The URL can be used to link to this page

15714 75TH PL W (3).PDF15714 75TH PL W ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: Dos�3 J©Z W Z.- BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) /4,01-r #L?103Z W/O..A CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: ":90 V ,J p S j V l 37 4?61 Cry -�5-9 l 60 -c DRAINAGE PLAN DA PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: Qvir Cl PERMITS (OTHER): �! 1-0 Z 3 4dd 0-3 -7/Lllc— PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: SHORT PLAT FILE: LID #: 210 LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: 4 /6 —bS SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: �T©� GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 4 23 —ge"/ 7-2(J7!?4�t STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER:_ _1W A4q17— 0452 (0 0 LATEMP1DSTsTortns\Street File Checklist.doc 0 �s " \ 9,a i m m 4 m V W 'O w Y CITY of ED19NDS DE S ER PERMIT STREET FLO For Inspection Call 771-3202 ERMIT NO. '07 00 0 Address of Construction: �i�7/,/- - 7-�-��'� LYNNW000 LINE Property Legal Description (Include all easements): mouth isfy- of LIJ7 S t No2.t/-/ of Lo7-6 . Owner and/or Builder: Contractor & License No: _Single Family Residence Multi -Family (No. of Units ) Commercial (No. of fixture Units ) Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No, Yes (If Yes,,Right-of=Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before' any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK I c the that I have e d and shall comply Date wit the items listed on the back. Charge:0 0 Permit Fee: Issued By Trunk • •Issued: Assessment Fee:Receipt No.: Partial Inspection:. Comments Date Initial Final Inspection Approved:0�Dat .Initi oRejected: Reason Date Initial -o a, ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** a� Wh.ite Copy - File Green Copy - Inspector Buff Copy - Applican m 75 T" PL. W. t i� u MEOW • ►s�14� ►57�10 �5 ��, STREETFILE 47TACA ►&JU PC-2M�T BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 2000 First Interstate Center 999 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1105 206-467-3289 Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. October 29, 1987 121 5th Avenue North - Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Allan 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. Filer 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, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Allan R. rg Associate Engi eer Encl. ARK: bb : ALLAN: JEWECL BN 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 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 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: JCY L L City Attorraby BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY By Division Engineer LCITYdEDMOND// Witnesses to Execution by HARRISON JEWELL .�c�av N•[� 7Z ^ d .?ems �dc,/-�7� Witnesses to Execution by s"109 �S JEAN RIGGLE " J • i` 1 `4' \ f + 7 t � p O •�� g �J i` \ � F tt *, � .,.. ♦ ti \ \ .,'/ f''. z�' ��r Jr 3�.. 'fA �' � ��• h 1,:Y•'.�k ,• `.!'.`�4y „�, ;``1, t ., ♦'. ^,`� .� „/ ,'S �, ip Ri�li� l4i �y � v �J )f is� ' r. i J:t+. .61 , �+,� 'ro r s �+' ,^ - � t7 °`r 6 d 4 },.. •a }*u�G ..},fir. r r� ,., •0� i\\ \�� ,9y o1 t t4i �.,ya LK. fV':, I t �' Ate •. 41, loll ov Yi r r yo+ . p� J/ r t � fz;iL• X I� . .t�� f Fr v��'cy%4��a�it . /; �� ' ,z r � }.ra r•� . �' 6('}r��. Ln')O 23 r0 rn ��• �Z W (�� a }r , ,r.. r tr > a •'1 .a1�•f t� 4 �' h y 0 uv IR 0 'tea /// �, t i '} t �' % c} ,,• .i 1) FILE-7 - USEPERMI CITY; -OF NDS ZONE KEET _ NUMBER .Lc)7a3 Lim CONSTRUCTIO `PERMIT APPLICATION ,OB SUITE/APT# ' ' ADDRESS OWNER NAME/NAME OF'BUSINESS.; LEGAL IDESCRIPTION CHECKI SUBDIVISION NO, LID NO w j MAILING ADDRESS 'r� TESCP p NUMBER PUBLIC RIG OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET iAP. G APPROVED BY CITY - ,TT�IP TELEPHONE EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION , FCC 01.E c 7 / J/ ,7y1— . i� PROPOSED NAME RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,REOUIRED z ❑� w ADDRESS / ..� L n �/J :ri'f� '[" STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED REVIEW BY .' Z .. y _ 1 /17 1 1 t-f SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED t ZIP q , TELEPHONE NUMBER Z REMARKS '��Ilu-T. ADDRESS - METEaFIZE It BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE IFIXTURE UNITS i ZIP CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER' ,.. ��f !// a _ REMAPSTATE LICENSE NUMBER - �� / 1 Z ) /ti SIGN AREA ENV: REVIEW ADS NO. EXEMPT ,L�G� ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE i Legal Description of Property -include ail easements SHORELINE# Z (show below or attach Iwo coples) I t 1E 61 r i 0 t L ° Phf VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DACE/ . SI D p o SETBACKS — FEE -,f.! ,' HEIG LOT COVERAGE Z z a FRONT 77 SIDE � ''�•REAR Z.,�_. - �g W J Tax Account Parcel No. j�tj,,I p2Qj_ CbCj 020r:> REMARKS, e NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECHANICA, - ADDIALTER COMMERCIAL ,A ./ C /r El APT. BLDG. L_J SIGN t-44; - ;r ` 'TYPE HEIGHT (' REPAIR L�j EXCAVATE. FILL FENCE C EC_KKED OF CONSTRUCTION CODE J DEMOLISH ORGRAOE'.i—X--FT) GARAGET�'rr POOL SPEUIRED INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY GROUP '" 93 OCCUPANT LOAD