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 * FEE S UMMARY: M. _ _ r Desciiption,r_'>'. __� Fee Amount _ Baiance Due w X-Permit Surcharge Fee $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 E-Right of Way Permit Fee $160.00 $0.00 $160.00 E-Engineering Inspection Fee $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 Total Due: $225.00 $0.00 $225.00 *FEES ARE ESTIAfATED BASED ON INFORA1ATION PROVIDED AT S UBMITTAL-SUBJECT TO CHANGE PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS: TO BE BILLED nil QUAATEALY ---. r -.. ---_TV_ Y ,`, , SN:t1 .... " y. � ..d pit. l •, City of Edmond'' Permit No: E)V(9 T RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construuctom?, cttiion: ! �� tl" L(i ,t• (h. '" _ B. Type of Wo k (be specific) s0`% —r[ . P /A {� � / / I S)6ko IS-4 API C. Contractor: ` 47A1QS /! (1 Contact: t,�� ,n` Mailing Address t�L �;'1w_Phone: s Suiie 20O due r ,/4 98203 State License #: ' y " Liability Insurance: Bond: $ } City Business License #: D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): ) c. E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project EUC ()?UD,_V.ERIZQN,. $E, C MCAST .LW.SD) ElMulti-Family❑ Single Family ❑ Other r INSPECTOR: F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES QINO CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES N'NO J G.74vMail Approved Permit ❑ Call for Pickup G. SIZE OF CUT X INDEMNITY. • Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every dagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT]WUSTMAKATHEPIN PY OFT ERMIT AV LABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECMON,S Signature: L. �'1` g,7 Date: { )L "' tT/ (Contractor or Agent) REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line. FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: DATE: Inspector's Signature C:\Documems and Servings\Cu is\My DocurncaWFo \Engarng\ROWpe il_dac Revised 10/01/03 15706 . G Open trench in the shoulder of ROW m� approx 4 ft, bore roadway approx 28 ft, open trench approx 9 ft and set o o carson to extend and bury CAN service drop to 15706 75th P1 W. GARAGE Sidewalk \35' Driveway i Plants J �9' Carson 75th PI W 28' 4' N ,�MROV `r.� AS NOTED W E Comcast of Edmonds Inc. BY ENGINEERING 1525 75th Street SW ^n� Z&�� S Suite 200 ;el1l.�NORTH NOT TO Everett, WA 98203 / , —A 7 /."A - " Node: EM04A 15706 75th PI W - City of Edmonds Work Details Open trench in shoulder of ROW approx 4 feet, bore roadway approx 28 feet, open trench approx 9 feet and set carson to extend and bury CATV service drop to 15706 75th PI W. Install cable at 36" depth. All disturbed areas will be restored to existing or better conditions. Backfill material will be mechanically compacted to 95% of maximum density as specified by the City of Edmonds. In tight corridors hand trenching will be utilized to ensure protection of other utilities. Contractor must locate all existing utilities impacted by this project. Please see attached plans for restoration, erosion control and traffic control. Erosion control will consist of placing filter fabric fence and/or sandbags along curbs and catch basins where necessary. Keep drainage system clean and functioning. Remove all debris from the work site. Streets and roads will be cleaned both during and after installation of work. r V777 CL 0 0 10CL (1) i cc ccc ?:.2 -0 OC ro 'D ca S 22 g c .2 cz .— -0 c cc o OLI C, O tO 4) ID a) '0) iE Cc,)) 1 .0 c cz Q) 0 4) .2 > cloo "M -C co c 2 Cc 8 (D COL E CL 0 CL a) 76 �o c2 E 7E- .00 > (D — -v5 a)C 2 :2 2 N 7� (CD 2 0) U)'o ro CO) co: .0 E cz 0— Fa' E' r- Cc: =C) 7Z � 15 E E -0 2) 00).G ~'o (D -0 2 Cr (D n a .—.o C 0. CC (D 0 cu A -C 07,0 C .9 01 43 z; >0 (n 'o o C U) D cou _, o M(D 0 ID7�6 cr o c 0 CL c U) CU U) 0 E 70 C-0 0 -E 0 0 C) (D ui cz a) ca o = = := = -0 < L) < a) A 4) 9— c LL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Depth, Cleaning, Containment, Compaction, and Restoration Trenching Depth = ■► 36-inch minimum ♦ Compatible wlE If other utilities ♦ Shoring required ( TI at 4-ft + !.I �El l Pavement Cuts ♦ T-cut 1-ft widerHEM,: than trench =1' I11=111 IIH * Neat -line saw -cut or jack hammered - edge Compaction ♦ All trench backfill shall be mechanically compacted to 95 percent of maximum density using 1-11 loose lifts .with whacker or 2-ft loose lift with a hoe pack. ♦ If proper compaction cannot be achieved with the native material, new import material is required at the 95 percent rate. ♦ As an alternative, CDF can be used in a design mixture approved by the Engineer. comcast. Cleaning & Containment CLEANING: All Streets and roads are required to be cleaned and swept both during and after the installation work. ♦ Mechanical Vacuum is -preferred method - CONTAINMENT: All un-restored shoulders or material storage areas are required to be contained with reflective barricades. Restoration All disturbed areas shall be restored to existing or better conditions ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Trench parallel to road: ♦ Shoulder - Match existing surface conditions 0 Pavement - 6 112 inches of crushed surfacing material and asphalt concrete Class $ at 2- inches minimum or same thickness if greater.. Trench across road (immediate cold mix patch): ♦ Asphalt - Permanent hot mix patch at same thickness or 2-inches and sealed within 30 days. ♦ Concrete - saw cut and pored with mastic joints, eight - sack mix, either type 11 of III cement, within 30 days. iTY CLERIC \ SWEE7 F CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS. WA 98020 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD 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: 1. Sr, +P•_iyS� Subject Property. IBIS covenant c; notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of Zy.%7 0 71"�(�� VeSl ( insert street address), .Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: A) ems' d4 Q 1k ' 2S of -� P« d 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject. site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a -: 9 s �x . w 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 a building permit for the subject Biter. The results of the consultapt';.e or-ts evaluations of ii—U RED WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -1- BUILDING WSS/klt 02/08/90 ��"� ;';►;?, S;tc��:a,^':�� :cunt; I�zssare� FEB 9 - 1OG0 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number (insert number) on file with the L 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 OWNERS' geotechnical 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 38020. 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 dor 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/klt 02/08/90 02 12 VOLtibFAGE �J2 arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, theirsuccessors 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/klt 02/08/90 �� VOL. ti�68PAGE tiYJ3 2PIN � S. 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 day of Qe, 1991. OWNERS) By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF-sa ) Iicertify that I know or have satisfactory. evidence that A signed this instrument and acknowledged WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -4- WSS/klt 02/08/90 ` VOL.'%e PAGL 1L0-1 • it to be (his/fit) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of 1991. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF ss: ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. , u�r n. DATED this day of 199 _� N NOTARY PUBLIC N My commission ex esr`: - O° -• STATE OF WASHINGTON ) %10 ) ss: 1' A 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_. WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/klt 02/08/90 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: -5- VOL. Z b.(i SPA GE - 10 5 oTRE.ET FILE GRANT OF EASEMENT .�4 INGRESS AND EGRESSODURING CONSTRUCTION NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRE© J U N 20 1991 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE , 1991. KIRM== eaRi�et. By 2. PARTIES: Deputy A. HARRISON JEWELL (owner of benefited property) B.. JEAN C. RIGGLE (owner of burdened prope ty) 3. PROPERTIES: C7 < BENEFITED PROPERTIES: A. SEE EXHIBIT "All ATTACHED HERETO.:'' BURDENED: y B. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO 4. GRANT OF EASEMENT: JEAN C. RIGGLE, as owner of the burdened property, hereby grants to HARRISON JEWELL, his heirs, successors and assigns, as owners of the benefited property, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across the Northerly 20' of the above - described burdened property for the purpose of access during the course of construction of improvements upon the benefited property. This easement is granted on the condition, and subject to the owner of the benefited property: a) Protecting the burdened property and any improvements thereon from damage during the course of construction. b) Saving and holding harmless the owner of the burdened property from any and all claims and/or liens by third parties. c) Restoring the area of the easement to the condition it was in immediately prior to the commencement of construction. 1 d) Exerting his best efforts to conclude all construction activity in an expeditious manner. 5. ENFORCEABILITY: The Easement hereby granted to the owner of the benefited property above described may be enforced by the present as well as the future owners of the above described benefited property. 6. CONSIDERATION: . All parties agree that each has received good and valuable consideration in mutual benefits as a result of having entered into this agreement. 7. SIGNATURES: C. 8. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be HER free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this 7 day of Tura 1991. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires: /1- a (0- 9 y K .1 u (i, 2 10 442, vu. 2453phn2561 c.' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that HARRISON JEWELL has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this - day of jZinip., , 1991. TARP PUBLIC in and for the State of WASHINGTON, commission Expires: //- a (o- 4 Y 3 VOL. 2 4 5 3 EXHIBIT "A" The North 45 feet of Lots 5, Block 28 of the plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Together with a portion of vacated 75th Avenue West lying adjacent. 910 1 4 1 VOI. 2 oz 3 P4GE: '0 • EXHIBIT "B" The south 15 feet of Lot 5 plus the vacated street. The North 30 feet of Lot 6 plus vacated street of block 28 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington. 49TRE.ET FILE V *91 a121 112 *-19 GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS DURING CONSTRUC 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE , 1991. 2. PARTIES: A. HARRISON JEWELL (owner of burdened property) .' B. JEAN C. RIGGLE (owner of benefited property) 3. PROPERTIES: NO EXCISE TAX BENEFITED PROPERTIES: REQUIRED A. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO J U N 2 G` KI RS, Snohomish aunt ireas� _ C BURDENED: By Deputy B. SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO 4. GRANT OF EASEMENT: HARRISON JEWELL, as owner of the burdened property, hereby grants to JEAN C. RIGGLE, her heirs, successors and assigns, as owners of the benefited property, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across theSoJw,�,20 feet of the above -described burdened property for the purpose of access during the course of construction of improvements upon the benefited property. This easement is granted on the condition, and subject to the owner of the benefited property: a) Protecting the burdened property and any improvements thereon from damage during the course of construction. _ b) Saving and holding harmless the owner of the burdened property from any and all claims and/or liens by third parties. c) -Restoring the area of the easement to the condition it was in immediately prior to the commencement of construction. 1 9`621o4 d) Exerting his best efforts to conclude all construction activity in an expeditious manner. 5. ENFORCEABILITY: The Easement hereby granted to the owner of the benefited property above described may be enforced by the present as well as the future owners of the above described benefited property. 6. CONSIDERATION: All parties agree that each has received good and valuable consideration in mutual benefits as a result of having entered into this agreement. 7. SIGNATURES: CI . EM STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be HER free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this 7 day of 1991. dNOTOA-RYPUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires: 2 VOL 2453P0125"�6 L - 1O(52X. 0 44 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that HARRISON JEWELL has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this -:2 day of 1991. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of WASHINGTON, Commission Expires: 1 I -fib -4 y K VJL0621 0 4 4 0 YQL. 2 4 5 3 PAGE 2 5 j 7 • • EXHIBIT "A" The North 45 feet of plat of Meadowdale Be OIV 621044(ftr` a EXHIBIT "B" The south 15 feet of Lot 5 plus the vacated street. The North 30 feet of Lot 6 plus vacated street of block 28 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington. VOL. 2 4 5 3 PAGE 2 5'5 9 • • EXHIBIT "A" The North 45 feet of Lots 5, Block 28 of the plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38; records of Snohomish County, Washington. Together with a portion of vacated 75th Avenue West lying adjacent. r n wrn o z OD VOL. 2453phu-2�-5.3 „ 2104 EXHIBIT "B" The south 15 feet of Lot 5 plus the vacated street. The. North 30 feetof Lot 6 plus vacated street of block 28 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington. vo�.2453pt►q"55, f,, EET FILECOVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND Chi FOR AND IN COIZ,&iION of receiving approved O Building Permit No. //�U�b� from the Building M Department of the City of E monds, Washington, to construct 0 a'building at the following legally described real property, CD all situate in the City, of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, M State of Washington: (insert tegat description) PeW. 49'�-+ of Lo1.6, 81kk .2 g, Pjj of rfleAddW a.0 64ACA? acuI.L.i Q � �O/a _t4tte-P f eco, eJj �h Vol "me SJof �/�crs� pa,7eJ'57, reco• s o,/f s4chf, UX �- a •W ,mod �C�Crny *d .Stic� �vi3 6'Y 0 i the undersigned owners of the above described real property hereby covenant as follows: v 1. The undersigned warrant that he, she or they are the owner(s) of the real property above described. 2. Owners understand that the general area in which the above described real property is situated has some unstable soil conditions and questionable sustaining power for purposes of improving the real estate with structures. 3. Owners shall make every effort in the ►� �'�-.. imp rovemenMq-,AY Lbed in Building Permit No. I�� to protect the structure and appurtenances against slides 2'-1 and soil erosion,•realizing that any move- ment in the structure or appurtenances may damage the same, as well as surrounding k LA_properties, buildings and appurtenances. -+csv 4. Owners agree to notifythe Edmonds Building > a LiLU Department immediatel, should any movement occur of the structure or appurtenances which ar .s bject matter of Permit No. �`�� , or any soil sliding, separation or movement on the above described real property. 5. Owners understand and agree that•the City of a Edmonds has made reasonable investigation of the soil conditions and stability of the above �. described property, but has not taken core samples'of its own and cannot guarantee that there will not be earth movement or sliding. 7709 3 0 01 n ? V911i88 LACE 6600 6.' The undersigned owners covenant and agree that they and each of them will hold the TREETSFILE City of.Edmonds harmless from any and all claims that they or any of their successors or assigns may have.in the event of any soil, structure or appurtenance sliding or movementor injury or damage by reason thereof, and will further hold the City of Edmonds harmless against any and all claims for injuries or damages that other persons or property owners may have now or in the future have by reason of any.soil, structure or appurtenance sliding or movement. 7. Each of the foregoing promises, warranties, and covenants, shall be deemed covenants running with the above described land and shall be binding on the undersigned owners, their agents and others who may make improve- ments to said above described property, and the owner's heirs, successors, assigns, vendees, tenants, lessees, business invitees, licensees, guests and all other permitees and occupants, temporary or permanent, of the above described property. DATED this 3o day of ► -FEM Be Q 19 -77 OWNERS: (Print name) of-ivsa �I �/ e cJ -e L- L (Print name) STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss: COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me � /},e ,�/6o ,J Jf!-UJE-4. and o me known to be the indZvidual, or individuals described in and who /1 M M fxeLvuted the within and foregoing covenant running with the land, and i�, . ;�oN • ' a4nowledged that he (she) (they) signed the same as his (her) (their) free .:o�`,OTQ�Ji?,voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. c Y 0 • Given under my hand and seal this day of Sr-- Pmml3e,01 Z971-. Notary Public in and for the State of 7709300302 Washington, residing at i � ewed`1 Fi7� CIi' Y�.� E�7 NdONI�S • LAURA M. HALL 2— - OT" AVB. N. . 630MOM�f/. WA sOOTq f+'i0d1 :r7a-oaso . PAX 10001 771-02MI r.+vop COlAMuNITY SBgVICP_S SIEPAFITMENT I O P-Wic Works . PJannlnp .- Parks a.nd IM"rwatian + 8npinOarin® YELBCOPiER 4GbV�-R PIa;QL 1`teatpiants Talacapiar.Nvmb«r: 3�QS 7 Santler'a 1-e1ecopfer NUMJsOr: (206) 771-0221 dm C:\O\wortldata\ PafcForm t7A'R"E�-1'RAN8M1'iTEd� S�-c'�- 8'-"Q� NUMBER 4F P^C3ES: � (inclucling Cover Page) FACSIMILE EQiJIPMENT: AutorrialtiC/group /1 (2,3 mins.); %croup 111' If there ar® any problornG 41-ring transrnls>slc>n car f1saculrebnts are, reoolvecl incxDx-�1 eto. plaaso call ((d0E) 771-0220 and emk for S-c.r 2s -rv�.er �t a• /r�corparatad August / 2. 5890 - . . Slater Citiaa in.tarnst:eanal — Hmkinan; Japan TRANSMTSSION REPORT 1 THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT ## 2 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE.STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1f 2068424247 4-28-93 10:22 1'37" 2 i TOTAL 0,.01'37" 2 XEROX TELECODIER 7020 • • BUILDIA OYA APR28 STATE OF WMHNCTON DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES 0 Dear Building Official.: The Department of Labor and. Industries Will be receiving a. application fora pormit to install. the following conveyance 3 Your jurisdiction: Inclined Wheelchair Lift Vartical Wheelchair Lift (The travel shall not exceed. 12 ft nor penetrate a floor. ANSI A17.1, Rule 2000.7a) Inclined Chair Lift Dumbwaiter Private Residence Elevator Fro erty Owner Street Address and City Telep ne r �r -- � � Will this installation meet with your departmsnt,s satisfaction? AcknoWledged by: �jn Ae ATlidfj 46W46Wc7 AC4411 / Titre `Telephone If you have any. questions please contact William O'Hara, Chief Elevator Inspector, at (206) 242-6557 in Tukwila'. 0 2- Z0'd LbZ*Z4990Z '03 NO-LVA3-13 IGVOO19'3Ri _�UILDINIi • • APR 2 8 1993 Nest Coast Elevator compan �itlal.UJts ar�d id�is err the f.�rirlrcv� last Offim hoc 10773 Hainbridge Wand, Washingian 4611e (206) 842-4247 Pax (206) 779-3667 Number of pages to be transmitted (ifteNding cover) Date: J Fax Number: Subject9A401-OW-1 -&X 0 % f Remar b P?70 J 4/eGd4�'"Ltn''� 10•d 1bZbZi�Q9C�2• 100 NO-Lbi1.313 18M001B3M lnc.IS9v BA RBA RA FAHEY CITY OF EDMONDS :., -.I _ MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Harrison Jewell 15706 75"' 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 0 g: GREET FILE � CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT j p Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890_lq June 1, 1993 Occupant 15706 - 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR This letter is to inform you that you are served by a city maintained grinder pump system. This system pumps your sanitary waste to city gravity sewer lines as your house was too low to obtain gravity flow when city sewer mains were installed. I hope to inform you of the basics of how these pumps function, who to call should you experience alarms, and what precautions should be taken to prevent damage to your home. 1. The grinder pump was originally installed by the homeowner, but the hardware was purchased by the city of Edmonds' Lid Bond that paid for the sewer project in your area in 1985. These pumps are float activated to cycle the one pump to take your sewage up to where gravity.flow can be obtained. 2. The following precautions must be adhered to prevent damage to your home: A. Do not dump any nonbiodegradable products down into the pump tank. VIA your drains in your house. B. Minimize the amount of grease disposed down your drain. This may cause problems with the float operations. C. Do not empty pools into the tanks without a restrictor approved by the city of Edmonds. D. Do not attempt to access tank or electrical cabinets. Should you have a pump failure from any of the above mentioned items, the homeowner will be held responsible for damage. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 3. The city of Edmonds Sewer Section will maintain the pumps every three (3) months to ensure the proper operations. We will also clean, operate and check all components to ensure proper working status. A separate log is kept to your pump that will reflect any maintenance done. We can track reliability, and the need for upgrade or repairs when a chain of failures start to occur. Crews will require the use of your water so the tank can be washed down and we will always try to notify you of their presence when they arrive on the site. 4. Should you experience any problems with the pump, there are two alarms that will indicate failure. One alarm is located within your home and has a black push button to reset to silence. There is also a visual alarm located on the electrical.box outside your home. When this occurs, please call us at 771-0235 immediately to investigate any problems. Our office hours are 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday. Should an alarm occur after hours, weekends, or holiday, contact 911. There is a 24-hour call person on duty to be dispatched. We do carry parts for all of these systems and should be able to correct most problems within a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Everett Akau or myself at 771-0235, extension 349. Sincerely, Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Everett Akau RH/lk GRIND/LT/TXTSEWER 189Q 199- $7f&T FILE • 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 APPLICANT:' WATER USE/HYDRANT PERMIT G LAURA M. HALL MAYOR DATE APPLIED:Szr/q3 DATE ISSUED: Z( 1'93 �_j LOCATION OF METER: Q4�<o cX' -7 J _M� \01_ (Attach Vicinity Ma ) DESIRE D U S E : < <- , ,�eG✓c// �Sl�l� DATE(S) OF USE: '� c,1, � TIME OF DAY: r-ftn-, APPROXIMATE GALLONS DRAWN: 5;uo p FEE: $50.00 RECEIPT NO. 664XSS * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * .* * t. 4: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. Hydrant meters are required unless waived by the City of Edmonds. Hydrant meters may be rented for the water department for a refundable deposit of $650.00. 2. All hoses, valves and check valves used must be. to City of Edmonds specifications and must be equipped with an air gap separation. APPLICA SIGNED: MAILING ADDRESS:3tot5-VC,�- /u), PHONE: HYDRANT DEPOSIT:_ AbI RECEIPT NO: /1/1gt CITY"APPROVALS FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE Water/Sewer Division 200 Dayton Street P Zh ordin tor, Building.Division 250 - 5 A ue North * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *File Information • Copy to Water Dept. * Copy to Water File * Copy to Utility Biding * 2/90 PERMIT EXPIRES 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO STREET BILE • Item number: Originator: Robert J. Alberts For Action: x For Information: SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO VACATE WEST 10 FEET OF CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO JEAN RIGGLE AT 15714 - 75TH PL. W. AND HARRISON JEWELL AT 1570.E - 75;TH PL...,W. AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: March 23, 1993 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Official Street Map Exhibit B - Map (per Ordinance 2799) Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY. CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING Kq r PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: _EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 FUNDING SOURCE: N/A HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: During the building permit review process for new residences at 15714 and 15706 - 75th. P1., a ten (10) foot dedication was required and received from Jean Riggle and Harrison Jewell,.respectively, per the old official street map. It was later discovered that City Ordinance 2799 reduced the right-of-way along 75th P1. W., from 164th St. to 156th St. S.W., from sixty (60) feet to forty (40) feet. The ten (10) feet are being returned to make the correction. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to Jewell at 15706 - no cost. COUNCIL ACTION: RIGGLE/TXTST530 return to Jean Riggle at 15714 - 75th P1. W. and Harrison 75th P1. W. the previously acquired ten (10) foot dedication at 1.2-3��3 i to40�10 1 1 , � 3 1 24 25 115"06 10 FOOT DEDICATION - 115714 � 27 MEADOW I 7 i 158 Tip ST c O; N T 1 3i � 2 � N I' 3 DATE FILE NO# RES. NO# ORD. NO# EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 amg 4i jw mozi-116.1.1 aA� • Fj 8g0.1g°�- STRIJT FILE � 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 February 10, 1993 Mr. Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview N.W. Seattle, Wa 98107 Dear Mr. Jewell: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The city of Edmo:nds__author_izes_youu_to remove the maple tree on city right-of-way at',,15706 - 75th Place West The city feels the tree has been weakened by the -excavation -at the'base of the tree and therefore the tree removal would be at your expense. The city of Edmonds reserves you schedule the removal of at 771-0235 and we will have S joEerely, �11 Stroud Street Supervisor BS/lk JEWELL/TXTSTREE the right to the wood from the tree. When the tree, call me two (2) days in advance a crew there to remove the wood. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS �. LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering j890 19�� October 9, 1992 Mailed 10/12/92 Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave. N.W. Seattle, WA 98107 Re: Storm detention system at 15706 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Jewell, Numerous discussions have occurred with your contractor regarding installation of.the required storm detention system. According to your contractor, Ron Snare, installation of subject system was not in his contract and that you are handling it. Section 18.30 of the Community Development Code requires the installation of a storm detention system when a change to a site results in more than 22000 square feet (SF) of previously uncovered area is being covered with impervious surfacing. Since you will have more than.2,000 SF, a system is required. Please advise when the system will be installed. You should be aware that we will not sign the permit card until the subject system is installed. You should also be aware that after November 1, 1992 grading in that area is curtailed until the spring. If you have any questions concerning placement or questions in general, please call me at 771-0220, extension 324. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector Alberts ALC/sdt c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator 15706/75/TXTST530 0 0 a • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan NOTICE'', - O�P�,ERRMIn, -EE AND/OR OWNER . s� ❑ PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ VIOLATION ❑ CORRECTIONS REQUIRED NUMBERPERMIT JOB ADDRESS g rwY: We ❑NO PERMIT - STOP WORK - REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN PERMIT AND MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH BUILDING LAWS. CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS El AND PERMIT - STOP WORK. MAKE EXISTING WORK COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT OR REMOVE IT. ❑ STOP WORK - UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY INSPECTOR. ❑CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVED. ❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED. CONTACT INSPECTOR AND ❑ ARRANGE FOR APPOINTMENT. ❑ RECALL FOR INSPECTION. ✓,-�Je /Ze SCG��ILs/ /E h�•��CC/ %'K C��.<:r�l' �."����f�< i �-< ci// ✓ ��� is � ' 7/9° G�..,r< THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED WITHIN DAYS OR PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTIONS CALL: ' y r ,BUILDING DIV. any�7tl....g .�Yg� 0 ifTgP dTOR � J �., PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF DATE ATE M FIRE DEPT. EDMONDS h��-�J� . H. J. INVESTMENT P. O. BOX 17481 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107-1181 11 PAY TO THE 01 ORDER OF_ 6082 19-2/1250 19� i ?39 7_ S5 'e/ A&Ae41 '-a . u r— DOLLARS a y AL sE 4ft34T mw / c © Aurora Branch 053 10310 Aurora Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98133 Ila0000C3013 20- is L 2 50000 24i: 6 2 3 5 303,10 �IQIAI��I� G! GO G1 N Q LL- L � �. H i a)\� O FA > 3 M •r J a. C •P- C G) F- LL C O \ b C +) CO W 4-3.. O 'A O U r LL .' r- +) J O O O +2 r- 0) a. E +3 N i-) •r- 3 p' r •r- 10 4.) a d i •r- G) O1 (0 E G •►) +-) L a: Ln ca M G1 E W L U %- •r •►) G) U U O 3 C Rf a_ S. ILL. CC r- N y •r O► 0) O 4.) i. 1--1 C W .0 a_ G E %- C L. Ln U)tl! •r G1 a..]C U CL a L (0 C +) G/ •r p\0 U 10 1!1 0 i- QL 0/ J W t 0 En CC C N G) L O 0 w 3 Q C �a_UU C a.G Ct<n r-Q 04-t4.3Nt1 +"•rU i71r I-_)C S..0 G) G) E N M G/ C Gl a V N C G1 G! G) L.G) C -P •r L -3 3 3 3 L f- Os T O t- t0 to O LA 10 G1 L N \ +•> 4J C C +1 +> > r- +) O t e<nF—tn�NNW W wwMC.tnNNU I u 11d I � E •sE- ' •� d � a PROJECT REVIEW CHECKL PROJECT NAME: ��� - 1� Jce% PLAN CHECK #: PROJECT ADDRESS: /5706 75 /,G 141 RECEIPT DATE:1D 9D R 9C E I VED REVIEWD BY: (Initial/Date) PLAN. WATER COMMENTS FIRE BLDG. SEWER STREE ENG. .�CwaURsivanance/setback Adjustment Conditional ::_}. k.}C:4: .?iL of > ?C\T f '•?%?lf 4f . :<: ''`y' ' >> ,w,- •� >..�.... }.�f:::>;<.::.... � • • w u;x `'� :'-gtif{:-• •{: `: ' �t 4 Use Permit. AND Re q uirements.::. Other Zonin Requirements Underground Winn Re uired Lot Slope 15% SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Per Tree Cutting Plan Plat/Subdivision Requirements � ;.7`: 4S ` Le of Descri tion Verification eve Quit Claim/Street Dedications 1©' ST Easements - Public/Private LIDO& Engineering Storm -Drain Review.Fee�12 En i ieering 2WInspection Fee Drainage Plan On -Site if� 4 to 1 v: < ;� ;�y>f.{ f> f ''A��`i<,'.." •.��• � <h x rwl � u t��<,�?}�, r;$ `}` """ ••> '` ��4��r " ` -?�v,n•7v •n •>f•'•ir;S7:'••'.•vf4'•}:iiiiti .:::}.�}:�•fPi�ti r':p•\:i:} Y ••• •• . f �ti' f :}..,:.}}-.,: ??..� r>x. " ""° - < 14 Setback - To •of Bank, Stream Water Courses Setback -Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existingf Culvert He juired ►.-W Culvert Size 4 17; 19 Shoulder Draina a/Shale O en Runoffr:•,,:<<}.;.{<{;f Catch Basin Re uired .. `�' � 4 `I 20. 21 23 24 -25 Driveway nvewa Slo e.& Vehicle Access E l Sidewalk Re uired' G��{- Ste- Curb & Gutter Required ,�` Curb Cut For Dnvewa Required fto«;:: Street Paving Required �a {.qf " xx 26;.. Right-Of-Wallill Construction Permit Required Street Name Sign Re uired 1.k� Other Signing'Pigning Re uired Bond Required For Public Improvements No FEMA Ma Check/Water Table Side Sewer Availability` �/� Calculate Sewer Connection FeeIf No LID #2lO Create Street File.. --b s xist'1111,ig Water Main Size Water Meter Size Service Line Size Water Meter Char a Re uired r�.,:--:lr Hydrant Re uired H drant Size Existing Fire Line Charge Required -41 Sprinkler StreetCut -4 27- .0 f ::.. .::'.....:: » d: ;f.?:W y i}v } ? } f 4 f h r � k4�_ f : :;;:<<rnr::.}::» :::::<::::::<:: h<.>:<:<::}>{::»::::f,?.:{-:: •ri,:ivii: 4f'-'.. ' � `� 4 28 �-30 <' - - ,:�> .,<:: :{-rf.:;}`J:J:{.}}}}v:.vr• � 4 34:-: 35 �'� 36 ; . 37 }' { a.• : f 38 �.$• y�;�f 4,r...•. O"0 ru ....... - 40 Miscellaneous Si,� r d 43.-414 Reviewed By: � �/� �'2cw /-.66� ��gC FIRE PLANNING ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS TF� i FILE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL STREET FIL'%AGENDA MEMO 46m number: Originator: Robert J. Alberts For Action: x For Information: SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TEN FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM HARRISON JEWELL AT 15706 - 75TH PL. W. AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: September 16, 1991 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Copy of Quit Claim Deed Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: A quit claim deed for the ten foot street dedication is a development requirement from the official street map for possible future road expansion or, improvements along 75th P1. W. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council accept the quit claim deed for the ten foot street dedication from Harrison Jewell. COUNCIL ACTION: .e q// 6,('/ JEWELL/TXTAGNDA /7 a r �D p.c)v� • • S-C) S 6E� LL. ST QUIT CLAIM DEED Ems; O,OOS 9gc 2c� THE GRANTOR, Harrison Jewell, for and in consideration of mutual benefits to be derived, convey and quit claim to the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation, the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, including any interest therein which grantor may hereafter acquire: The East ten (10) feet of the North forty-five (45) feet of Lot 5, Block 28, of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach, Volume 5, Page 38, Snohomish County, Washington, together with a portion of the vacated 75th Ave. W. lying adjacent, 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 thigZ? day of 19f/ STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me c and to me known to be the individual( described in and who execut d the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that �� J signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of 19�L. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the'lState Washington, residing at JEWELL/TXTFORMS �!� COMMISSION EXPIRES 34 93 THES TNUTES SUBJECT TO OCTO , 1991 APPROVAL lqw EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL U .. "T FILE SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING - MONDAY - BECAUSE OF PRIMARY ELECTION ON TUESDAY A special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7.00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jack Wilson, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jeff Palmer, Student Rep. Amanda Foote, Student Rept. STAFF Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Recreation. Manager. Steve Perry, Administrative Supervisor. Sherrie Gursley, Court Admintrator Peter Hahn, Community. Services Director R E: C E:' VE: 1) Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor. Dan Prinz, Police Chief SEP 2 0 lo91 Bob Alberts, City Engineer Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent.ENGINE RING Rhonda March, City Clerk Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Barb Mehlert, Recorder Scott Snyder, City Attorney Mayor Naughten announced that a brief executive session would be held after the meeting to dis- cuss acquisition of property. MMUNT AgMA Councilmember Palmer requested Item (B) (September 10 Minutes only) be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the follow- ing: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 (C) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM INA. M. HENRY ($3,000) AND DAMON D. (D) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO. ON 5TH AVE./ MAIN ST. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD. t� ��(E) CORRECTION OF ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 10-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM JEAN C. RIGGLE AT 15714 75th P1. W. 'ACCEPTANCE'OFr QUI�T� IAIIM D ED FOR 10 0 T�"STR`EET DEED A�TAI�ON FROM H11'RRdsSON JEWEL_L AJT 1t5Y706� ,. Gp�►vs'�� 75 ,'A E WEST - .�.2J (G) REJECTION OF BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 4, 1991, FOR SR 104 BATHROOM FIXTURES AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK INFORMAL BIDS (H) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2848 ADOPTING CERTAIN STATE CRIMES BY REFERENCE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2849 ESTABLISHING TRUCK ROUTES IN THE CITY ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2850 ADDING ADDITIONAL LICENSING AND TRANSACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND DEALERS ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 721, SETTING HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 15, 1991 ON PROPOSED VACATION OF 275 FEET OF ALLEY EAST OF 7TH AVE. S., BETWEEN SPRUCE AND HEMLOCK STREETS (APPLICANTS: GERRY AND SANDIE MCBRIDE/(ST-3-91) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2851 AMENDING CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS TO REQUEST FILINGS BY CANDIDATES FOR CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC OFFICE. J. KEITH CROSS, PA �a Geotechnical Engineering Consultant STREET RP (206) 822-2725 L° 6020 111" Place NE, Krkland, Washington 98033 July 12, 1991 Mr. Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Avenue N.W. Seattle, Washington 98107 Geotechnical Engineering Supplemental Discussion, Landslide Risk, Proposed New Jewell Residence, 15706 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0003-077 This letter is prepared to present my judgement of the landslide risk at the above referenced site. My previous discussions related to landslide risk at this site are understood to be unacceptable to City of Edmonds personnel in that they did not strictly follow the legal counsel's desire for specific wording. Therefore, I have reviewed additional data (some of it still in draft form) to develop a judgmental opinion as to risk, and whether that judgement meets the City of Edmonds' current definition of "stable." This risk evaluation is based on the data discussed and my experience based judgement as to the level of risk. A numerical model probabilistic approach to the risk evaluation was not performed. Document Review 1 During the process of this risk evaluation, I have reviewed information developed by others in a characterization of the Meadowdale Landslide Complex. Portions of this information was used for our previous studies, as discussed in the Geological Services, Inc. report dated June 6, 1985, and the subsequent J. Keith Cross, P.E. letters dated July 26, 1990 and May 20, 1991. An October 16, 1979, Roger Lowe Associates Inc. report and a February 28, 1985, GeoEngineers Incorporated report discussed landslide history and subsurface conditions encountered in seven (7) borings scattered throughout the complex. This data plus our site specific observations were used to make previously expressed comments. Water level data and ground surface displacement data presented in a draft report by GeoEngineers Incorporated, dated May 16,1991, and Sheets 1, 7, 8, 10 and 20 of Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. drawings for the storm and sanitary sewers for L.I.D. 210, were 0 .0 Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 12, 1991 Page 2 used additionally in this phase of risk evaluation. Information on subsurface conditions encountered in additional Roger Lowe Associates Inc. borings (8 through 14?) and details of the observation well installations in the subject borings were not available at the City of Edmonds. Therefore, input based on this information cannot be evaluated in detail at this time. The Roger Lowe Associates Inc. and GeoEngineers Incorporated reports show the complicated nature of the subsurface conditions in the Meadowdale Landslide Complex. The historical data provided is helpful in establishing recurrence intervals for various portions of the area. The lack of portions of the subsurface data collected for the Roger Lowe Associates Inc. evaluation restricts the detail available for an independent risk evaluation. However, City of Edmonds personnel indicate that they do not have this information available. The Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. drawings indicate the locations of the storm and sanitary sewers along 75th Place West in the vicinity of the site. As the elevations of the sewers are some 25 feet above the ground water elevations reported for Borings 6 and 12, 1 would expect that the ability of the trenches to lower ground water levels by drawdown techniques would be limited. The main benefit of the sewers would appear to be to remove rainfall runoff and septic waters from potential infiltration recharge, at least in this area. The ground movement and ground water level data appear to be of little value in making an assessment. This is due to an apparent lack of understanding of precision required in obtaining the data. This is not unusual when data is collected by someone other than the person who has to interpret the data. The ground movement data, for example, indicates forward and back movement along the axis of the roads. The ground water data indicates some information that suggests an understanding of micro -trends, but data scatter with time leads to mistrust of macro -trend interpretation. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111° Place NE, lGrkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 12, 1991 Page 3 Site Visit Observations On July 9, 1991, Walter Bicket of Geological Services and 1 visited the subject properties (Riggle and Jewell). The discussions in this -section summarize our observations. The purpose of this site visit was to observe ground surface conditions, primarily as a comparison to the observations reported in our mid to late 1980's studies of the subject site. Our observations were somewhat limited by the current dense wild brush and cane cover on the steeper slope in the western portion of the Jewell property, and dense landscaping ground cover in portions of the landscape garden on the steeper slope western portions of the Riggle property. Observation of the previously reported ground cracking on the steeper sloping western portion was conducted. Most of the cracking observed during. this site visit appeared to be desiccation cracking, based on the pattern. Some tension type cracking was suggested near the lower portion of the Riggle landscaping garden. Tension cracking in the upper portion of the steeper western garden slope was not currently readily observable. The instability/washout which occurred along the Riggle south property line during the winter of 1986/87 appears to have been repaired. Review of photos taken during a site visit by Walter Bicket would suggest that uncontrolled water discharge onto the steeper sloping area west of the houses, by the neighbor to the south of the-Riggle property, was a likely cause of that instability. Such behavior is a common occurrence. Improperly constructed and maintained storm water drain systems are, in my experience, one of the largest triggers of slope instabilities in the Puget Sound area. Contractor's attempts at compliance with building code requirements appears to be partly to blame, in my opinion. However, homeowner's lack of drainage system maintenance and disrespect for the risk are the primary factors involved in drainage system related slope failures. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 11im Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 12, 1991 Page 4 During our site visit, we observed indications of behavior of cantilever retaining walls along the railroad right-of-way in the vicinity of the site. Two wall areas were observed. One begins near the Riggle south property line and runs some distance to the north. The second wall is located a couple of hundred feet to the south in an area of recently constructed houses. The two walls appear to be of similar age, construction and height. They are constructed of portions of railroad rails placed vertically in the ground as piles. Railroad ties are placed behind the rails to form a continuous wall between the spaced rail piles. This wall at the Riggle/Jewell properties appears to be relatively vertical. The wall at the recently constructed residence to the south is tilted in what appears to be a lateral ground movement. This observation would suggest that the Riggle and Jewell properties are recently (during the life of the walls) more stable than the observed property several lots to the south. Risk Judgement City of Edmonds ordinance no. 2661 contains a requirement that the project geotechnical engineer comment on the "risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties from soil instability." From recent discussions with the building official, I understand that this requires a statement using the current City of Edmonds definition of "stable" as defined in the above referenced ordinance. My understanding of this definition of "stable" is that subject to the conditions set forth in my reports and letters, that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement; and further, that the risk of deep-seated or large scale earth movement which could cause damage to the structure has a probability of less than 30% chance of occurring within a 25 year period. Based on the discussions in this letter and the .Geological Services, Inc. and J. Keith Cross, P.E. letters referenced above on this project, and the currently proposed development concept for this site, it is my opinion that the completed project will not increase the risk of damage to the proposed development or adjacent properties, if the recommendations are followed. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111m Place NE, IGrkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 12, 1991 Page 5 Furthermore, recommendations for temporary construction excavation have been made to minimize increases in risk during construction, commensurate with conventional construction practices, in the area. Additionally, based on the City of Edmonds definition of "stable," as summarized above and the judgmental approach taken in this evaluation, it is my opinion that the currently proposed building area on the site meets the definition of "stable", for deep-seated or large scale earth movements, if the recommendations presented in my letters are followed. I trust that the above comments will be of use in your permitting efforts. If you have any questions please give me a call. Yours very truly, J. Keith Cross, P.E. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 • Harrison Jewell 06/06/91 15706 75th P1. West, Edmonds Subject Matters: Previous existing house, 15706 75th P1. West, Edmonds December 2, 1977 a demolition permit was issued (permit # 770634) to remove existing house. The reason for the permit, was because a new foundation had been placed under the residence, do to negligence on the part of an employee, the house slipped off the cribbing. Regarding the existing foundation there has never been a house constructed on this system. If I can be of assistance reqarding the property history please contact me. Sincerely Yours Harrison Jewell • J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. . Geotechnical Engineering Consultant STR EU FILE (206) 822-2725 6020 111° Place NE, IGrkland, Washington 98033 May 20, 1991 Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Avenue Northwest Seattle, Washington 98107 Geotechnical Engineering Review and Response to The City Of Edmonds Review Comments, Proposed New Jewell Residence, 15706 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0003-077 This letter is prepared to summarize my review and comments relative to a preliminary geotechnical review of the above project plans by consultants for the City Of Edmonds. Vince Ojalla, project architect, has provided me with a set of building plans dated October 1, 1990, and a copy of the Landau Associates, Inc. geotechnical review letter dated April 4, 1991. The architect has indicated specific items which should be addressed. Certain other items which pertain to geotechnical aspects of the development will be commented on as well. Since I have not previously seen the finished project plans, a conceptual review of the plans relative to the discussed items will be accomplished. Design Preface In my opinion it is important to make a distinction in the behavior expectation of a structure constructed on an active landslide as opposed to more conventionally stable ground. The thought process to consider the possible ramifications is almost to the level of developing a different philosophy of the purpose of what a housing unit means. In today's world, I find that many people consider their homes and the land on which they are built to be more of value as an investment than as a place where they can be protected from the weather. This appears to be somewhat of a phenomena of the 20th century's widespread affluence in this country. My experience in several third world countries indicates that masses of less affluent populations mainly consider their house to be a place to store their possessions and to be protected from the weather. If they move for some reason, the house is left for the next occupant to use. This latter philosophy was historically used by europeans, american pioneers and is prevalent in' native american ethics. Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 2 This latter philosophy, which emphasizes useability rather than constantly increasing value, appears to be more applicable to me for houses built in active landsliding areas where the risk of damage is high. I believe that it is important to recognize the differences in design to be applied if the "use" philosophy is selected over the "value" philosophy. Many of the currently accepted standards and requirements of building construction regulators are not applicable if the compatibility of the "use" philosophy is considered in light of the risks of constructing on an active landslide. Luckily, the conceiver of wood frame construction was infinitely wise in development of this construction concept. The stiff, yet flexible, framing is easily separated from the foundation and interior finishing. This situation makes this construction style well suited to areas of relatively large ground movements, such as active landslides. Slab -on -grade and masonry construction are not nearly so tolerant of such movements. It is my understanding that Harrison Jewell has adopted the "use" philosophy for his proposed structure. The two previous geotechnical reports have addressed the fact that landslide related damage to the structure should be expected from movements of the ground that are greater than the elastic deformation the structure is likely to tolerate. The recommendations in our previous reports have been oriented at trying to mitigate the damage potential, however, such mitigation will not work if the regulating officials continue to view the expected behavior in the light of design considerations that are related to a "value" philosophy. Concepts that are used to minimize minor movements in a "value" approach may be detrimental to the flexibility of the structure in a "use" approach that recognizes the potential of large movements (i.e. in excess of several inches). Additionally, the project architect indicates that he has discussed the risks of damage or destruction of the structure with the owner. A number of photographs of damage from previous Meadowdale landslides have been made available by the City of Edmonds to help the owners understand the potential for structure damage or destruction. Also, I understand that the owner has signed a legal affidavit with the City of Edmonds stating that the owner understands the risks of damage associated with landsliding at this site and is J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111" Place NE, Krkland, Washington 98033 C] • Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 3 willing to accept these risks without liability to other parties who have not specifically contracted to participate in these risks (i.e. insurance companies). Finally, before addressing the specific Landau comments, I would like to comment on my philosophy of design for construction on active landslides. Firstly, the structure's. design should be created to be as tolerant of ground related movements as possible. This means a minimum of rigid connections between the framing and the ground. Independent movement is imperative. Secondly, the design should be created with the ease of re -leveling and re - supporting being of paramount importance. Thirdly, the design should be highly maintenance oriented. Aspects should be highly visible to be able to observe the need for maintenance and to obtain access for maintenance. "Out of sight, out of mind" aspects like buried roof drain systems are detrimental to optimal performance under these site conditions. Such system aspects can not readily be accessed to determine functionality, or to make repairs in a timely and cost effective manner. Review Comments My comments on the indicated specific review items are as follows: 1. Item 12; (regarding foundation settlement estimates) In the traditional sense, an estimate of ground settlement resulting from structural loads is a primary factor in predicting foundation performance. In many instances settlement will be the controlling factor in foundation selection and design. At this site, the anticipated medium dense (or stronger), silty fine sands and/or gravelly silty sands are expected to provide a commonly accepted level of residential foundation performance in terms of elastic deformation characteristics. For a "conventional" site, settlement estimates for these materials would probably fall within a commonly acceptable range of portions of an inch. However, this is not a conventional site, and to discuss settlement J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 • • Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 4 in the conventional context (classical consolidation theory) would be misleading. It is my opinion that processes related to past, and potential future landsliding will be the controlling factors relative to foundation performance over the life of the development at this site. These factors, and recommended design contingencies related thereto, are discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the Geological Services Inc. report dated June 6, 1985. Attempting to estimate the differential movement potential of foundations involved in landslides appears to be absurd. I have observed landslide sites in the Puget Sound area where movement across a structure ranged from a couple of inches to greater than 10 feet. 2. Item 13; (regarding ground water monitoring and slope assessment) The GeoEngineers' report of February 1985 revised the Meadowdale slide potential classification zones originally developed by Roger Lowe Associates in 1979. The risk revisions were based to:a large degree on drainage improvements, and a resultant reduction in the ground water level. These improvements were brought about by the installation of storm sewers within certain areas of the slide complex. The comparative data were developed by monitoring ground water levels before and after installation of the sewers. This was accomplished by periodic measurement of water level indicators in a number of the original Roger Lowe borings and in several subsequent borings. Data was obtained from seven source points (water level indicators) for four years prior to the storm sewer installation, and for a three month period following completion of the storm sewer construction. The GeoEngineers study reports an average reduction in the ground water level of 3 feet following sewer installation. Water level drops of 1.5 to 7.5 feet were recorded at the observation points (including Boring No. 6, which fronts the adjoining lot to the south). J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111" Place NE, Krkland, Washington .98033 • �J Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 5 An assessment of landslide potential reduction based on comparative ground water levels at this site is not possible, as site specific data (other than boring No. 6) prior to the installation of the storm sewer system is unavailable. Furthermore, I would anticipate that data from Boring No. 6 was used as a data point in the GeoEngineers' evaluations. 3. Item 14; (regarding landslide risk assessment) The risk assessment criteria developed in the 1979 Roger Lowe report and the 1985 GeoEngineers report were used in my risk assessment for this site. The work done in these earlier reports is understood to have included a research of accounts and records of landslide activity, field mapping and aerial photographic interpretation as well as subsurface data evaluation. The location, historic landslide activity, soils and hydrologic conditions (Boring No. 6), and the steepness of the lot were all apparent to the city's consultants at the time .the original work was done. It is my opinion that the original risk assessment work is the best available source for landslide risk evaluation at this site. Additionally, due to the proximity of a subsurface data point (Boring No. 6), 1 believe that the risk assessment for the Jewell lot would be more accurate than lots distant from a data point. Refinement of the city's risk classifications to the degree that meaningful information could be developed on a more detailed site specific basis would be extremely difficult and costly. A detailed probabilistic analysis would require intensive subsurface data gathering on numerous properties throughout the slide complex. It is my impression that the city's risk assessment information was based to a fair degree on interpretation of various information and scattered data by experienced professional engineers and geologists. This work is a valued resource and has proven useful to'date, but is probably not rigorous to the degree that a detailed probabilistic J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 0 . 0 Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 6 analysis would be. If a truly rigorous analysis could be conducted on a site specific basis, it is unclear that the values generated would be comparable to the city's risk assessment information. That is, in the end, it may be difficult to quantify the relative increase or decrease in probabilistic risk because of the differences in the methods employed. Development within the Meadowdale landslide complex area is a high risk proposition. By conventional thinking, landslide _occurrence risks of 10 percent and 35 percent over a 25 year period (as indicated for this lot) are extremely high. This implies that there is as much as a one in three chance that earth movement which could damage or destroy the dwelling should be expected within the span of the typical mortgage. Risks of this type would probably be considered unacceptable by most home owners. However, as previously discussed, the owner has acknowledged this potential. 4. Item 20; (regarding retaining wall foundations - sliding) We have not calculated stability of the walls on this project. We assume that this has been done by the structural engineer. 5. Item 21; (regarding loss of bearing capacity - footings on slope) In my opinion, the loss of bearing capacity of foundations on slopes with 2H to 1V inclinations is minor compared to the risk of loss of support due to landsliding at this site. The foundation system concept has been developed with re-establishment of loss of foundation support in mind. 6 Item 22; (regarding lateral earth pressures on walls) The Landau review discusses lateral equivalent fluid pressures on walls of 40, 60 and 100 pcf. The structural engineer should clarify what was used in his design. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98M Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 7 7. Item 23; (regarding landslide material) The Landau reviewers state that they define all material that has moved in a landslide complex as "disturbed". Our observations indicate that the slide in the subject building area consisted of a number of intact blocks as described in the 1985 Geological Services Inc. report. This condition was also described for various areas within the Meadowdale Landslide Complex in the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates report. We see no ambiguities or inconsistencies, as we do not equate relatively intact landslide blocks with an unconditional definition of "undisturbed". 8. Item 24; (regarding footing drains) Footing drains shown on detail 16 of sheet 12 are located on the exterior of the structure. This is the common location for footing drains. Although we understand the desire to locate a footing drain on the upslope side of the footing, it is our opinion that footing drains are installed to reduce lateral pressures on walls. With no apparent fill on the upslope side of this wall, a footing drain would not clearly be serving the purpose of reducing pressures. 9. Item 25; (regarding fill materials) It is -my opinion that the free draining backfill is intended to be placed as a drainage blanket against buried walls. The remainder of the backfills are probably best accomplished with a pitrun sand and gravel type material. Nominal compaction around the structure is expected to provide commonly acceptable levels of landscape area performance. Attention to compaction of backfill placed in 1 foot thick (loose measure) layers beneath pavements will improve long term pavement performance. 10. Item 26; (regarding temporary cut slope inclinations) Previously recommended temporary cut slope inclinations are our estimates for medium duration stable slope inclinations for the various anticipated materials. Variation in the J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111' Place NE, Krkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 May 20, 1991 Page 8 inclination should be expected based on the contractor's operation, weather conditions, and actual materials encountered in the cuts. Contingencies for variability in temporary cut slopes should be considered. Temporary cut slopes in the firmer native soils were suggested to be capable of standing at 1H to 1V slopes. Plan Review Comments The provided building plans have been reviewed for the above items, as requested by the project architect. Our review comments have been conceptual in nature, in that a detailed plan review has not been requested. I understand that Landau Associates, Inc. is the primary geotechnical reviewing agency for the City of Edmonds in this matter. In general, it -appears that the proposed development has been planned with the landslide risk considerations in mind. As the Landau review indicated, it is unclear how construction excavation sloping and property constraints will be handled. The design concept appears desirable in that, outside of backfills for foundation excavations and driveway access, filling within the property appears minimal. I trust that the above comments will be of use in your permitting efforts. If you have any questions please give me a call. Yours very truly, G � AEI TH •.� e e � • J. Keith Cross, P.E. Walter L. Bicket, P.G. ti�e� MAt Geological Services Engineering Geology Consultant to J. Keith Cross, P.E. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111°i Place NE, iGrkland, Washington 98033 • r� u city of Edmonds `0 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, Wa. 980� 0 Dear :air Or Madam: May 10, 1991 Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave. NW Seattle, Wa. 98107 I, Harrison Jewell do hereby state that I have reviewed the soiisioeotechni.cal reports, and understand their recommendations. I understand the ;risk of loss due to slides on the site, and have incorporated into the desion the recommendations of the report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or dariage from any earth movement predicted in the report. Further, 1 understaand and accept the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that I will advise in writing anti prospective purchasers of the site, or any Prospective purchasers or residential leasees of structures or portion of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. Sincerely, Harrison Jewell. 0 0 STREET FILE May 10, 1991 City of Edmonds City Planning Department Edmonds, Wa. 99020 Re: Truck Route Plan All trucks entering or exiting the construction site at 15714 75th P1. W.; Edmonds, Wa. shall use 75th Pi. W. — 76th P1. W. and 196th — Hwy 524. This is the only route that shall be used. Sincerely, Harrison Jewell OSTREET FILE • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 89p.194 April 8, 1991 Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave. N.W. Seattle, WA 98107 Re: Site restoration bond, street dedication and.sidewalk cash set aside for 15706 - 75th Pl. W. Dear Mr. Jewell, 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 $27,741 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. 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 cash set aside in the amount of $450. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, N ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator JEWEL/TXTST530 Alberts • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan r STREET FILF& MITIGATED FILE# N/A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal New Single Family Residence Proponent Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Ave. N.W., Seattle, WA 98107 Location of proposal, including street address, if any 15706 75th P1. W, Edmonds, WA 98026 Lead Agency Edmonds Planning Division 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.(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.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. There is no comment period for this DNS. x 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 February 19, 1991 Responsible Official John Bissell Position/Title Code Enforcement Tech. Phone 771-3202 Address 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds WA 98020 Date February 4, 1991 Signature - )C3f L._ - X You may appeal this determination of nonsignificance to Hearing Examiner at 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds, WA 98020 no later than 5:00 p.m., February 29, 1991 by filing a written appeal citing reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact John Bissell to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. There is no agency appeal. 7 1 CONDITIONS OF MITIGATION HARRISON JEWELL BUILDING PERMIT, PLAN CHECK # 242 This determination of nonsignificance is subject to the following conditions: 1. All excavation and grading shall comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, 1989 edition. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building Department and shall comply with all conditions of permit approval. 3. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City Engineering Division and follow the required guidelines. 4. The applicant shall follow the requirements and guidelines of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division. 5. The applicant shall follow all recommendations of J. Keith Cross, P.E., Geotechnical Consultant, Project # 0003-077, report dated July 26, 1990. 6. A geotechnical engineer from the reporting firm shall be retained on site during all excavation and grading work, and the contractor shall follow all recommendations of said engineer on site. 7. The applicant shall provide the City with a clearing plan and a relandscaping plan. The relandscaping plan shall include a timetable for completion. All landscaping must be complete prior to occupancy of the structure. 8. The Applicant shall make every reasonable effort to keep exposed soil covered during construction. 9. The Applicant is to make every possible effort to keep dust controlled and to keep the streets clear of dirt and debris. PERNIIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS TO: Permit Coordinator, Building Division FROM: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector OWNER: Wit— PLAN CK li 642 ADDRESS: IS�� -]5aC, vJ DATE: 1(/4/9( After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements mustbe 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 Publicproperty. (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) S. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN I S FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACIL- ITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS REPSONSIBLE 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 18.30), 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLU&S, FOUNDATION DRAINS, AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) 8: 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 perimit 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 7.30) 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 permit is required. LIDti Z 10 Fees paid: Yes ✓ No Charge SS �=� (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 18.05.010) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRAN77NG OCCU- PANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) i9. �D4=-01"'-4%0til 20. S/� G�ff�d- (� W10e /P.00XJ •- - • EIT R P.E. J. K H CROSS, Geotechnical Engineering Consultant �,.iP. li'• D. a�. (206) 822-2725 6020 111th Place N.E., Kirkland, Washington 98033 OCT 3 01990 PERMIT. COUNTER July 26, 1990 'ir'. Harrison ;jewel 1 .515 Sea'view Avenue NW Washington 98107 Geotechnical Engineering Review For Revised Development Concerti, P opased New Uwc'1ing, 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0003-077 his report is prepared to summarize the results of a review o the r?vi ed deve i c polient concept for a new dwelling at your 75th Place West property in, tj►e Meadowcnle district of Edmonds, Washington. We have been provided conceptu,-t': sketches of the proposed development. These sketches which include buiid:n�j iay,.ut and proposed floor elevations were prow-1--led by Vine: 0jal"'.s, architect. The scope of our work includes, 1) 3 review of the revised de-jj 31 cprrer;: concept, 2) a review of the data and geotechni cal study of Juni' 6. conducted by Geological Services Inc. and this office, 3) an asseiSrrant )f tfinding.-,, and their applicability to the r•e ai sed scope o; sieve': •. ,I..at,;; 4) augmentation and/or prevision of additional rE,c%rrarendatior., re' i:i e. o the revised concept where pertinent, and 5) completion of the earth; ee,, _e; tiii C�,. i port ons of the SEPA .and Ci ty of Edmmonds check11 s Y.s wh it t ::u have .a`::r t-t d for our review. Development Plans :e new development plans show a garage structure situat^d at the tuo,, and over the face of the ascending slope to the east of the crigirial 6,; 11.iing lor.ation. The garage will access the proposed d:e"111ing on the third fl"30r bY a suspended walkway, and on the second floor by an entry deck, T:h-e rav;sed dwelling concept shows an increase:' building size and fl ocr area from originally proposed dwelling.. The b;i 1 di ng is shown to extend to 'the west, to about the margin of the exisrin� concrete pert" slat:. !.fe understand that ,.ettU ^ to Har•r'i ;or: dowel 1 Proj2ct No. 0003-077 Jul 1 26, 1990 rage 2 the planned east building .line will lie just to the west of the existing low concrete wall/foundation which fronts the toe of the east slope. The current development concept calls for removal of the foundations and floor slab of the existing partially completed dwelling, with the exception of tree west wall which will be used during construction for temporary slope suop,Ort.. Site grading to accommodate the development indicates cuts for both garage n'•,d dwelling foundations. Construction excavations are shown to be stepped down the slope, and to attain an average steepness no greater than 2H to 1V (2 horizontal to 1 vertical). Cut depths of as much as 6 and 8 feet are: indicate•a in the north and south dwelling lines respectively. Garage 'ct:i'ration cuts are shown to extend 3 to 5 feet into the slope face. Fi11ir-J not indicated on the conceptual grading scheme. lla a ► eview and Revised Recofmnendations i;i- new development scope at this site will require revision of portionsof our original report (Geological Services Inc. report dated June u, 1935) . Areas to be addressed include; 1) excavation considerations, and 2 revis':?n of the foundation section to address the new dwelling forma` and! !:jAr.age structure. In light of the changed grading concept, comments On ; roJect erosion control, impact on slope stability and risk relative to landsliciir:j will be made. .xcavation Considerations It is apparent that excavation within both the dwelling and garage a),ea_, :1e required to accommodate foundations and floors. The sketches pr,--vide" i.^.dicate that finished floor and foundation elevations will likely ►•ei�t,lt in earth cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet in the dwelling area and 3 to .5 reet for the garage. Considering the sloping character of the lot, cut heights !ill generally decrease toward the west for a given floor/step level. ,Earth Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 26, 1990 Page 3 cuts are expected to extend into fill and various native site soils. The exploration data indicates that variation in cut soils units should be., anticipated. Open cuts are expected to be the most economical where there is room between the base of the cut and the property line. The anticipated excavation adjacent to the south property line should be evaluated to determine the potential for undermining adjacent foundations. Alternative temporary excavation support (such as temporary excavation shoring) may be necessary in the event that excavation geometry is not compatible with adjacent property and structure constraints. The recommended cut angles below should be used as general guidelines for determining potential excavation impact. Stability of open excavation cuts during construction will depend on the nature and-consi-stency of the soils encountered, as well ys the presence of wa.4e.r secpage an-! runoff-.: The following te—mp,orary•:�c.u,t slo.pes, for;V; e anticipated cut heights, are expected to be appropriate for their re spective soil types: 1.25H to 1V for loose to medium dense artificial fill, modified ground or loosened surficial soils 1H to 1V for medium dense/ medium stiff or better native sand and silt/clay-silt soils The above values should be considered general guidelines. Actual sloping in soils should be made the responsibility of the contractor, as he is continuously present at the job site to observe the nature and ccndition of the excavation soils. Contingencies in timing, technique and budget should be made to accommodate potential variations. We recommend that we be retained to monitor earthwork activities so that our recommendations could be interpreted, and supplemental input could be given, as requested. !c!:t-,r to Harrison Jewall Project No. 0003-077 Italy 26, 1990 raje 4 Unsupported permanent cut or fill slcpes should be no steeper than 2H tc IV. Considering the character of the site sui is, periodic rr'a°ntenanc4 an: cIean1ny of weathering ;polls from sloped areas should be anti ci gated. Ourioc. p=aloos of wnt weather or io saturated soil measures ma; be required to facilitate construction. orr grading should be sloped to prevent pondi r.G. It shoe: ; •+ clay -silt site soils are considered highly moisture ser,_. deteriorate if worked during rainy weather or in a saturated Delays in construction activity may result from a deteriorated s:: l ; condi t i o"'.. If necessary, the use of a covering of crushed rock or pit ruc aravei ovar the subgrade. soils should aid in minimizing disturbance and softening of the bearing soils during construction. nunrl.a ri nne We understand that th,e dwelling will not incorporate any of the existing structure foundations. The new foundations should extend through all ex;sti q fill or disturbed soils, and be constructed on firm non -yielding native soils. Our exploration pit'EP-1 encountered 7 feet of -artificial fill along the west end of the existing porch slab. This material is corisi:iered unsuitable for support of foundations. Building foundations in this area should be set on the underlying native compact silty fine sands and medium to fine sand with gravel. Taking into account the above conditions, the recommended foundation and geotechnical design criteria outlined in the June 6, 1985 Geological Services Inc. report are considered applicable for the new dwelling. Design of the new garage foundations should be in accordance with these criteria as well. However, considering the garage position and slope steepness, a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1000 psf should be used in design. Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 26, 1990 Page 5 Project Impact, Erosion Control and Landslide Risk Considerations The June 6, 1985, geotechnical report concluded that a relatively low impact for excavation and erosion control should be anticipated because of the anticipated scope of construction. The current scope of development calls for temporary excavation for foundations and floors, and a generally increased level of earthwork activity. We are of the opinion that the erosion control measures discussed in the Development Considerations section of that rep.or are appropriate for the revised scope of development. Impacts relative to both temporary and permanent excavations have been addressed in the Excavation Consideration section of this letter. We are of the opinion that -the measures and criteria discussed in that section are, appropriate for the anticipated scope of development. flie discussions contained in the Project Impacts and Slope Stabi' `y sections �� the June 6, 1985, geotechnical report are considered applicable for the revised development concept. That is, the revised scope of development is not expected to influence the risk assessment (IOZ category) classification for this site. SEPA Checklist The following section addresses the items outlined in the earth portion of the ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS section of the SEPA Checklist. 1. Earth a. General description of the site: The site is steeply sloped in areas. • • Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 26, 1990 Page 6 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope) ? The steeper slopes on the lot drop to the west at about a 67% grade above and below the dwelling area. c. What general types of soils are found on the site? Medium dense, fine to medium grained sand with gravel in the elevations above the dwelling, and dense/hard interbedded fine sands, silts and clays at and below the dwelling elevation. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity ? Yes. (see June 6, 1985 report by Geological Services Inc., pages 2,3,4,6,7,8 and 9) e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. (see pages 2 and 3 of this report addendum) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use ? Yes. (See page 4 of this report addendum) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction ? (see architectural plans) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. (see pages 2, 3 and 4 of this report addendum) City of Edmonds Geotechnical Report Guidelines The following section addresses the items outlined in the Geotechnical Report Guidelines section of the MEADOWDALE SITE EVALUATION CHECKLIST. The sequence and numbers for the items listed below correspond to the guidelines format. 1. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1985, prepared by Geological Services Inc., and the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. 2. As above. Also, see accompanying amended site plan. Letter to Harrison Jewell Project No. 0003-077 July 26, 1990 Page 7 3. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1985, pages 3,4,5,6,and 7 for subsurface conditions and characteristics and impacts, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. 4. Refer to the architectural plans. Utility connection requirements discussed on page 9 of the June 6, 1985 Geotechnical Report. 5. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1985, pages 7,8, and 9, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. a. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1995, pages. 2,3,8, and 9, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. b. Filling is not indicated for this site. See pages 2 and 3 of the above report addendum. C. Refe.r..to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1985, pages 10 and 11, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above rep^rt addenduma. d. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated Jury 6, 1985, page 11. C. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June. 6, 1985, pages 1.2 and 13. f. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1985, pages 9 and 10, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. g. In my opinion, landslide forces on structures are frequently of such large magnitude that it is economically impractical to resign and construct connecting members that would resist these forces. h. See the above comments on the Earth section of Environmental Elements portion of the SEPA checklist. i. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated June 6, 1985, page 9. j. Generally not considered applicable, but is discussed in the Excavation Considerations section of the report addendum (page 3). Letter to Harrison Jewell Proje-t No. 0003-077 July 26, 1990 Page 8 USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY The conclusions and revisions to the recommendations contained in the June 6, 1985 Site Geotechnical Study prepared by Geological Services Inc. and this office are based on the understood changed scope of development on this lot. Should further changes be made, we should be given the opportunity to review our work to assess its applicability to the changed conditions. This report has been prepared fo•r Harrison Jewell and his agents for use in planning and design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but the conclusions and interpretations contained herein should not be construed as a warranty of subgrade conditions. The scope of work performed does not include services related to con.structior: safety precautions, and the recommendations are not intended to d=r:.rt the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for this study, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time the report was prepared. No oth r warranty, expressed or implied, is made. If there are any questions concerning this report, please call. Yours- very truly, "J. Keith Cross, P.E. �REET FILE 0 CITY OF E®I ONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (208) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES October 13, 1987 I S-7 v 4 -7- f� 14 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Allen Morgan Reid, Middleton & Associates 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA. 98020 SUBJECT: HARRISON JEWEL RESIDENCE Dear Allen: This is to inform you that the City of Edmonds has no objection to the subject residence being connected to the adjacent City storm sewer. If you need additional assistance in this matter, contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, V w JERRY W. HAUTH, P.E. Hydraulics Engineer JWH/sdt ALMORGAN/TXTST530, PUBLIC WORKS • PLANNING • PARKS AND RECREATION • ENGINEERING MEET FILE, •• 4r 770634 FILE # FOCI FOR [X'iFINrIL] DECLARATION OF�ONSIGNIFICANCE] Description of proposal Reconstruct basement floor Proponent Harrison Jewell Location of Proposal 15706-75th Place West Lead Agency City of Edmonds leis proposal has been determined to [NAYe/not have] a significant ad- verse impact upon -the envirormicnt. An EIS [Wis not] required. under 10-1 43.21C.030(2) (c) . This deti.sion was made after review by the lead agency of a completed envirmimental chec1dist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official E. Joseph Wallis Position/Title Director of Community Development Al Date October 5, 1977 Signature 2�0- L -Af SC �� � So u�►1c� _ rt1 y►1'eck VJ4z r- 110634 WW, L©v!. q w4n r v�QQK j ij(a ft STREE-r FILE DATE: MEMO TO: Building Division Community Development Department FROM: Engineering Division Public Works Department SUBJECT: �-��io —1 �j'rI-.Psi 41 - . - J After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: (1) Coordination of the location of any structure with respect to utilities, streets, property lines and driveway gra es is t e responsibility of the contractor. (2) The contractor is required to.keep the abutting streets clean- ed of dirt, and debris caused by the construction. _(3) A "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the Public Right -of -Way or public easement. (4) Driveway slope not to exceed.140. MUM PW 5/77 U ft ti PI)L. "vJ 17S � STREET FILE CITY OF E® ®NDIS HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVED Malt 2 2 1978 Public Works Vept. March 22, 1978 Harrison Jewell 8204 Greenlake Drive North Seattle, Wa. 98103 ji PERMIT APPLICATION DATED MARCH 17, 1.978 3' 15706-75th PLACE WEST A stop -work order has been placed on construction at the above address, since permit #770634 was issued for repair only of an existing foundation. I Before release of a permit for construction above the foundation, the following must be done:. I 1) Furnish a soils report, modifying that furnished under permit #770634, which was for repair of an . existing residence, not demolition and construction j. of a new structure. 2) Plans as submitted are inadequate to detail the proposed structure. Refer to enclosed plan require- ments. Also, plans must bear the seal and signature -of a licensed engineer, and indicate that the structural design detailed for repair of the existing structure is adequate for the proposed new construction. 3) Provide evidence that septic.tank system is in satisfactory operating condition. (See enclosed memo from Public Works Department) I 4) File a Hold Harmless Agreement similar to that issued under I Permit #770634. (Copy enclosed) itit�c l - Harry�. Whitcutt Building Official ' HMW/ae / 1 , cc: City Engineer v Planning Div. attachments �gREEf FILE DATE:31z��7L43 MEMO TO: Building Division Community Development Department FROM: Engineering Division Public Works Department �,' SUBJECT: V -<�)V I N L4 After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: (1) Coordination of the location of any structure with respect to utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor is required to keep the abutting streets clean - ea or airs ana aebris causea oy the construction. (3) A "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the Public Right -of -Way or public easement. aDriveway slopenot ' 1 = u CN 0 '1!.-yam I.. • I !! •... S UNGT1r71�1 A Q�U 111t tb G IT y Co PW 5/77 � , � '• ,,� i-'r3\•'pa '•'}, 5� '�,�r3"t '{''y ;� ��4 �), f4. a 1 ti -r,?�•"a.a.. _ e y . l .Q •4,., a�, �i�art, �1Y. t _ti AI �;+s`'�'. �'{�r I ":+.r\�y P' : S!} �•'•��, i _ �� S . � y•µ!\r3 Cy'i S1Y7� r..,�y �Y' var t•i1C �7'/ r ,, j�ry..-� '=�1- •_ t '• -� Y 1 �"',I. p_{�� •/�t l<f._ly'1'�,i S "�Y �.y "x"•-' i ° �. ri�t�5J1 Qi� �t �t4 r' > a tF � "�` \}t u� .f'aV " 7i!`f- • r� `;', f ti �t F si s , a � u �� Y't'.,�.t ski x f t ~ � , i : r t r ' r a � •, � r. i�'t'.it,.'�•if. ` ''PTO aLY1 +•ng $ 7 i n4R"'lit 'ti•£: � r. ,.,.u. .r yr r �4; �a•� Y *� o. rt- .1 r_' _? <;•1 '� ir- ! ;, + '•4 t , r �, s Sy 1 ti`s -1- try. • } .C: L �nr � ����'. Fta < f 1 Y�r +} � r f b 1 yx G. 7<ti ;p7y� �4 1 t Lr'.xlr 3yj�F, 7} S ' u. a'tn i s6ti �,p�l �'� r •'(¢FL fir �jrtyr?ir. r 'i ;..March 14,.1977 r. , r�'Mr ,� �' � ' � - '• r ' -az` .1 C It . i ,< Pam} i. ��ll r''•s X a�' x� t x R ty` - + o . ` ^r rti � j > t _: '-1 + •� '� •�•,,'`• Sri -d-r 4,%��.g7 ti -g+. � t.a5n �. r.• ; ��,: ) r. ��- �Y � � .=i,Yi��,t'1.?*;y r �i;• ~~;r�i t�l0 TO: `.E. Jose'pl `Wallis,.Director :� �'�<x tf t���F�' `�r �'' • rl tl,r }4% '►(cr°��f' i ,s,N r�r Community Development. Department '.` \', ;},: •' FROM: iLeif R: Larson,; P.B. � ict`'•'j`::tr'Yy,:. Director of Public: 11orks ,tptf \ !( ..-•• .!' ;p-..' , ,.._ -- �� rig �'a-' r 'C ,.�"` , �R Mt'� '•'s•- V1SUSJLCT. -77 ''' .. a �,.r• '--- .• .- -. WES:. T L ? ti NM -°v fr 1. ,• a ... �. i ; .;�i. ,. 3. t•, �. investigation htis7 beQn 'made ,of'i the'., site following : the sub et - I f ok�;,. ,:appli* ation for variance_ and: knowlodge...that,ithere; is.,Ampeiiding.:;'; .construction on: the sitQ. '.. This,,.area is, .a, known -location .of ? ugsatisfactory • foundation ,support and .stability, •,_ Earth move�� mants have occurred. in recent, history ;:and the effects are easily."' Kl _;: observable..:.. In addition, .this area disposes of . sewag'e •through individual septic..disposal. .systems; ,' The, discharge. of. waste ; r 'water into the soil further..aggravates. the instability, of.. the �.161 f,..: 'soil. For the purposes of,,truilding, grading,, and .excavatfoa.,. -Ion this . sito, . the City Engineer ..declares . this;, area.' unsu1 able Y ';: ,w?,'. :�'.•1,, for improvement: unless •the. applicant provides: a: --.dot ailed;•, report';-,t by .a•;gualified soil �ecialist•t indicating .that the.,tintended , -t.•�v� �� ..Con wig not cause; an': -adverse .-effect or,.that__any proposed structure with. not %be: adversolytiaffectod . 3..., ..o:soi1 conditions. Whether.the.`_variarice is granted.-ortnot any. construction on this. site is 'subject to meeting ttie Building ' Code requir@mentsl teferonce'ci: above ' .. 11 Q2'.025(g).; , •'_,;5 r � x ol �, +ti -� 7 ,. y � t � 1 r 1 t ! F. S t a • � t- -SCSI �. q•,, 9 e , Ui '��..� .. ,.' .�. ., r"'y}a� � � i ��S t'� �r 1� 1- P �a..l; eL, ri.� S � s - j v-•.:j -�i� 1• r ,w J�i ♦— • .( f i 111 °.:� •.r .ir a 'i .sr.�'f. ti �_ 1 t r2� C.,• Jr s�,aS RHA lea s �� A�ray�jyilr+j,t s y r s i �(�est tt+,i �( .,_ js' r t r ' ra'S. °" i .•, ' •�� �1 , t+ J. - r• , t r, ,�f • �1r'.'a ,} e . r , . � 1' ;'r, f . } ` 3. i k 1 1 1 : t 't • �i�{../ `s, ,; !y 9 rt � / }fart i• ,. �.'' , ' ;•r a sy i rot .y a. Mr x. Zst/1 a ,.y 1 '� I z'ir)• } .• �� tir. 10.0 . . �.. 0 * March 9, 1977 MEMO TO: Leif Larson Director Public Works FROM: E. Joseph Wallis, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: QUINLAN VARIANCE APPLICATION (V-13-77) RECE►VE9 MAR 1 1977 Etlmor�i Ex�r. Qe �r This site, located at 15706-75th Place West, is particularly sensitive due to the steep slope and the slippage which has occurred in this area in the recent past. Because of the unique condition, it is imperative that we have your recommendations on the proposed construction, in accord with Edmonds City Code Section 11.02.030(G), and also in regard to necessary utilities, including the Septic System. Please provide this information by Monday, March 15', 1977. MLB/le i /\j it \I,i• � ,,; ,,,'. _�a,,, .�,_.; t,r r:r,°:�;,t \�•;��'���\�\ - ::\ ' ;�, lilt'• Inr, ' I..