REMODEL - �WOOD STOVEI RETAINING WALLI RENEWAL O YES C No E ARKS O Z IL ...:: INSERT ROCKERY PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 0 {TYP, of usE. Buswess oR ACTalrv) EXPLAIN: COLD A 5 m NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER Q,F l �/2�T�C f Af'Flm 1.Z._+� ('' o m DWELUNC3' UNITS �r O NATURE OFI W RK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) - FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Sri"` a efid4'e/ VALUATION FEE . PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING all PLUMBING , Plan Check NO. —3 MECHANICAL i I This Permit covers work to be done,on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL "Any Dortrtruction on the public domain (curbs, sidewPlks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE , 61 Permit Application:180 Days' PeFmittimit: 1 Year- Provided Work: is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and W, successors in interest, agrees to Indemnify, defend and In 111 the City of Edmonds,. Washington, Its officials, harmless s employees, and agents from any and all Claims for damages of directly or indirectly from the Issuance whatever nature, arising of this permit. Issuance of. this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 0 modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance i nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE i provision." tl I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL Information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with ,city and THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work author iz• AUTHORIZES T signed by the Building Official or his ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is ode of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa• acknowledged in space provided. t IT Insurance. SI TURE IOW R ENT) DATE SIGNED INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ' OFFICIAL'S,"1,�G6 );SIRE DATE . .. CITY OF EDMONDS ._._.-- CALL FOR RELE�S D Y:` DATE ATTENION INSPECTION i riiti IT IS UNLAWFUL TO U E OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE . 771-32�2 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector PEC ION HAS -BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR UNTIL A FINAL A CERTIFICATE 0 CCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC pC/jPINK - Owner GOLD —. Assessor �jG �rJ , .- CHAPTER 3. t " 1 • RE1D MIDDLETON REVISED June 4, 1991 December 3, 1991 File No. 02-86-130-002-70 SON 11 1591 PERMIT COUNTER STORMWATER DETENTION CALCULATIONS FOR HARRISON JEWELIZEAN RIGGLE RESIDENCES ON PIN. LOTS 5 AND 6, BLK. 28, MEADOWDALE BEACH CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Existiniz 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. 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. Box 6638 Lynnwood, INA 98036-6638 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 Q existing = Q allowable = 0.19 c.f.s. Qo = Q allowable (0.19) (A)(CI),„) _ (0.39)(0.44) = 1.1072 T = -25 + (2255/1.1027)'R = 20.13 V, _ ((3607)(20.13)/(20.13+25)) - 40 (1.1072) 20.13 = 717.34 Cu.Ft./AcC Vt.,, = V, A Cam„ = 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 401.f. = 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' = 0.44 and solving for A = 0.19/0.62(64.4(2.2))" = 0.0257 sq.ft. = 2.172 " Dia. Orifice Jewell/Riggle Drainage Calculations REVISED June 4, 1991 December 11, 1986 File No. 02-86-130-002-70 Page 3 Using a 21/8" 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 • REVISED December 11, 1986 December 3, 1986 File 02-86-130 Reid, Middleton & • Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR HARRISON JEi+JEL.L/JEAN RIGGLE RESIDENCES ON PTN. LOTS 5 APED 6, BLK.28, MEADOWDALE B CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON O ; i 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, Washington 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. 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 It = 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 Z/ 1/ 0.012 A R 3 S 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. uosgDubscaQ au27 N w /;/a osgvy j D/b o-zgDd (A) ZZnd q-7z00VA Id o� (bJ ZZnj fiq; ovdvj • (Q) ,za�a=v ad Q' ` V° adoys t q VM uj6ua7 adzd Qo M M wXQp/jV/v/ (2) .ZVU-Z `Fig2suaquj N Ni 1�i t�i *0/ oZ r2vg0Z :;ayul o:; awa ,L ti` V� ° o cr � o 0 0 0 OY oo�0 oaoa (0) quawa .(;aoo jtfound v o 0 o (y) sa,z.?y `va,zy N o n a O G o e os v 1vo�zd � A c MENEM Olson i■n NIEN==eBEFEEMMORM � 4 � Lill N y � REID. MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES. INC. DES. "I= JIM ENGINEERS . 121- 5tn AVE. N. , SURVEYORS • PLANNERS Edmonds, Washington 980Y0 DR. I c~- � 206/77S•3434 I ��l 11 i DATE ./��G FILE NO. r.■. OZ-86—�3a SCALE SH[!T I or / .: J. KEITH CROSS, P.E.