�=• `t I� `h I' ,4�\it�...; 'i, �(� I -�. a 'r+i � ' �I'' `i � II I' `' _ _� ,',' C.ri.� ;1�,t_ )� III•-''r'(' 111i,� }...� t�'l 'l�,l // 12 �, '//r, ,:,: lr 1ti� � Ir �,.• •Ii r lieu - l^r/'�- � I.C`r •, .il .t Ill ,'I \ , '\1,,. iS��\�1� \` \ \ � ��'II,I 1111-. cd r..a -, � i I � ` y "(�'' ,1 ^, ^ •'\ I ° III( I • �I' i�1�' r � t�r-" _t; �,_�:./` ,..__ ,, I i 111I11 I +�� �- _�_ ,Il.')�). t C.31I I 1 Jl I)d.P 1, UJI to { Ld FAN J. QUINLAN - Variance of 8' on south and 9' on the north from required 17'2' side yard setback; Variance from Section 12,15.110 regarding enlargement of nonconforming buildings at 15706 - 75th P1. W. (RS-20) Mrs. Block showed the location on a vicinity sketch and showed the con- figuration of the house on the lot, noting the very steep slope. She showed slides of the property and commented that there is. no existing house on the adjacent lot to the north. Mrs. Block noted that the applicant had been advised by letter of March 30, 1977 of hazards in developing this site because it is a slide area. Mr. Quinlan acknowledged receipt' of the letter. Mrs. Block said there had been earth movement in this area in 1974, causing a break in the foundation. The applicant wished to improve the house by repairing and adding to it and needed a variance for setbacks. Because of the 45' width of the lot he could only have a 10' wide house if he -met the 17%' required setbacks on each side. He was therefore asking for a variance from the setbacks and a variance from the Code requirement prohibiting enlargement of nonconforming uses. Mrs. Block read the Engineering Department report on the property, indicating that a discharge of waste water into the soil would cause further adverse effects on the soil conditions. She said a number of special requirements would be necessary to obtain a building permit and that they had been explained to the applicant. She then reviewed the variance criteria. She felt the granting of the variance should not be detrimental to others in the neighborhood. She noted that. the minimum variance would be in order to repair the existing structure, and the applicant was asking to.do more than ,lust repair the structure. She said she would not recommend approval to expand the structure in any direction, but she would recommend.approval for repair of the existing structure. She noted that the proposal to expand was to buildup on the structure, which could increase the tendency of the house not to be stable. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Patrick J. Quinlan, the applicant, said the foundation of this building %•rill have to be removed and reconstructed which will cost $7,000. He said it is a one bedroom house and that it would not be sensible to spend the $7,000 to repair it without adding on to it and making a more economical structure. He said he was not asking for a variance on the height requirements, that the structure would be less than 30'. The width of the building would not be expanded and he said he would not be obstructing anyone's view because of the topography of the lot. He referred to two other variances which had been granted in the area. Don Carrol of 15701 75th Pl. said his view would be blocked if the applicant built up, but he said he had watched that property decline for many years and he felt the whole community would benefit by whatever the applicant wanted to do to the property, that anything he did would upgrade it. He commented that the Crawford house was one the applicant had cited as having received a variance., and that house was beautiful, well done by an architect: Norm Elson of Lot 27, immediately across from the applicant's property, said he agreed with Mr. Carrol, but his main concern was that the applicant knew what.he was getting into. Mr. Quinlan reiterated that he would not be going above the height restriction. He said he was - well below the street level and could not possibly obstruct anyone's view. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka interjected that Mr. Quinlan's use was permitted in the zone he is in --that he was not nonconforming. lie said the section of the Code prohibiting a person from repairing a nonconforming building in excess of 25% of its value in a 12-month period is .12.15,090, rather than 12.15.110 and he recommended the applicant so amend his application at thfS time, which the applicant did. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Roy expressed the feeling that it would be good to improve the property. Fie said it would be costly to the applicant but would be a pleasant place to live. Mrs. Block noted thathe would have to sign a document holding the City harmless. MR. ROY THE[,,' MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, THAT V-13-77 BE APPROVED, AS AMENDED DURING THE HEARING, BECAUSE HE FELT THE EDMONDS BOARD OF ADJUSThrENT April 20, 1977 - Page 3 Design Reports Maps Subdivi- sions MEYRING **AS INC*. • ENGINEERS S-VFIEE-r FIL • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS September 22, 1977 Soils Report To Whom it May Concern; PRospect 8-3101 P. 0. BOX 32 LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 A soils analysis has been made of the existing soils in the vicinity of and upon Lot 5, Block 28, plat of Meadowdale Beach, records of Snohomish County, Wash- ington. The soils in the general area are indentified as old land slide due to the past history and topographic features of the Meadowdale basin, reflecting the slippage that is plainly visible within the area. The soil structures change from sand strata to clay strata, varying from 6 inches in depth to 36 inches. The soils under Lot 5 are typical of the area, having a medium texture or finer sandy clay on steep slopes, being 40 to 60 feet in thickness. A moderate slippage hazard exists with a low to moderate shrink -swell potential. A foundation design for the existing structure on above tract of land is based on the above investigation and analysis. Lot Surveys MBM/rl Timber Surveys Sincerely, M. B. Meyring P.E. Meyring and Assoc t s, Inc .SffREF,T FILE r.0 March 14, 1977 MLAO TO: E. Joseph Wallis, Director Community Development Department FROM: Leif R. Larson, P.B. Director of Public Works SUBJtCT; V-13-77 - UINL,IN., 15706 75TH PLACE WEST An investigation has been made of the site following the subject application for variance and knowledge that there is impending construction on the site. This area is a known location of unsatisfactory foundation support and stability. Earth move- ments have occurred in recent history and the effects are easily observable. In addition, this area disposes of sewage through individual septic disposal systems. The discharge of waste water into the soil further aggravates the instability of the soil. For the purposes of building, grading, and excavation on this site, the City Engineer declares this area unsuitable for improvement unless the applicant provides a detailed report by a ualified soil specialist indicating that the intended construction -cause an adverse effect or that any proposed structure will not be adversely affected by existing soil conditions. Whether the variance is granted or not any construction on this site is subject to meeting the Building Code requirements referenced above - 11.02.025(g). RHA: lee ' � � � • � REfE1VE9 MAR 111977 March 9, 1977 ''III MEMO TO: Leif Larson Director Public Works FROM: E. Joseph Wallis, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: QUINLAN VARIANCE APPLICATION (V-13-77) This site, located at 15706-75th Place West, is particularly sensitive due to the steep slope and the slippage which has occurred in this area in the recent past. Because of the unique condition, it is imperative that we have your recommendations on the proposed construction, in accord with Edmonds City Code Section 11.02.030(G), and also in regard to necessary utilities, including the Septic System. Please provide this information by Monday, March 15', 1977. MLB/le Q 'ti 4 GOV r I683 MEANDER RA/ . LINE ROAD (GREq7- . NORTHERN S.0" 45'W FI ^'�R�7CRi6) 825' I `6 v LUND'S GULCH ROAD - Go cn 7L-1-�—L-- o !1 Pyl w � - 72nd. AV i� s E. W.77� "' !�► II o' ...J ul m I w c� o oL — — :,,,:I..-1---,�163 --- .► 70th. AVE. ' a k _ �� O � �� �IS I '.� I\R l�:•i .3 •�\`1 (���t('JF/l. r+ill.' _ _. .' . jj -17 ' II; ` __ _ J � ��,•+` __�o�i {}`t�,'"�. - ,'' � �, orl.�:cs,'� 11 '�.�, _ _,�,< �r r \ � � ��. �\�\ ll I\� '��� �'_--! ;1�` II � I � II• � }� f� 11/� � I � r4,/� / `�� • I; (I -tr ram) r, � ; \ �}'\ l /-,•�,°' '� ( / r �','-.; �I l/�' l l ,f PI ;jt 14 - II� ,/:,;`• �)l'. ��� ';;I � _ J\, ,1 11 '' yr I �:II� F 1 v _ 4 I I t \_'\ y t.�•r .. - y.. '- �._ -. ...-. .�1� .\ mil. DATE, Z I • ItR<MIT ADDR&T LEGAL DES UNNFION cz— B NG PERMIT REVIEW - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHECK LIST Instruction: FAMMBW�'j Check Accuracy of Legal Description j `• Check Anainst Assessor's Map for Legal Subdivision Does it conform to City Approved Subdivision? JL 1 -Reviewer's Initials _ 1. This lot included in Subdivision/Plat .►.•loA I 2. Site Inspection made on: —� 3. 11hat are around water and soil conditions?�Tw6p j� 4. Site Drainage Checked? 5. Storm Sewer Availability: Sht. of hwg. Ho. Project Roadside Ditch +' 6. Grading & Final Contours: / 7. Septic Tank System Desinn Ap roved:61, l — 8. Sanitary Sewer Availability _Sit. ..s of �g. No. --• Project Side sewer availability: 9. Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees? 10. !eater Mains A Fire Hydrants (Indicate Size Main) / )I�6� A"Check. Fire Dept.'s Comments 11.. Sidewalks: (Site inspection shows conditions of sidewalks as follows) 4 1 � 12. Curbs: 9 Curb Cuts/D ' ewa s (Check drive�iays for safety, location, grade and width): �REA 13. Underground Vliring: Street Lights: ` 14. Street Right-of-way A Bldg. setbacks: ht. of official Street Map. _ 15. 'Existing Utility Easements? 16. Access Easements: F 17. Site Plan checked for accuracy? (� 2 E 18. Special Requirements listed in Memo to Bldg. Pept. ' 19. Commercial &-Apt. Requirements form completed? �+- 20. Drawings stamped & notations made? 21 e 1 21. All Items filled in on Bldg. Permit Application? 10 22. Bonds posted for site work? 23. Right-of-way Invasion Permit required? �JA An COMMENTS: tl � Rev. 711176 • • P ROIW E DATE SOBMITTED ENVI RONMENTAL ASSESSPIENT STREET FILE In order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, the responsible official must make a declaration of environmental impact as early as possible in the process of evaluating a project. The information in this form will be used to determine whether it will be neces- sary to require an environmental impact statement. If an impact statement is not required, a Statement of Negative Declaration will be placed in the file. If an impact staterent is required, a draft statement must be filed with this office, public notice given and a review period of 30 days allowed. The final - statement and comments must be filed with the Department of Ecology; Office of the Governor and tie Ecological Commission. The Edmonds Planning Staff will assist you in any way we can in accumulating this information and we would appreciate your cooperation. 1. Land: Area in acres ` rj Soils type 1 Limitations Description of topography (slope) J),[Hcdi¢ Sim jk.W ark% to so% -v Ise .^ LA�i1�10 Grading: estimated cubic yds. 77. Filling: estimated cubic yds. 2. Water: Stream - estimated flow (gallons) per minute YYL Will stream be altered? jJ 0 5 'lred ►rh __ To what degree? Impact on storm drainage (increase in run-off) Estimated area to be paved Jy Shorelines: within 200 ft. of Mean Higher High Water Adjacent to shorelines zone e S iT .T RREET FILE Environmental Assessment, page 2 3. Vegetation: Type of trees �-t�cF � da-� ( % to be removed_ NtMrL Minimum diameter of trees to remain 0 Ground cover Qy as* SE ­TG—ees % to be removed Proposed landscaping, if any a"L� 2 4. Existing Land Use !within 300 f t. radius of proposed development: Vacant Single Family Multi - Family Comm. Other North 1 AwlSouth East , West. � � 5. Circulation: Estimated increase in auto trips daily /U �� Estimated demand for public transportation k) t&A Degree of change on adjacent streets Q4� 6.. Area of impact: neighborhood ci ty-wi de *6 11" Ate, regional 7. Effect on air quality: uY*-k— 8. Changes in noise generation: I I. 1 g II (a FN i5 N O O C+ A C. P. CA 'Y lu CC' 90 n O STREET ° FILE m m v) 0m m ;' Cn n C9 J cC 2 (n (D C C D v C' 1 r, O f�i) pL 't 1 Z m m m O AO D 1 N 0 '-) c v N m m r- o) Z FI m z 'y 'Co) u ). a D v n) x y x C+ m 0 rn n I m x '� • �7 rn 1 o y j n (1 ° a O 1-0 �- G L s t� r m R1 D O Nr (n 9 r`) .X co N M 'N CD x T " m ol cF fJ CL M>0 O o(°v C iz <o ,o U N. Z fn Fl zv(-' n m N x u). om ro. yo C+ r c+ r z • � N r2z n DO 7 D1 m 0Orn E � Cl) .0 x a O H .4 v D c z A v � N 1 a n z o r r . O ;ID ; C •y D � D 4 OZ O z- z N N ci7 c 220 <c O c� m D (" o m " ^ r D I . m I r z? " o (n n 7 z > >r x r r O 1 2 MD D (n m N o z D C- r 0 m V7 N O r ID 0 o (D E Z7 I z I rn frl I N A X D W a y W < i D -n .n O . m v N (7 z G) C O rn M r O" v 0 � r D M z 0 0 C o' v i c] G ° ID o f N m n. y r m r (w+ O CD O DCD ( Z y 1 I• F V p j XNFO MO CL Z �y 0 f-� y F✓ � o w o w � 1 m rn C G XC I < 0 () y G y C O mA . (� a y y to i U]C] Z � 0 0 m ° O Z N ' Y >> H O O D 'I' x u 0. I =om .rri IN L1 z o, I I (A D N. O U A n �Z -� m U) v' ma V G (A C) m r D w r V vt N G) O m -1 r R1 •� ru <r mrn D z z _ W o vto —� V, F+ I N N _ I n ° I 'z C- M X M D • r� � D -i C) �m O Z �m O � 4 rn D>D 10 . IFl ? D 1 fp1 m ) rn v) O� x > e O O a O Z y C N o3 O -0 J o t+ t E Z zI N �A D E (n rm r p rn3 r t2 D 1 o- o am g 2D M)2 C ° 1 _ <C m� c M w M N. 0 0 STREE. OILE 0 IV WWWW IQ N to IQ to N) to to M F, H p H H N) H 0 ID m -) 01 H 0 'D (X1 --Q 01' 4= 111) IQ 0 10 CI) CY, W N W.o :2: n w (n H 'v 0 .1 O' m 'o l-v -il C) En M l­3 IU -1 -1 Lo 0 M av La W -lj tj 0 r CI) --I (A U cr c- 0 -3 3 :o- -1 -I. 'I 0• (D O 0 c+ P• c+ P• 0 (D 0 go m On 0 O (D 0 0 ::5, �' P, F_, � Va :4 (' ') P"d H l-I x 0 G o -'r (D H W H t:r, (D ::% CD (D c 0 0 w 'D 0 0 �J (n (a w a P. 0 a '0 P) En 0 P. 'o � u c+ P 10 0 P. 'I U) ct 0) 1 (D C+ Fl- :J.C+ (D (D W l-i Fj- :J i� (D, P- CD CD Ci' _1`1� '-f (U CL :1 P- P' (D J= 0 0 �3 IS -1 j) C/) " (D (on P. 0 (D Cn :4 (FIr po D) 0 0 ug cn Ho c+ A03• o . c+ cj) Z (D UQ.. -' (A• W F-, (n �ct w ri Fl- 0) CD H CD JU c+ M ­ 0 '1 GQ Uzi a H CD (D P < 0 w w k 0 (D CD •P. r_ (D (D P. P. H. c+ En ]- Ci- H. C* & 1­i V, P. 0 I LA, o 0 (D l-I . On CD c+ (D :j (A P. ct 0 H CA 18 0 V, Ii r, F, 0 Is :3, (D 03 9) 0 H. �_' 11 :� c+ En . o 0 c+. c)- r- -1 (A 0' 0 < P. �I p Ii (D �_] Is F_ 0 P. D) (n �j . P- :� (D 9) tq 12 c+I 0 �r c+ z 0 0 P) It 0 a' 0 F­ P, P. H P. c� 0 '-s (1) P. Or c+ O. CL 0 pj 0 0 1­ 0 (1) 0 0 '1 -1 �-'v �o 0 (D 10 CA w CD c+ t.4 F­ ca 0. H H c� 0 0 03 CP, 9) " I l-f c. H p In. P-4 r cC m F, �I cl P. P) P V) CD U) -1 (U 10 P. En 0 11 0 �l; h. CD (D c+ 0, P3. z H. & p) CL 'I 9) 'P3, C). (A c+ I­l' Cu �'Q 0 �:J Gq 0 En P- ID z<: 0 P, (n (1) �J 1.4 .0 e 0 (D 0 H C+ �3 P. C+ - 0 .1 14 'o �j '.4 _') 0`0 CS 0 C+ _' 'I �:% (+ = P �3 0) r-L 0 l-i (D 0 (D. P. (D 0 c+' c+' Cu 1- P- - (1, Cn c+ HM (D Q 0 0 F'�' (D p H. P' 0 11 (') c+ 1+ CI' :"- P. (D 0 GQ n (D (D P P. (D p. --) co c+ P. 0 0 0� ::j fu P. & p -1 c+ 0 0 :� P. (D cr cn H f (D o 'o 0 (j) -3 �I o u) 0 D) (D En c- c+ -1 0,1 0. - :� D) p) 03 :y (A '1 0 F- O. c+ r H 0 P- F-1- P. 0 F, (D 0 (D (D -j rL (J"d (D P- 0. (D 0) (D P. 9) P. P C.) P* M :3' . 0 " F- F1 0 F:I -1 rL 11 \.n • 0 P. _61�k GQ P. (D P 0) cf, En (D CD CD r) c+ " -1 Fl. 0.1 _9 ct F -1 r_ P. cn F, Fj 0 �3 P 1! (D H a f� F, t)j Cr fI 0 c+ 0 c+ P) c+ P' 0 0 H- W w W, r- CD (D 0 P- H- (D P- 0 W (t, cr P] 11 CD U) :3' a 0 0 1.4 :3, c+ 0 0 01 cil c+ 0 " � ZI ' U) (n l-i I-; <11 Fj c+ 9) t< a CD W 1.4 En '-4 � 'I En (D (D CD 'I (D cl C+ CU 0 CL ° (D CD En 0 l-i En -1 (n y :Y ED Gq Cl. CD (D 0 p 0 P. 0 Fj. p (L CD F) o 0 p (D c+ -h 0) P. F-I 'i 0 p• -1 " W , (n c+ C, m r, 6cr a �:L 0 (A H. -4 UQ 0 p c+ 0, (D (D CD F-I ID. 0 0 CD (D (U . (U Fj (D (V (+ a (1) r:L 0 R ri (D P. (n CD w p n: �3' P. (D cr w < -i cn 0 cn P. c+ & i) fu 0 P. 11 F' C+ P. P. (D 1-1 cil (A (D ct, cl- P' L" ::31 0 ci cr -1 :1 cA CD 0 En 11 - .P. �A c+ -1 (D H Uq• e ID 0 0 in, P.. 11 0 0 It. 11 0 0 w 11 11 P H.'s ::r a, (D 0 m 'r�_ C4- C 0 11 -1 w 0 (D c� & cn. pj 014 ca cn 'I F1 0 11 w :3 0 0- (D (D c+ :Y' 0) (D (D P- CD 11 (D P' 01 ;3' 0 :3 (D CL 0 0 0 p• � 0 On N P, (D -r En a r_ '0 1 En " m (D (D c+ On 0 �' CD P. Pc( c+ (D (D pj 9 co (n :3- U) a En (D P. �J' ED 0 (D 0 H c+ (D (3 It mm P. c+ (D m 0 cQ ::s 0 (D c CD ::r oq NIs 0 rL cu (D P) 0 0 H 9 (D Fl. (D o c+ ::1 0 0 tp 1 '3L/I 1 '.4 . J City of Edmonds' RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number: —} Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: /,S'70(. Pt (� B. Type of Work (be specific): - R A 1 C! a (. AFA 'Oe'02 P I "l'Y ! JE]Et_J AL K C. Contractor: 5 N n- Co. Q fD Contact: 9 MA K A i. C Y Mailing Address: 7— I o ( P, to q Q Phone: 670 - 32 Jy State License #:. T` h M.0 si,b Tom(A) A gk62L Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision City Project ❑ Utility (PUD;' GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ElSingle Family ❑ Other d,r INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: W F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes ❑No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application.to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or r y employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC- TION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PA TCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT Two sets of construction drawings 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 trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the.end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand theipermit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on .site at all times for inspection purposes: Signature: Date: '7 ZS- 9 7 (Contractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: r TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER ��� DAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: RIGHT OF WAY FEE: DISRUPTION FEEIFUND I I I. RESTORATION T OTAL FEE: ISSUED BY: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE 'Eng. Div 1997 t ;5 e v w 3 J � Q0. . a. Q K, e C � n- clvo � c Q 3 N NO rJ ti Q � U jj... KCC 6 z z o o w o w (t N 1�7 w �p (,� } r W J Q CL U � � r o jY y tij w g z uj Y 0. a Y a a W F S N F Z W ¢ Z W O a Qwp U' w v W O Z M Qaw F a H 3 ro d g W¢a� J z �= F O r1 �[ Q U U U F Y �[ p U U U d z O V Q ne R� z O J a W a l+- Q O O O a m m ei w w ¢ a W O y O 0 � f- a w Co Oaa-c7 U -' w w U Z W O I- N O a paQ¢^¢ U U �ttGG LU Z W¢ g Z aFc o F 6 w w Z¢ p Q w W� 8��'ry}2 Z � w aG > > rj' W p X W z 2 IG W O U w Z J X F > d Z W 6. = 0 2 H O W W x 0 m iz W W 2 s Id- V W F- N Q w w d M h¢ p 0 O 0 U -� -a J O O CL W d W 2 q Z �- a5 0 u U O W® O d¢ z O d¢ z a 0 0 0 0 0 W p U t� 0 0 0 0 0 a LL f_ a 0 0 o O Z a U G O ¢ Z U m O w vII> u, en w en ui• to O w 2wLL 11 ` 1 pW H w WW LL fQ W W wU U a U Wo O U ZUa uAw cc > ap O x W tli O> Ao xQ o � a 6 aN� arc leou u7 � W W g {C ^,Tg;c.{e; .. ,P 7',' r,+j„Atp - `; n7C^•�Z.�R.�:.i; jrgc:. •, .^..^^J6'�T'......I wa,., .:•",,xY. `1":'... .r-.• .... •�.-. ,. —.�. —._ , i� T d 'r• �. i nq'i .� STREET-f=E City of Edmond RIGHT—OF—WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Per Number: 90� �Affi Issue Date .. /a . tY 9.0 .1 9 y _ A. Address or Niciriity of Construction: 15706 75 Place West B. Type of Work (be specific): Install New Serviee C. Contractor: Wash. 'Nat' 1. Gas Co. Contact: Frank Swan ' Mailing Address:.815, 'Mercer St. Seattlg; WA Phone:. 224-2278 State License #: 98111 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ .. D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer -Permit # (if applicable): E. "❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑, City Project Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family. ❑ Other r . INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: fowl F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: ❑ Yes ERNo . G. Size of Cut: , I_1x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ ANISIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold,the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that may be made against,the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employ- ees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings inchtding defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of griTndng.this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR ArPERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC77ON AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ES77MA7ED RESTORA77ONTEES WILL BE HELD UN77L THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CI7Y FORCES, AT WHICH 77ME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Department- 771-3202. Work is 'to be inspected during progress.and at completion. i 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. 1 have read the above statements and understand, the permitleerequiremenjs-and t e pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all times for inspection purposes.�L44 Signature: Date: Zee- 51992 (Contractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR ,TO BE WORK rUK UFI'Y :UNE ONLY �PPROVED:BY: T��/ -- - RIGHT OF:WAY DEPOSIT: TIME. AUTHORIZED:: VOID AFTER-._E a" DAYS . . DISRUPTION: FEE/FUND <SPECIAL:CONDITIONS:-: - r '+ ' RESTORATION: FEE:;: .................... ..................... I........ COMMENTS::..........._......__.._._ ..............__.- RECEIPT NO:. tt7 IbyAd4 LL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT Engrg. Div. 1991 FIELD INSPECTION LAMES (Fund I I I - Route copy to Street Dept.. Comments: Diagram CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION O YES D NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Div. July IS to : Submitted by: -75 Q, v") U city of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application- RIGNAP,O H ILI -ARE) Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 622-6767 x2761 Pager 9W-Ilo5(o OD CMI-z' -g- gas -ss- sewer $ water hydrant p water valve 815 Mercer St. (P.O. Box 1869), Seattk, WA 98111 (206) 622-6767 ., 151D10 -75 • Addendum to : Submitted by: rL W 3 • City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application RIL9D.9-0 h %-►-.ARO Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 622-6767 x2761 pager 9(0--1(DBG -W W � --- -g- gas -ss- sewer $ water hydrant 0 water valve 815 Mercer St. (P.O. Box 1969), Seattle, WA 99111 (206) 622-6767 City ofEdmond RIGHT®OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number: Issue Date:. A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: �Lj� 6 - pL I�11 1 O B. Type, of Work (be specific): % D t S Eu1 etz . row �-D,/L i 890 19q v01 C. Contractor: Sa A -RC bA J c T. Contact: P-oti SN Ave Mailing Address: - t TES E, Ki-►1 U k) o N Phone: - State License #:'7f,/11(LE C I -17- L- 0 �� 3 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family r Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes 5allo G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employ- ees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. .Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Department - Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion. 771-0220 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. 1 have read the ov statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all ti a for inspectio purp s'1 s. ate-7 Signature: 6� D: _ _ _O_- 27 (Contractor o -Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY.:. ..RIGHT OF.;WAY.:DI DAYS. PERMrr,FEE.:. _. *� r ........... iMMENTS. RECEIPT NO: —� DATE:.;: ISSUED BY:.: ISSUANCE Engrg. Div. 1991 FIELD INSPECTION Comments: Diagram: J + I II - Route copy to Street Dept.) CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Div. July 1985 ,Yw'r>+.,. �' i •v.: , ,`r..�.-+:�s�i 'r. .. z.Y�" ����..�4 �-�1 �.. ....-�4 ,.}, r."•f`i4�id@j. r.-l.•rai•.e"•�'Y.y`�ti'^u: •i.n:z. ��� a ,. �qv.-. • City. Of Edmondsw .RIGHT -OP -WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number: 9� - .3s1 Issue Datei A:. Address or Vicinity of Construction: I �Q `�J E� %A-PL w 8.90 199' B. Type of Work (be specific):-.2F,�( 1� k 1 N e IA-1 9—I 1 1 RneQ C. Contractor:. Contact: Mailing Address: ial.:�� e Phone: Ln1% Q State License #: Liability Insurance:. Bond: $ D. Building Permit #.(if applicable): Side Sewer.Permit.# (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ', Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut :. ❑ Yes VNo . G. Siie of Cut:' x . H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ ANDAIGN. INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this, application, agrees the City of Edmonds haimleAs om1in}'tt�tes, imaa7m or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that may mad against the City of Edmonds, or any o its departments or employ- ees, including or.not lirnited to the defense of any legal.proceedings including dse costs; and attorney fees by reason of g anting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC77ON AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.. ESTIMATED RESTOR977ON FEES WILL.BE HELD UN77L ,THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY.' CITY FORCES, AT WHICH 77ME A. DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSES FORIISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction' drawing of proposed woek required with permit application: A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Department -Sawa "'�r Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion. %71-®920 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 regulatio'M ag required by the tyjEngine`er /. ,. `_ .:._ All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or;City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS., I have read the, above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all es for inspe tiott purp s Signature: Dater , V'' oC d:— / 2 (Contractor or ent) CALL.DIAL—A-DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ANCE 'Engrg. Div. 1991 FIELD INSPECTION N ES (Fund III - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Div. Jul 0 ZA; W] I 0 Cl GEOLOGICAL SERVICES Inc. GEOLOGICAL SERVICES Inc. Consulting Geologists June 6, 1985 File No. 853-2 Mr. Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Avenue N.W. Seattle, Washington 98107 Reference: Site Geotechnical Study Residential Development, 75th Place W. Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jewell: We have completed a geotechnical study in the area of your residential lot, which lies directly north of the residence at 15714 75th Place W., in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The following discus- sions summarize our work to date, and present opinions regarding current site conditions and future development. At present the site supports an unfinished foundation which we under- stand is intended to serve as support for a wood framed residential structure. The foundation, floor slab, and wall system incorporate both portions of a pre-existing foundation and more recent elements con- structed by the owner. At the time of our study the two systems have not been joined. We understand that the recent footings, basement slab and foundation walls have been constructed in accordance with plans provided to the owner by a consulting engineer. As of the time of this report, we have not reviewed the structural plans and details. The present finished basement slab lies at or near elevation 80'. We under- stand that the anticipated scope of development includes the completion of the dwelling, construction of a structural deck area to the west, and related site improvements. We further understand that additional site ✓ regrading involving earth cuts or fills is not anticipated: 613 - 222ND STREET SOUTHWEST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 206 / 481 - 5183 Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This study was performed to provide information on site and subsurface conditions, and an evaluation of those conditions with regards to the proposed development. Specific considerations addressed include an assessment of slope/site stability, geotechnical design criteria for foundations and walls, and site preparation. In addition,...comments re- garding the conceptual compatibility of the existing foundation system with the observed site conditions will be offered. The scope of our study included.a literature research, site reconnaissance and documen- tation, backhoe explorations, consultation, engineering evaluations, and the preparation of this report. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Jewell property lies within the area of the Meadowdale landslide com- plex. The complex area is located in the northern reaches of the city of Edmonds and along the shoreline of Puget Sound. The complex feature occupies some 40 acres, and displays an arcuate, topographically depres- sed surface expression upon the major west facing slope which dominates the area. At present the complex supports a moderate concentration of residential development, streets and related municipal improvements. The age of this still active feature. (i.e., commencement of sliding) has been established at between two or three thousand, to as much as seven thousand years before present. The conditions which led to the initia- tion of Iandsliding are thought to have been related to local topographic, stratigraphic, and hydrologic conditions, and erosive wave activity along the shoreline of Puget Sound. Construction of the rail�road ment, and in particular the roadbed_rock..buttress structure, is thought to have had a stabilizing effect on the slide mass as a whole. This reportedly has been due to increased protection of the slope base from wave erosion, and to a lesser degree the.buttressing effect of the rock 1 Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 3 mass along the slope toe. More recently, the incorporation of storm and sanitary sewers throughout the area has reportedly enhanced stability on a more localized scale. Available information indicates that current landsliding in the complex area occurs within a 400 foot wide zone which runs roughly parallel to and immediately east of the Burlington Northern Railroad track align- ment. The slide features are thought to be primarily slope face fail- ures, and typically intersect the slope surface to the east of the railroad alignment. Accurate documentation of landsliding dates from the winter of 1946-47 to present. During this_ 39-year period at least 22 episodes of sliding have been recorded or interpreted to have occur- red within the Meadowdale landslide complex area. In 1979, the City of Edmonds completed a study in which the geological conditions and landslide hazards within the complex area were charac- terized. The information and opinions contained in that report, and the follow-up report completed in February of this year, have been used by City of Edmonds staff in determining general risk assessment, and estab- lishing development guidelines for this area. In our communications with city staff, it was indicated that development within the complex area is considered by them to be conditionally feasible, but would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. In keeping with recent policy, the building official has required that a site specific geotechnical study be performed prior to further development of this site. SITE CONDITIONS AND EXPLORATIONS The Jewell property is. located directly north of the residence at 15714 75th Place W. The property is bounded on the east by 75th Place W., on the west by the Burlington Northern right-of-way, on the north by undeve- loped land, and on the south by the above mentioned residential property. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 4 The Jewell property lies to the west of-,75th Place W...And is situated on a prominent west facing hillside. Property elevations range from about 110' within the upper (eastern) parking area, to about 20' in the west, along the railroad right-of-way. The dwelling is situated in a relatively level, benched area lying at about elevation 80'. The slope above the dwelling area (between elevations 80' and 110') attains an average face angle of between 33 and 36 degrees, but becomes as steep as. 43 degrees along short stretches. To the west of the dwelling area the slope maintains a 20 degree angle between EP-1 and EP-2, and then steep- ens to about 32 degrees between EP-2 and the west property margin. A total vertical relief of about 90'is indicated within the property. In addition to supporting the existing foundations and related construc- tion, pofi,onsof the site have unde.r_gone.,,one or, more episodes of regrading by filling. In particular, the ground surface to the west of r the foundation area has been covered by a quantity of fill soil with intermixed concrete rubble and building debris. We understand that the concrete rubble laden material encountered was derived during demolition of portions of the older foundation system and associated regrading to accommodate the newer foundation elements. The fill is observed to thin toward the west, and blankets the steep low slope to the north. In the areas north of the subject property and to the west of EP-2, the hummocky ground surface and steep scarp -like features observed are indi- cative of a slide area landscape. While not observed on the Jewell property, areas of springs and/or surface seepage are observed. along a low east -west trending depression to the north, on the adjacent property. Several features interpreted as remnant landslide scarps are noted on the property to the north, and to the west of EP-2 (see Figure 1): Land- slide activity which may have occurred since the latest recorded move- ment (winter 1955-56) in this area is unclear. On the property to the south, relatively recent ground movement has caused damage to the Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 5 basement floor area of the existing dwelling O r information indicates that slope movement occurred around that dwelling during the winter of 1973-74, and most probably accounts for the damage and apparent slight rotation of the structure. Vegetation on the Jewell property consists of a scattered growth of moderate sized maple and cedar trees, and a thick covering of blackberry bushes (to the west of the dwelling). Clearing of the easternmost 30' of blackberry bushes, and piling of surficial building waste in that area was accomplished at the owner's request during our exploratory efforts. Field Explorations All elevations and depths recorded herein are referenced to existing surface grade. Pits and site features were located by a tape and compass survey. Elevation control was established by a hand level and tape survey, using the TP-6* monument cover located in the parking area to the east of the dwelling at 15714 as an elevation 113' datum point. Site features and elevations were established from our field notes and measurements, and should be considered accurate only to the degree,of the method employed. Our in -field explorations were performed on May 22, 1985. A total of five (5) backhoe exploratory pits were placed in and around the develop- ment area. The locations of our explorations are shown on the accom- panying exploratory pit location map, Figure 1. Pit depths ranged .from 4.0 to 19.0 feet below existing grade. A11 explorations were monitored by W.L. Bicket, senior engineering geologist from this office. Records * Report of "Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA," Roger Lowe & Associates, 1979. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 6 of encountered soil types, conditions and apparent stratigraphy were maintained in the field and are summarized in the accompanying Explora- tory Pit Logs, Appendix A. Samples obtained in the excavations were visually classified by the geologist in the field. Other exploratory data and information were used as background material and for correlation purposes. Specifically, the 1979 Roger Lowe Asso- ciates study for landslide hazard evaluation, and the 1985 GeoEngineers, Inc., appraisal report provided historical documentation and nearby deep boring data. Site Stratigraphy Site subsurface conditions have been interpreted through our exploratory pit data and site reconnaissance notes. A review of the data and infor- mation contained in TB-6 from the 1979 Roger Lowe report provided backup information pertaining to slope stratigraphy. In summary, the major slope feature which supports the Jewell property is comprised of pre-Vashon age sediments. Below about elevation 60' to 69', sediments of the Whidbey Formation were encountered in EP-1 and EP-2, and are described in TB-6 of the 1979 Roger Lowe report. The clays of the Whidbey Formation are typically hard to very hard, grey, and damp. Occasional very fine lamination is observed, and the clay/ silt matrix is generally intact. In EP-2 the clay elements were found to be interbedded with medium dense, grey, well -sorted medium sands. The occurrence of clay/silt seams was noted to decrease with depth in this pit. Occasional fractures with polished surfaces were noted within the hard clay seams. The uppermost portion of the Whidbey Formation is marked by a varved silty clay stratum. This unit was found to have section thicknesses of 5.5 and 3.0 feet in exploratory pits 1 and 2 respectively. This relatively thin zone has been highly deformed, Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 7 presumably by shearing due to past landsliding. A jointed, highly fractured and distorted texture is noted throughout, and zones of striated/slickensided joint surfaces occur. A remnant slide plane is interpreted to lie approximately between elevations 63 and 66_feet in EP-1 and 58 and 60 feet in EP-2. Free water was noted to coat most joint and fracture surfaces. The Whidbey Formation is overlain by a moderately dense to dense, silty micaceous fine sand in the area of the Jewell dwelling. This unit, and related sand strata at higher _eleva- tions within the property, have been characterized as landslide material in the`1979 Roger Lowe repo-t... Our interpretation generally supports the previous work, and suggests that the sands represent a relatively intact block of Vashon Advance (Esperance Sand?) material. The sand stratum shows faint, very fine bedding and is moist (becoming wet with depth). Occasional offsets against bedding indicate past distress within this unit. The slope between about elevation 80' and 110' is comprised of a moderately dense to dense medium sand with scattered gravels. Ground water encountered within the subject site generally occurs as a zone of saturation within the fine micaceous sands directly above the varved clays, and as a free water coating within the fractured clay matrix. An area of substantial surface drainage and presumably satu- rated subgrade soils occurs on the adjoining property to the north. CONCLUDING OPINIONS General Based on the results of our explorations and evaluations, we conclude that the subject property is conditionally suitable for support of the proposed development. In general, development in slide prone areas, such as the Meadowdale landslide complex, should be accomplished only Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 8 after thoughtful planning and an understanding of the associated level of risk. For the su ject lot, subgrade conditions will influence and to a d e g,_ g e Li.m tt_d eueJ-o.pai,--mt._c.oxac e.p ts.._ Project Impacts Project impacts will be dependent on approaches to construction planning and execution. The primary area of potential impact at this site will be related to modification of the steep slope or slide scarp areas. Adverse impacts include: 1) unsupported excavation into the steep slope areas around the site; 2) filling adjacent to or over steep slope -slide scarp areas; and 3) the discharge of storm, domestic, or surface water run-off over steep slope or slide scarp areas. Inasmuch as the founda-. tion system and related site grading has been completed, a discussion of impacts for these activities is not considered pertinent. The current foundation location, at the base of the steep west facing slope, may be positioned over an older, unmapped scarp margin. The impact of this condition is presently unclear. It is our opinion that the proposed development, if executed in an appropriate manner, will have little effect on the stability of the slope area. However, instability which could occur independently from the effects of development will no doubt influence performance of the structure. Slope Stability As discussed in previous sections, the Meadowdale complex area has been subject to periodic landslide activity over the past several thousand years. Within the past 40 years over 20 incidents have been recorded or interpreted. During the winter of 1955-56, a large scale slope movement which involved most of the northern complex area, including the subject property, was recorded. In addition, five smaller scale nearby land- slide events have been recorded locally. Four of these have occurred Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 9 between 1949,and 1956, within the low wet area to the north of the Jewell property. A single event was recorded in the winter of 1973-74 in the developed properties to the south. It is unclear if the slide plane encountered in our explorations was locally involved in any of these events. It is clear that the potential for such activity exists. By conventional thinking, the potential for landslide activity through- ,fit the complex should be considered high. The Roger Lowe spa es report of 1979, and a follow-up study by Geoengineers Inc. in the spring of 1985 have developed a general risk assessment format for the Meadow - dale area. The format is based on a statistical projection which takes into account observed physical conditions and the history of recorded slope movement within specific areas of the complex. We would concur that a potential for ground-lnovemeat_related to slope instability does exist at this site, as it does throughout the entire complex area. The risk assessments developed in earlier noted reports would seem reason- able in light of the local history of instability. The risk category appears more likely to be associated with the'.10,zone than the 30% zone directly to the north. Development Considerations Site development should take into account the unique character of the site soils. Design and layout of underground utilities should reflect these conditions. We recommend that flexible connections be employed for underground utilities. The owner should have frequent checks made of underground utilities to establish a continuing level of function. Landscaping around the site should be accomplished so that permanent erosion control is established. The use of sod, low shrubs.or other hardy low ground cover should be employed. Inasmuch as foundation construction and related site grading have essentially been completed, Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 10 the need for temporary erosion control is considered reduced. In the event that temporary measures should be required, the use of hay bales or a geotextile fence in conjunction with controlled grading should prove effective. We recommend that all surficial runoff generated by downspouts, catch basins, or other devices be directed into an appropriate collector system. This system should be separate from wall and/or footing sub - drains. All such discharge should be transported down the slope to the west by tight line, and be directed into a storm drain or an effective energy dissipating device. Direct discharge of runoff over the slopes around the site should be avoided as increased erosion and the potential for slope instability will result. Building Foundations The existing foundations appear to be resting for the most part on the native, silty fine micaceous sands described in exploratory pits I and 2: The foundation area adjacent to the northwest building corner (EP-4) was found to be underlain by 1.5 feet of loose to moderately compact, sandy fill soil. The adjacent surface grade suggests that the fill should thin toward the east, and most probably pinches out completely some 5 to 10 feet into the building area. The existing foundation system appears to consist of a shallow spread footing/basement wall arrangement. As discussed earlier, the system employs -portions of a pre-existing foundation and more recent elements constructed by the owner. At present, the two systems have not been joined. In concept; the existing foundation type should be compatible with the observed foundation area soils. We recommend that a licensed structural engineer inspect the existing foundation system, as well as review all available plans or design notes. The engineer should evaluate the Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 11 foundation from a performance standpoint, taking into account the unique character of the site and the discussions contained in this report. ' I Dwelling foundations are likely to be subjected to the rigors of differ- , ential ground movement over time. The amount and time frame.of the ground movements are difficult to assess in that small adjustments in he ground surface may be ongoing due to minor shifting of the slope soils beneath the dwelling. In concept, the foundation system should accommodate potential ground movements (most of which will be differ- ential) which may occur over the life of the dwelling. As the magnitude of the ground movement is uncertain, foundation design to span uneven zones and to provide for releveling is recommended. An even transition can be improved over potential non -uniform soil conditions by designing all footings wherein a free span of about ten (10) feet could be main- tained within any given portion of the foundation. Structural framing should be designed such that its stiffness will allow some cantilever/ spanning effects to accommodate differential movements in the foundation between shimmings. Additional length foundation anchor bolts should be utilized to accommodate shimming. An allowable design soil bearing capacity of 2000 psf should be used for shallow footings founded upon the existing site soils. Our suggested soil bearing capacity uses a factor of safety of 2.5 and is based on minimum footing widths of 12 and 18 inches for all continuous and spread footings, respectively. Footings should rest at least 18 inches below finished adjacent grade. Alternatively, the existing foundation system could probably be used with the understanding that it would provide a variable support to the building framing. Adjustments between the foundation and framing might be necessary throughout the life of the structure. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 12 Pressures'on Subgrade Walls The design lateral earth pressures acting on retaining walls are a function of the type of wall (for example, yielding or non -yielding), the method of construction, and the type of soil used behind the wall. Walls which are laterally fixed are essentially non -yielding members and are considered to be influenced by the corresponding "at rest" earth pressures. Walls which can yield by tilting about their base (for example, ordinary cantilever retaining walls) may be designed using a reduced or "active"_ earth pressure. For fixed or non -yielding walls we recommend that the "at rest" condi- tion be assumed, and that an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 lbs. per cubic foot be used for design purposes. For yielding walls, the "active" condition may be assumed and an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 lbs. per cubic foot be used. To develop the "active" force condition, the wall must be allowed to yield about its base a distance on the order of 0.001 times its total height. The above values do not take into account hydrostatic pressure, the slope behind the wall or in front of the footings, or surcharges due to equipment or adjacent structural loads. These values further assume the use of an effective drain system along the backside of the wall. We suggest the use of a free draining sand and fine gravel backfill along the backside of the wall_ The drainage blanket should extend to within about two (2) feet of the top of the wall and have a minimum thickness of 12 inches. The remaining 2 feet should be backfilled with low per- meability on -site soils. The drainage blanket should be underlain by a perforated drain tile along the base of the wall. The the should be set such that a positive drainage gradient is established and access to an appropriate collector system provided. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 13 The effect of surcharges, such as traffic or floor loads, should also be • considered. For a uniformly distributed load behind the wall, a corres- ponding uniformly distributed pressure equal to 30 percent or 50 percent of the surcharge should be.added to the lateral soil pressure -for yield- ing and non -yielding walls, respectively. Compaction within one half of the wall height behind the wall should be performed with light equipment such that the wall is not adversely stressed. Lateral earth pressures behind walls can be resisted with a combination of foundation base friction and/or passive earth pressure. A base fric- tion coefficient of 0.45 is considered appropriate for the expected foundation soils. An ultimate passive pressure of 350 pcf is available for the sandy native site soils. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to base friction and passive pressure values used to resist sliding. REPORT LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist, anticipated future con- struction activities, and the expectation that our exploratory efforts adequately define the subsurface conditions throughout the site. In the event that the scope or location of the project should change, or subsurface conditions different from those encountered during our study be observed, or suspected, we should be advised. At that time, a review of the changed condition will be made, and alternative or remedial recommendations given as required. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Harrison Jewell for specific application to the referenced development. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 14 practices followed in this area at the time this report was made. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We are pleased to have been of service on this project. If you should have any questions or require our services during construction, please feel free to call on us at any time. Sincerely, GEOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. W X Walter L. Bicket Professional Engineering Geologist },.�a••�.h KE1 TH ��•.,� J. Keith Cross, P.E. : e� tM Geotechnical Engineering Consultant 1"-20' 75TH PLACE W. old garage gravel parking EP-5 steep slope face Ef Q approx. base of slope _�-, -�, I EP-4 I I approx. scarp trace�� / Q EP-2 w -. . 15721 TB-6 W.M. OD gravel parking ope face 853-2 JUNE 1988 GEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. FIGURE 1 APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY PIT LOGS 'J LL `5 GEOLOGICAL SERVICES Inc. Consulting Geologists June 6, 1985 File No. 853-2 Mr. Harrison Jewell 5535 Seaview Avenue N.W. Seattle, Washington 98107 Reference: Site Geot.echnical Study Residential Development, 75th Place W. Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jewell: We have completed a.geotechnical study in the area of your residential lot, which lies directly north of the residence at 15714 75th Place W., in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The following discus- sions summarize our work to date, and present opinions regarding current site conditions and future development. At present the site supports an unfinished foundation which we under- stand is intended to serve as support for a wood framed residential structure. The foundation, floor slab, and wall system incorporate both portions of a pre-existing foundation and more recent elements con- structed by the owner. At.the time of our study the two.systems have not been joined. We understand that the recent footings, basement slab and foundation walls have been constructed in accordance with plans provided to the owner by a consulting engineer. As of the time of this report, we have not reviewed the structural plans and details. The present finished basement slab lies at or near elevation 80'. We under- stand that the anticipated scope of development includes the completion of the dwelling, construction of a structural deck area to the west, and related site improvements. We further understand that additional site. ✓ regrading involving earth cuts or fills is not anticipated. 613 - 222ND STREET SOUTHWEST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 206 / 481 - 5183 Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 2 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE This study was performed to provide information on site and subsurface conditions, and an evaluation of those conditions with regards to the proposed development. Specific considerations addressed include an assessment of slope/site stability, geotechnical design criteria for foundations and walls, and site preparation. In addition, comments re- garding the conceptual compatibility of the existing foundation system with the observed site conditions will be offered. The scope of our study included a literature research, site reconnaissance and documen- tation, backhoe explorations, consultation, engineering evaluations, and the preparation of this report. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Jewell property lies within the area of the Meadowdale landslide com- plex. The complex area is located in the northern reaches of the city of Edmonds and along the shoreline of Puget Sound. The complex feature occupies some 40 acres, and displays an arcuate, topographically depres- sed surface expression upon the major west facing slope which dominates the area. At present the complex supports a moderate concentration of residential development, streets and related municipal improvements. The age of this still active feature (i.e., commencement of sliding) has been established at between two or three thousand, to as much as seven thousand years before present. The conditions which led to the initia- tion of landsliding are thought to have been related to local topographic, stratigraphic, and hydrologic conditions, and erosive wave activity along the shoreline of Puget Sound. Construction of the railroad -,a l_i.gn— ment, and in particular the roadbed rock._..buttress structure, is thought to have had a stabilizing effect on the slide mass as a whole. This reportedly has been due to increased protection of the slope base from wave erosion, and to a lesser degree the buttressing effect of the rock Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 3 mass along the slope toe. More recently, the incorporation of storm and sanitary sewers throughout the area has reportedly enhanced stability on a more localized scale. Available information indicates that current landsliding in the complex area occurs within a 400 foot wide zone which runs roughly parallel to and immediately east of the Burlington Northern Railroad track align- ment. The slide features are thought to be primarily slope face fail- ures, and typically intersect the slope surface to the east of the railroad alignment. Accurate documentation of landsliding dates from the winter of 1946-47 to present. During this 39-year period at least 22 episodes of sliding have been recorded or interpreted to have occur- red within the Meadowdale landslide complex area. In 1979, the City of Edmonds completed a study in which the geological conditions and landslide hazards within the complex area were charac- terized. The information and opinions contained in that report, and the follow-up report completed in February of this year, have been used by City of Edmonds staff in determining general risk assessment, and estab- lishing development guidelines for this area. In our communications with city staff, it was indicated that development within the complex area is considered by them to be conditionally feasible, but would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. In keeping with recent policy, the building official has required that a site specific geotechnical study be performed prior to further development of this site.. SITE CONDITIONS AND EXPLORATIONS The Jewell property is located directly north of the residence at 15714 75th Place W. The property is bounded on the east by 75th Place W., on the west by the Burlington Northern right-of-way, on the north by undeve- loped land, and on the south by the above mentioned residential property. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 4 The Jewell property lies to the west of,75th Place W,..-and is situated on a prominent west facing hillside. Property elevations range from about 110' within the upper (eastern) parking area, to about 20' in the west, along the railroad right-of-way. The dwelling is situated in a relatively level, benched area lying at about elevation 80'. The slope above the dwelling area (between elevations 80' and 110') attains an average face angle of between 33 and 36 degrees, but becomes as steep as 43 degrees along short stretches. To the west of the dwelling area the slope maintains a 20 degree angle between EP-1 and EP-2, and then steep- ens to about 32 degrees between EP-2 and the west property margin. A total vertical relief of about 90'is indicated within the property. In addition to supporting the existing foundations and related construc- tion, portions ofthe site have undergone one or. more episodes of regrading by filling. In particular, the ground surface to the west of the foundation area has been covered by a quantity of fill soil with intermixed concrete rubble and building debris. We understand that the concrete rubble laden material encountered was derived during demolition of portions of the older foundation system and associated regrading to accommodate the newer foundation elements. 'The fill is observed to thin toward the west, and blankets the steep low slope to the north. In the areas north of the subject property and to the west of EP-2, the hummocky ground surface and steep scarp -like features observed are indi- cative of a slide area landscape. While not observed on the Jewell property, areas of springs and/or surface seepage are observed along a low east -west trending depression to the north, on the adjacent property. Several features interpreted as remnant landslide scarps are noted on the property to the north, and to the west of EP-2 (see Figure 1). Land- slide activity which may have occurred since the latest recorded move- ment (winter 1955-56) in this area is unclear. On the property to the south, relatively recent ground movement has caused damage to the Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 5 basement floor area of the existing dwelling. Our information indicates that slope movement occurred around that dwelling during the winter of 1973-74, and most probably accounts for the damage and apparent slight rotation of the structure. Vegetation on the Jewell property consists of a scattered growth of moderate sized.maple and cedar trees, and a thick covering of blackberry bushes '(to the west of the dwelling). Clearing of the easternmost 30' of blackberry bushes, and piling of surficial building waste in that area was accomplished at the owner's request during our exploratory efforts. Field Explorations All elevations and depths recorded herein are referenced to existing surface grade. Pits and site features were located by a tape and compass survey. Elevation control was established by a hand level.and. tape survey, using the TP-6* monument cover located in the parking area to the east of the dwelling at 15714 as an elevation 113' datum point. Site features and elevations were established from our field notes and measurements, and should be considered accurate only to the degree of the method employed. Our in -field explorations were performed on May 22, 1985. A total of five (5) backhoe exploratory pits were placed in and around the develop- ment area. The locations of our explorations are shown on the accom- panying exploratory pit location map, Figure 1. Pit depths ranged from 4.0 to 19.0 feet below existing grade. All explorations were monitored by W.L. Bicket, senior engineering geologist from this office. Records * Report of "Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA," Roger Lowe & Associates, 1979. Mr. Harrison Jewell File -No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 6 of encountered soil types, conditions and apparent stratigraphy were maintained in the field and are summarized in the accompanying Explora- tory Pit Logs, Appendix A. Samples obtained in the excavations were visually classified by the geologist in the field. Other exploratory data and information were used as background material and for correlation purposes. Specifically, the 1979 Roger Lowe Asso- ciates study for landslide hazard evaluation, and the 1985 GeoEngineers, Inc., appraisal report provided historical documentation and nearby deep boring data. Site Stratigraphy Site subsurface conditions have been interpreted through our exploratory pit data and site reconnaissance notes. A review of the data and infor- mation contained in TB-6 from the 1979 Roger Lowe report provided backup information pertaining to slope stratigraphy. In summary, the major slope feature which supports the Jewell property is comprised of pre-Vashon age sediments. Below about elevation 60' to 69', sediments of the Whidbey Formation were encountered in EP-1 and EP-2, and are described in TB-6 of the 1979 Roger Lowe report. The clays of the Whidbey Formation are typically hard to very hard, grey, and damp. Occasional very fine lamination is observed, and the clay/ silt matrix is generally intact. In EP-2 the clay elements were found to be interbedded with medium dense, grey, well -sorted medium sands. The occurrence of clay/silt seams was noted to decrease with depth in this pit. Occasional fractures with polished surfaces were noted within the hard clay seams. The uppermost portion of the Whidbey Formation is marked by a varved silty clay stratum. This unit was found to have section thicknesses of 5.5 and 3.0 feet in exploratory pits 1 and 2' respectively. This relatively thin zone has been highly deformed, Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 7 presumably by shearing due to past landsliding. A jointed, highly fractured and distorted texture is noted throughout, and zones of striated/slickensided joint surfaces occur. A remnant slide plane is interpreted to lie approximately between elevations 63 and 66 feet in EP-1 and 58 and 60 feet in EP-2. Free water was noted to coat most joint and fracture surfaces. The Whidbey Formation is overlain by a moderately dense to dense, silty micaceous fine sand in the area of the Jewell dwelling. This unit, and related sand strata at higher eleva- tions within the property, have been characterized as landslide material in the 1979 Roger Lowe report. Our interpretation generally supports the previous work, and suggests that the sands represent a relatively .intact block -of Vashon Advance (Esperance Sand?) material. The sand stratum shows faint, very fine bedding and is moist (becoming wet with depth). Occasional offsets against bedding indicate past distress within this unit. The slope between about elevation 80' and 110' is comprised of a moderately dense to dense medium sand with scattered gravels. Ground water encountered within the subject site generally occurs as a zone of saturation within the fine micaceous sands directly above the varved clays, and as a free water coating within the fractured clay matrix. An area of substantial surface drainage and presumably satu- rated subgrade soils occurs on the adjoining property'to the north. CONCLUDING OPINIONS General Based on the results of our explorations and evaluations, we conclude that the subject property is conditionally suitable for support of the proposed development. In general, development in slide prone areas, such as the Meadowdale landslide complex, should be accomplished only Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 8 1 r after thoughtful planning and an understanding of the associated level - of risk. For the subject lot, subgrade conditions will influence and to a degree limit development concepts. Project Impacts Project impacts will be dependent on approaches to construction planning and execution. The primary area of potential impact at this site will be related,to modification of the steep slope or slide scarp areas. Adverse impacts include: 1) unsupported excavation into the steep slope areas around the site; 2) filling adjacent to or over steep slope -slide scarp areas; and 3) the discharge of storm, domestic, or surface water run-off over steep slope or slide scarp areas. Inasmuch as the founda- tion system and related site grading has been completed, a discussion of impacts for these activities is not considered pertinent. The current foundation location, at the base of the steep west facing slope, may be positioned over an older, unmapped scarp margin. The impact of this condition is presently unclear. It is our opinion that the proposed development, if executed in an appropriate manner, will have little effect on the stability of the slope area. However, instability which could occur independently from the effects of development will n ' doubt influence performance of the structure. Slope Stability As discussed in previous sections, the Meadowdale complex area has been subject to periodic landslide activity over the past several thousand years. Within the past 40 years over 20 incidents have been recorded or interpreted. During the winter of 1955-56, a large scale slope -movement which involved most of the northern complex area, including the subject property, was recorded. In addition, five smaller scale nearby land- slide events have been recorded locally. Four of these have occurred Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 9 between 1949 and 1956, within the low wet area to the north of the Jewell property. A single event was recorded in the winter of 1973-74 in the developed properties to the south. It is unclear if the slide plane encountered in our explorations was locally involved in any of these events. It is clear that the potential for such activity exists. By conventional thinking, the potential for landslide activity through- out the complex should .be considered Ahigh. The Roger Lowe Associates report of 1979, and a follow-up study by Geoengineers Inc. in the spring of 1985 have developed a general risk assessment format for the Meadow - dale area. The format is based on a statistical projection which takes into account observed physical conditions and the history of recorded slope movement within specific areas of the complex. We would concur that a potential for ground -movement. -related to slope instability does exist at this site, as it does throughout the entire complex area. The risk assessments developed in earlier noted reports would seem reason- able -'in light of the local history of instability. The risk category appears more likely to be associated with the,10t zone than the 30% zone directly to the north. ' Development Considerations Site development should take into account the unique character of the site soils. Design and layout of underground utilities should reflect these conditions. We recommend that flexible connections be employed for underground utilities. The owner should have frequent checks made of underground utilities to establish a continuing level of function. Landscaping around the site should be accomplished so that permanent erosion control is established. The use of sod, low shrubs or other hardy low ground cover should be employed. Inasmuch as foundation construction and related site grading have essentially been completed, Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 10 