• Geotechnical Engineering Consultant (206) 822-2725 6020 1110 Place NE, Krkland, Washington 98= May 20, 1991 Jean Riggle 15714 75th Place West - Edmonds, Washington 98020 P�jy�r Cd'��rER Geotechnical Engineering Review and Response to The City Of Edmonds Review Comments, Proposed Addition and Atterations For the Riggle Residence, 15714 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No..0003-089 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 Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 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 art active landslide. Luckily, the conceiver of wood frame construction was infinitely wise in', development of thisconstruction 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 Jean Riggle has adopted the "use" philosophy for her 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 orientedat 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 F; 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, Kirkland, Washington 98033 9 u • Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 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 drains_ systems are detrimental to optimal performance under these site conditions: Such systerri... 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 11; (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 9W33 Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 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 9 and 10 of the Geological Services Inc. report dated April 28, 1986. 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 12; (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 ofi water level indicators in a number of the original Roger Lowe borings and in severair. 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 Riggle lot). J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 t 1 t" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 • Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 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. j 3. Item 13; (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).,I believe that the risk assessment for the Riggle lot would be more accurate than lots distant from a data point. r 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 Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 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...,_'........a 4. Item 24; (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. 5. Item 25; (regarding footing elevation adjacent to existing structure) The reason for this comment is unclear. The plan set provided to.us for section A on sheet 7 indicates that the west foundation for the new structure is to match the existing structure's east foundation in elevation. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111' Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 9W33 II o. Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 May 20, 1991 Page 7 6. Item 27; (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 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 1 H to 1 V slopes. Plan Review Comments The provided building plans have been reviewed for the' above items, as requestedby the project architect. Our review comments have been conceptual in nature; .in that a. detailed: plan review has not been requested. 1 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. The use of slab -on -grade floors on the lower level will make repair of these areas more difficult, if the areas are eventually finished. 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. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6020 111* Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. . • Geotechnical Engineering Consultant (206) 822-2725 6020 111th Place N.E., Kirkland, Washington 98033 July 26, 1990 Jean Riggle 15714 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 &-1L jg. A -OCT 3 0 'BQ PERMIT COUNTER Geotechnical Engineering Review, Revised Development Concept at 15714, 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0003-089 This report is prepared to summarize the results of a review of the revised development concept for a new dwelling on your 75th Place West property in the Meadowdale district of Edmonds, Washington. We have been provided conceptual sketches of the proposed development. Information including building layout and proposed floor elevations was provided by Vince 0jalla, project Architect. The scope of our work includes, 1) a review of the revised development concept, 2) a review of the data and geotechnical study of April 28, 1986, conducted by Geological Services Inc. and this office, 3) an assessment of those findings, and their applicability to the revised scope of development, 4) augmentation and/or provision of additional recommendations relative to the revised concept where pertinent, and 5) completion of the earth/geotechnical portions of the SEPA and City of Edmonds checklists which you have submitted for our review. Development Plans We understand that the remodeling work which was addressed in the April 28, 1986, Geological Services Inc. report has been abandoned in this development scheme. The revised development plans show a new dwelling and attached garage situated at the top, and over the face of the slope which rises to the east of your current residence. The garage is located on the east side of the new dwelling, adjacent to, and a few feet below the level of 75th Place. A basement/storage area is indicated beneath the western approximate one-half of the garage. The new dwelling is shown to step down the entire slope, and Letter* to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 2 will be connected to your current residence by a common roof.section. Site grading to accommodate the development