the need for temporary erosion control is considered reduced. In the event that temporary measures should be requ.ired, the use of hay bales or a geotextile fence in conjunction with controlled grading should prove effective. We recommend that all surficial runoff generated by downspouts, catch basins, or other devices be directed into an appropriate collector system. This system should be separate from wall and/or footing sub - drains. All such discharge should be transported down the slope to the west by tight line, and be directed into a storm drain or an effective energy dissipating device. Direct discharge of runoff over the slopes around the site should be avoided as increased erosion and the potential for slope instability will result. Buildinq Foundations The existing foundations appear to be resting for the most part on the native, silty fine micaceous sands described in exploratory pits 1 and 2. The foundation area adjacent to the northwest building corner (EP-4) was found to be underlain by 1.5 feet of loose to moderately compact, sandy fill soil. The adjacent surface grade suggests that the fill should thin toward the east, and most probably pinches out completely some 5 to 10 feet into the building area. The existing foundation system appears to consist of a shallow spread footing/basement wall arrangement. As discussed earlier, the system employs -portions of a pre-existing foundation and more recent elements constructed.by the owner. At present, the two systems have not been joined. In concept, the existing foundation type should be compatible with the observed foundation area soils. We recommend that a licensed structural engineer inspect the existing foundation system, as well as review all available plans or design notes. The engineer should evaluate the Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 1.1 foundation from a performance standpoint, taking into account the unique character of the site and the discussions contained in this report. Dwelling foundations are likely to be subjected to the rigors of differ- , ential ground movement over time. The amount.and time frame.of the ground movements are difficult to assess in that small adjustments in the ground surface may be ongoing due to minor shifting of the slope soils beneath the dwelling.., In concept, the foundation system should accommodate potential ground movements (most of which will be differ- ential) which may occur over the life of the dwelling. As the magnitude of the ground movement is uncertain, foundation design to span uneven zones and to provide for releveling is recommended. An even transition can be improved over potential non -uniform soil conditions by designing all footings wherein a free span of about ten (10) feet could be main- tained within any .given portion of the foundation. Structural framing should be designed such that its stiffness will allow some cantilever/ spanning effects to accommodate differential movements in the foundation between shimmings. Additional length foundation anchor bolts should be utilized to accommodate shimming. An allowable design soil bearing capacity of 2000 psf should be used for shallow footings founded upon the existing site soils. Our suggested soil bearing capacity uses a factor of safety of 2.5 and is based on minimum footing widths of 12 and 18 inches for all continuous and spread footings, respectively. Footings should rest at least 18 inches below finished adjacent grade. Alternatively, the existing foundation system could probably be used with the understanding that it would provide a variable support to the building framing. Adjustments between the foundation and framing might be necessary throughout the life of the structure. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 12 Pressures on Subgrade Walls The design lateral earth pressures acting on retaining walls are a function of the type of wall (for -example, yielding or non -yielding), the method of construction, and the type of soil used behind the wall. Walls which are laterally fixed are essentially non -yielding members and are considered to be influenced by the corresponding "at rest" earth pressures. Walls which can yield by,tilting about their base (for example, ordinary cantilever retaining walls) may be designed using a reduced or "active" earth pressure. For fixed or non -yielding walls we recommend that the "at rest" condi- tion be assumed, and that an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 lbs. per cubic foot be used for design purposes. For yielding walls, the "active" condition may be assumed and an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 lbs. per cubic foot be used. To develop the "active" force condition, the wall must be allowed to yield about its base a distance on the order of 0.001 times its total height. The above values do not take into account hydrostatic pressure, the slope behind the wall or in front of the footings, or surcharges due to equipment or adjacent structural loads. These values further assume the use of an effective drain system along the backside of the wall. We suggest the use of a free draining sand and fine gravel backfill along the backside of the wall. The drainage blanket should extend to within about two (2) feet of the to,p of the wall and have a minimum thickness of 12 inches. The remaining 2 feet should be backfilled with low per- meability on -site soils. The drainage blanket should be underlain by a perforated drain tile along the base of the wall. The tile should be set such that a positive drainage gradient is established and access to an appropriate collector system provided. Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 13 The effect of surcharges, such as traffic or floor loads, should also be considered. For a uniformly distributed load behind the wall, a corres- ponding uniformly distributed pressure equal to 30 percent or 50 percent of the surcharge should be added to the lateral soil pressure for yield- ing and non -yielding walls, respectively. Compaction within one half of the wall height behind the wall should be performed with light equipment such that the wall is not adversely stressed. Lateral earth pressures behind walls can be resisted with a combination of foundation base friction and/or passive earth pressure. A base fric- tion coefficient of 0.45 is considered appropriate for the expected foundation soils. An ultimate passive pressure of 350 pcf is available for the sandy native site soils. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to base friction and passive pressure values used to resist sliding. REPORT LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist, anticipated future con- struction activities, and the expectation that our exploratory efforts adequately define the subsurface conditions throughout the site. In the event that the scope or location of the project should change, or subsurface conditions different from those encountered during our study be observed, or suspected, we should be advised. At that time, a review of the changed condition will be made, and alternative or remedial recommendations given as required. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Harrison Jewell for specific application to the referenced development. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted Mr. Harrison Jewell File No. 853-2 June 6, 1985 Page 14 practices followed in this area at the time this report was made. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We are pleased to have been of service on this project. If you should have any questions or require our services during construction, please feel free to call on us at any time. Sincerely, GEOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. UJ & &, Walter L. Bicket Professional Engineering Geologist A��'- 49 J. Keith Cross, P.E. Geotechnical Engineering Consultant ,p'2' �,dF ��►, 90�� a 'iM 'ti. fry E'er 15721 I i"=20' J 75TH PLACE W. old garage gravel parking 1 EP-5 steep slope face QEF approx. base of slope EP-4 1 approx. scarp trace2`- / EP-2 �TS-8 W.M. 00 gravel parking )pe face 853-2 JUNE 1988 GEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. FIGURE 1 APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY PIT LOGS EXPLORATORY PIT LOGS EP-1 Elevation 79.5' 0.0' - 3.5' Loose, grey brown, silty, very fine sandy Artificial Fill, damp, poorly sorted, very heavy concentration of concrete rubble, metal scraps and debris --construction waste from previous dwelling.foundation. 3.5' - 4.8' Stiff, grey brown and dark brown intermixed, mottled, clayey silty Artificial Fill or landslide debris, moist. 4.8' - 7.0' Loose to medium dense, grey black intermixed, sandy silty Artificial Fill, moist. 7.0' - 8.0' As above, less intermixed, transition zone? 8.0' - 10.5' Medium dense, reddish to tan brown, silty very fine sand, moist (to saturated with depth), micaceous, very fine bedding, possible distress planes (offsets. against bedding), saturated beyond 9.0'. 10.5' - 13.0' Stiff, grey, laminated (varved?), silty clay, moist to saturated „ broken and hackley fracture, dark reddish brown coating and free water on joint.planes. * This unit highly fractured and distressed, contact shows slight rotation back into slope. 13.0' - 16.0' As above, substantial slickensides and striations, slide lane, free water on joints and surfaces. 16.0' - 19.0' Dense, bright grey, silty cla , damp to moist, faint very fine bedding (lamination , unit intact (Whidbey Formation?) TD @ 19.0', 5-22-85 Note: Zone'of slide disturbance down to 16.0', interpreted slide plane at 13.0' - 16.0' below present grade. 853-2 June.1985 Harrison Jewell Residential Development EPL-1 0 EXPLORATORY PIT LOGS (Continued) EP-2 Elevation 64.0' 0.0' - 2.0' Duff and intermixed, loose, brown, fine micaceous sand and grey silty.clay, modified ground, moist, ash (?) pieces in clayey zones. --gradational contact-- 2.0' - 4.3' Loose to medium dense, brown, fine sand, moist to wet, micaceous, some seams of grey silty clay. 4.3' - 6.0' Medium stiff, grey, laminated (varved?) silty clay, moist to wet, very fractured and hackled, slickensides and striations, slide plane. 6.0' - 9.0' Medium dense, grey, well sorted fine to medium sand with occasional hard clay/silt seams, moist to wet, unit primarily intact but shows occasional slicks in clay/silt seams, clay/silt seams become less frequent with depth. 9.0' - 10.0' Medium dense, grey, medium sand, damp, clean. TD @ 10.0', 5-22-85 Note: Slide plane interpreted at about 5' to 6'. EP=3 Elevation 85.0' 0.0' - 1.0' Duff and loose, dark grey -brown, silty, fine sandy topsoil/slope waste, damp, heavy root mass to a depth of 18". 1.0' - 4.5' Loose to medium dense, grey -brown, silty fine sand with scattered gravels to 1", damp, becomes moist and tan -brown beyond 3.0'. 4.5' - 6.7' Medium dense, tan -brown, silty, medium to fine sand with scattered fine gravel, damp to.moist, gravels coarsen with depth, some cobbles to 6". TD @ 6.7', 5-22-85 853-2 June 1985 Harrison Jewell Residential Development EPL-2 75" Vic- �1 • / (o 7-S7& / I it 9 NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRED M 0 6 2006 BOB DANTINI. SROMMIsh CUM INSWU BYBOB RMff1 �1� --------------- 11111 IN W Ni 0 11 IN 111111 oil I III MY W11207�j 6 SH CW. UNGTON CITY OP..EDMONQS 121 STH AVENK440- EDMONDS, W?V*981A...,.__....* GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR t-.NGiZE$S_ '.AND, iGRtSS DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATk;... :.'-_-_%TUNE**_'-. 1991. 2. PARTIES: . Qa"40r_ A. HARRISON JEW9L1,.-, burdened property) �.qwne.r B. JEAN C. R16GLE-." *r of be 6fited property) .(cy.iie 3. PROPERTIES: Lejal: -T BENEFITED PROPERTIES: A. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTAtHEb---9E*RgT_0_ BURDENED: B. SEE EXHIBIT "All ATTACHED hEAET6 4. GRANT OF. EASEMENT: HARRISON JEWELL, as owner of the burdene6' - _pilpperty, hereby grants to JEAN C. RIGGLE, her heirs, sx1qcesVo%;9 and assigns, as owners of the benef ited. Or operty, a non-, L59c1usk" Pasement for ingress and egress. over and across thee-N26`* `•.feet of the above -described burdened Property for the pur'okp,.-*bf abqess during the course of construction uction of improvementsi bene f ited property. z: This easement is granted on the condition, and subject to the owner of the benefited property: a) Protecting the burdened property and any_.-Im .ptov6ments thereon from damage during the course of co.nstructf&n..;-` b) Saving and holding harmless the owner of. 'Vfiq-'burdbjn�d property from any and all claims and/or liens by third par flop. c) Restoring the area of the easement to the coftdit-iqjz'j-t was in immediately prior to the commencement of constructijoLA.­..," d) Exerting his best efforts to conclude all construction .acrj_vity in an expeditious manner. 5: iNFORCEABILITY: ,Thp, Easement hereby granted to the owner of the benefited property'above described may be enforced by the present as well as ,.thy future owners of the above described benefited property. 1 6. tQ14SIDLRATr09'1- AlI paYtie's agreethat each has received good and valuable consider $flop•'in-Autual benefits as a result of having entered into this agrees . t ; ---. 7. SIGNATURE}$: 8. AC OWLEDGEMENTS'--_'- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss s • COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify_ that I kpdw gr hAve satisfactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed.•this,'instrument and acknowledged to be HER free and voluntary act'fox'Jthp''u8bs and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this _7 day, of-.. Zr.►e:�-'" •. 1991. �o�w l i.�� . , d ��iQ.Iriy�..�•- 'NOTARY PUJBLI-C* in.:"and for the State of Washington , " - • Commission Explres.j, if,2y-QY ci) Pi hfiwvhis best efforts to conclude all construction activity 'trl: •an..•exp�ditious manner. 5. ENFORC 8YKTY�,. ` The Easement 'hereby : ratnted to the owner of the benefitedi. property above 'detdrib,0rrtaalt•`be enforced by the present as -well as the future'owneh. the above described benefited property. 6. CONSIDERATION: All parties agree that: each has ..received good -and valuable" consideration in mutual bftefits as �.••Yesult of having entered into this agreement. 7. SIGNATURES: C 8. AC OWLEDGEMENTS: .STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING j I hereby certify that I know or have sat;siactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed this instrument and -'acknowledged to be HER free and voluntary act for the uses and •mentioned in the instrument. DATED this _ day of Mne_ , .1991. i t .. NARY PUBLIC in and for the:. tate,of Washington. Commission Expires: ik;t& ., i 4 �'Vi11t� 40ti x4 ' �)�t.-1.- o►� is 2 `- STAT9..OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY. - OF KING ) . hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory -evidence that if 2RISbN JEWELL has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be'hL$..f"re:.ancl voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in °the irrsru�n�n: DATED --this 7 day of , e. 1991. 4 �.• -- OTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of p4 ,����u►a•.•..e•. WASHINGTON, •�`P��1 AT,�jy-. ai; Commission Expires: 3 EXHIBIT "A" Th; ,06rtl 45,, feet of Lots 5, Block 28 of the plat ,df Me-ad6wdale Beach recorded In volume 5 of Plats, Page=*"-38, records of Snohomish County, "'W-?Lsiitm4t;om: Together with a portion of vaCated:3Stki-'Avenue West lying adjacent. r EXHIBIT "B" The squf 1-5.- feet of Lot 5 plus the vacated street.: =-"•The North 30 .feet of Lot 6 plus vacated street f__block 28 of the Plat of Meadowdalip '*$e• *Ci h-=-"recorded in volume 5 of Plats,` patje''3$.;-' records of Snohomish County, Washy ngt,oti PERM CITY OF EDMONDS miEl FII.IIIG NUMBIER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION aoe fK-Z0 OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS/67 6 — � jt,.,� LJ / J:704-00 �- LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. MAILING GG ADDD/REESS/,,�/'/��� }p•�� �µ! hi*73� s`+•'T"v E iL 1 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP CIIT,gY�FLr�jy/ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER g_ ^ APPROVED BY E%ISTING D REQUIRED DEDICATION �F`� NAME�,./� PROPOSED �© V l liY RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REOUIRED D ADDRES-/ IQ5' SMft,�('.-�i{f��•�Y 372 A ,/Ili�/yI STREET USE PERMIT REOUIRED D p� J!i-I>R Y RPF FNRINFFRINn MFMn nATFn ,o rv' e,! RE-FE ZIP ITELEPHONE NUMSEF `t(04 I Au—(Pl ZIP TELEPHONE NUMSEF y MBER m of Property - include all easements attach two copies) • 1 .4,r t. Tax Account Parcel No. p FILg NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING AODIALTER COMMERCIAL ® MECHANICAL OREPAIR APT. BLDG. SIGN EXCAVATE, F-1 DEMOLISH ® OR GRADE FILL ❑ FEI NCE x—FT) swim REMODEL GARAGET POOL El WOOD INSERT STOVE I ROCKERY RENEWAL WALL/ ❑ RENEWAL OwELLING UNITS BE DOPE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) 7 l7i/.4 2lo✓�i/ �% 4i;i"s &,-w by .7; lrcim C,Cass7 pE -5Fty1r6AeZX By t!I am Kt.0 SEv PE q no aUIL.111. UI`111 SIZE FIXTURE UNITS w MA KS�' 3 SIGN AREA ENV: REVIEW ADS N0, ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT 5u;D- I SHOREL�E# —S >KS em—A/` Sy —FEET! HEI IOTCO ER� i yI FRONT `V REAR// J�' j+� a REMARKS rO �$AI�DE f " %�!•� +,SIFw�+'� l t'GOtJS �sT• ��i �"LL �� d rx--A-s 5.: p�-qQ,M L - l �s r� yr 7 g r CC CKED Y wSPECIAL TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION /��/ CODE __ _ HEIG� INSPECTOR AREA REqUIRED OCCUPANCY GROUP R R OCCUPANT LOAD YES C NO AEMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 0 TH"A L 'EIIZ / ft , GIrSEG m FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING Plan Check No. Z4-7— MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE 'Q s© Permit Application: 180 Days OV01911LA4P. Permit Limit;1 Year- Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and . ' ` m successors in interest, agrees to indemnity, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, 0 ✓ ��1^�L S� cemployees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of//2i = whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT ^ 3 S©(J^ modify,.walve or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance J i nor limit In any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." i hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the 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 laws regulating construction; and in doingthe work authoriz- THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until hereby, no p Son will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official Or his �fate of the o Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is suT n e INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SI T RE IO N R GENT) SATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT ` � �� Jo CITY OF OF D7E EDMONDS ATTE TION CALL FOR RELEAh6a DAT INSPECTION j IT IS UNLA L TO BE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771-5202 UNTIL A FINAL ECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE ' OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC y CHAPTER 3. vogt— JO/�(J1q� piNK —Owner GOLD —Assessor • I STOEET MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT FILE r' THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between HARRISON JEWELL first party, and JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the parties agreeing for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. W I T N E S S E T H: �I WHEREAS, the parties hereto are owners of adjoining real estate hereinbelow described and located in EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH County, Washington and WHEREAS, the parties have a common boundary and desire to share the use of a common easement for purposes of providing drainage and utilities to their respective properties, and WHEREAS, the parties wishing to formalize the common usage by a Grant of Easement, one to the other, for purposes of a common drainage and utility easement, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. First party is the owner of the following described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "A" attached 2. Second party is the owner of the following described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "B" attached 3. First party hereby grants to the second party, her successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under and across the real estate owned by the first party and described in paragraph 1 above, for purposes of drainage and utility access to second party's property described in paragraph 2 above, and existing structures thereon. This easement is intended to benefit and,be appurtenant to second party's property and to run with the land, and includes the right of ingress and egress to service the drainage and utilities: I 4. Second party hereby grants to the first party, his successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under and NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRED 1 j um1 n 1 K SIE c , SnoWMi unti TfatSdtrl Deputy 0 0 across the real estate owned by the second party and described in paragraph 2 above, for purposes of drainage and utility access to first party's property described in paragraph 1 and existing structures thereon. This easement is intended to benefit and be appurtenant to first party's property and to run with the land, and includes the right of ingress and egress to service the drainage and utilities. 5. The easements herein granted are for the purposes of creating adequate sewer and other drainage and utility service common to the real estate owned by both parties hereto, said real estate being above described, and shall be limited to a 20' parcel, that is 10' on either side of the common drain lines. 6. The parties, their successors and assigns shall contribute equally to the expenses of reasonable repair and maintenance to the common drainage and utilities. DATED this 4/ day of , 1991. arriso well, irst Party an C. Riggle, S c nd Party STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss. COUNTY OF KING j I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Harrison Jewell signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED ✓Una 7, i 9`1! �OLTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires F 2 . h . .r1AC. 4, 1662Y. 0 4 9 2453pa, 2554 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jean C. Riggle signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED 7&hP-, % 1991 TARY PUBLIC �inandforthe State of Washington. Commission Expires -9 y 3 va.2453PAGE 2552 i e .r,.. v mamma a., 41 a J a , � T s - e $ UR 25. q! I S'DrsA rs _� �. .,l 2MOONr« 97 2 N 7 >\e s >— mil.NoA a_s»_e *3 V7d \) Ate& j-7,gna ) HOV38 31VOM0oV3W a0 1Vld m s£ss—s£ose VM `Paoxuuh� `8Z *N18 `9 101 ONV 9 i0l 'Nid NO "M 'antl Pa££ £06 S3ON34iS321 3�JJI2l r' MOO NYlJ 813NWlS Moss =