includes cuts.for both garage and new dwelling foundations. Construction excavations are shown to be stepped down the slope. Cut depths of as much as 12 feet (as referenced to existing grade) are indicated along the north and south dwellingjgarage foundation lines. Garage storage area cuts are shown to extend some 12 feet into the slope face near the top of slope. Filling is not indicated on tho conc-ptuall grading scheme. Data Review and Revised Recommendations The new development scope at this site will require additional input !'Id revision of portions of our original report. Areas to be addressed include; excavation considerations, and revision of the foundation section to address the new dwelling format and garage structure. In light of the changed grading concept, comments on project erosion control, impact on slope stability and risk relative to landsliding will be made. Excavation Considerations Excavation within both 01- tiwellin.g a,n.d garage areas will be required to accommodate foundations and flr;or•s. You have indicated that _finished floor and foundation elev•;tions will likely. result in earth cuts on the order of to 12 feet in the c: d ing and gar.a.ge areas. Considering the sloping character of the lot, cut heights will generally decrease toward the west F'or a qiven floor/step level. Earth cuts.are expected to extend into fill or colluvium and various native.site soils. The exploration.data indicar,�s that variation in cut soils units_ should be anticipated. Open cuts are expected to be the most ec.onomical*.where there is room between the base of the cut and the property line. Considering the height of the cut,; anticipated at this site, 'the excavation should be evaluated to determine the Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 3 potential impact on adjacent properties and adjacent foundations, primarily to the south. 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 cut angles recommended 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 consistency of the soils encountered, as well as the presence of ground water seepage and runoff. The following temporary cut slopes, for the inticipat-d cut heights,. are expectedto be appropriate for their respective soil types- 1.25H to 1V for loose to medium dense artificial Fill, 'modified ground or loosened surficial soils 1H to IV 'Ur medium dense; medium stiff or better native sand and silt`clay-silt soils The at;ove val )ashe roosidered'general guidel ines. Artual sloping in ;oil s should ;ir ma,)e the r•esponsi bi l i ty of the contractor, 'is he i ; continuously preson.t ,i� the Job to ohserve the naturn and condicigin.os. the excavation soil Contingencies in timing, technique and budget should be .made t0 potential v.ariation.s. We reculaenend that we he to mo W or earthwork activities so that our recommendations could be interpreted, and supplemental input could be given, as requested. Unsupported permanent cut or fill slopes should be rn steeper than 2H to ?Y. Considering the char-acter of the site soils, periodic maintenance and cleaning of weathering spoils from sloped areas should he anticipated. During periods of wet weather or in saturated soil conditions, spacial measures may be required to.facilit_a.te construction. Interim excavation to .',ean ni ggl e 0003-089 25 r;nn Page 4 gr;,sdi r,g should be sloped to prevent pondi ng. It should he noted that the clay -silt sit- soils are considered highly moisture sensitive, and may tend 'to deteriorate if worked during rainy weather or in a saturated condition. Delays in construction activity may result from a deteriorated soil condition. If necessary, the use of a covering of crushed rock or pit run gravel over the subgrade soils should aid in minimizing disturbance and softening of the bearing soils durinq construction. We highly. recommend that excavation equipment which w,)0 d minimize subgrade disturbance'be used it this site. Equipment such as a track mounted backhoe or largeexcavator should be anticipated. {Fonda h i nnc The new foundations should extend through all existi.ng fill or disturbe•i surf irial soils, and he constructed. on the underlying firm, non -yielding native soils. The indicated foundation cuts should en,:ount,,r n,�dium derise better silty fine sands and/or aravelly silty sands. These +na1-4err als shc,u�rl provide a commonly acceptable level of performance for residential foundations. Takinj into account the above conditions, the recommended foundation.arJ geott�chnicdl design criteria outlined in the April 28, 1986 Geolouica! Services Inc: report are generally applicable for the new dwelling. :`nwr vcr, c,:nsi(Jeri ng the new dwelling position and slope steepness, a maximum :Ire Alf ),, ahle soil bearing pressure of 1000 psf should be used for shall -;w sr. -Era footing foundations. In addition, the west foundation for the new str+_rt:ti�r� shown to lie adjacent to the Tapper approximate one-third of the ejst wail of the exiting residence. We recommend that this foundation be e;cter,;.:l Town to the level of the existing foundation so as not to adversely loa, the existinq.waII Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page S Project Impact, Erosion. Control and Risk Considerations The original geotechnical report concluded that a potential for adverse impacts exists for excavation and erosion, and that planning for these aspect .of construction should be anticipated. The.current scope 'of development calls fur temporary excavation for foundations and floors, and a generally i.ncreased level of earthwork activity. We are of the.opinion that the erosion control,measures discussed in the Development Considerations section of that report are applicable 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 th.e anticipated scope of development. The discussions contained in the Project Imparts and Slope Stability sec tiorl of the original g�otechnical report are Considered appropriate for the revised development concept. That is, the revised scope of development is not expected to influence the risk assessment classifications for this site.. SEPA Checklist The following section addresses the it.ms outlined in earth portion of the ENVIRONMENTAL ELECMENTS section of the SEPA Checklist. 1. Earth a. General description of the site: The site i.s steeply sloped in areas. 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 671, grade. above and below the dwelling area. Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 6 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 April 28, 1986 report by.Geological Services Inc., pages 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 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 surfacNs 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 addend(im) City of Edmonds Geotechnical Report Guidelines The following section addresses the items outlined in the Geotechnical Report Guidelines section of the MEADO'WDALE SITE EVALUATION CHECKLIST. The sequenc and numbers for the items listed below correspond to the guidelines format. 1. Refer to Site Geotechnical Sturdy dated April 28, 1986, prepared by Geological Services Inc., and the revisions theretocontained in the above report addendum. 2. As above. Also, see accompanying amended site plan. 3. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 for subsurface conditions and characteristics and Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 7 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 April 28, 1986 Geotechnical Report. 5. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28; 1986, pages 8 and 9, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. a. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 2.8., 1986, 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. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 10, 11.and 12, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. d. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated.April 28, 1986, pages 10 and 11. e. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 12, 13 and 14. f. Refer to Site Geotechnical: Study dated April 28, 1986, pages'9 a;11. 10, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the abo'd- report. addendum. g. In my opinion, landslide forces.on structures are frequently of ;uch large magnitude that it is economically .i.rrpractical to desin and construct connecting members that would resist these forces'. h. See. the above cormnents on the Earth section .of Environmental Elements portion of the SEPA checklist.,' i. Refe.r to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, page 9. j. Generally not considered applicable, but is discussed in the Excavation Considerations section of the report addendum (page 3). Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 8 USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY The conclusions and revisions to the recommendations contained in the April 28, 1986 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 for Jean Riggle.and her 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 construction safety precautions, and the recommendat.ions are not intended to direct 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 other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. If there are ay questions concerning this report, please call. Yours very truly, A . Keith Cross, P.E. GEOLOGICAL . SERVICES Inc. Consulting Geologists April 23, 1986 File No. 863-3 • 157lq- 751-11 pt k Mrs. Jean Ri ggl e 15714 75th P1. W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 Reference: Site Geotechnical Study Proposed Residential Improvements 75th Place W. Edmonds, Washington Dear Mrs. Riggle: • ,BAN 2 PERMIT COUNTER This .letter presents the results of a geotechnical study in the area of your residence at 15714 75th Place W., in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The following discussions summarize our work to date, and present opinions regarding current site conditions and your proposed dwelling expansion. Plans for remodeling of the existing single story, with basement, wood framed dwelling were provided to us in a preliminary building plan drawing.dated February 24, 1986, prepared by Mr. Vince 0jalla, project architect. The proposed building scheme indicates that the existing structure will be extended to the east, west and south. These plans indicate that the proposed improvements will involve expansion of the current living level, and construction of new deck areas in the east and west. Expansion of the existing basement area to match the new building dimension is not indicated. At present, support for the expansion area is indicated through a continuous foundation wall system in the east and south, and by columns in the west. Aside from excavations for additional foundations, modifications of existing site grades are not indicated. 613 - 222ND STREET SOUTHWEST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 206 / 481 - 5183 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 2 Authorization for our work was granted on April 14, 1986, by Mr. Vince Ojalla, acting in behalf of the owner. 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. The scope of our study is in general compliance with our proposal letter of March 6, 1986, and included a literature research, site reconnaissance and documentation, subsurface explorations, consultation, engineering evaluations, and the preparation of this report. The Riggle property lies within the area of the Meadowdale landslide complex. 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 depressed 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 initiation 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 alignment, 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 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28,.1986 Page 3 effect of the rock mass along the slope toe. More recently, the incor- poration 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 500 foot wide zone which runs roughly parallel to and immediately east of the Burlington Northern Railroad track alignment. Landslide features within this zone are thought to be primarily non - circular failures, 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 occurred 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 1985, have been used by city of Edmonds staff in determining general risk assessment and establishing development guidelines for this area. In general, development within the complex area is considered by the city of Edmonds to be conditionally feasible, but will 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 issuance of a building permit for this site. SITE CONDITIONS AND EXPLORATIONS The Riggle property is located 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 property supporting an unfinished dwelling foundation, and on the south by residential property. The property lies to the west of 75th Place W. and is situated on a prominent Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 4 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 about 31 degrees. To the west of the dwelling area, the slope steepens to about 33 degrees between the break in slope (about elevation 70') and the west property margin. A total vertical relief of about 90' is indicated within the property. Our explorations and observations indicate that a quantity of artificial fill underlies the proposed expansion area, and possibly portions of the existing dwelling as well. Interpreted fill depths of 5.0', 4.0', and 4.2' were recorded in explorations HB-1, HB-2, and HB-3 respectively. Based on current site grades, interpreted fill depths, and the elevation/ position of the existing dwelling, it would appear that the fill under- lies the dwelling's western one-half (approximate). The fill is comprised of a loose mixture of sands and gravels and includes organic matter in some areas within its upper elevations (2.5' in HB-3). The origin of the fill is unclear, but may have been derived from within the subject lot. Filling along the western steep slope area related to landscaping improvements is observed as well. Tension cracking of the slope surface in the garden area and along downslope areas suggests incipient failure. An arcuate scarp feature, showing an offset of about 12 inches, is observed in the yard of the property to the south (at about elevation 65') and extends northward onto the Riggle property. The depth of these features would appear to be shallow as compared to the surface expression, and most probably involves primarily slope fill and colluvial materials. Within the subject property, ground movement has caused damage to the basement floor of the existing dwelling. The entire history of the Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 5 distress within the existing basement area is not known to us. At present, several inches of vertical displacement and lateral separation of the floor slab within the western basement area has occurred. Realignment and shimming.of support columns has been performed to maintain support for the dwelling. Our information indicates that slope movement occurring during the winter of 1973-74 may account for some of the floor slab damage and an apparent slight eastward tilting of the east basement wall. A second contributing source for basement slab distress could be related to subsidence and displacement of loose fill soils underlying the west building area. While not observed on the Riggle property, areas of springs and surface seepage occur along a low east -west trending drainage depression two lots \ to the north. Several features interpreted as remnant landslide scarps are noted within the lots immediately north of the Riggle property. Field Explorations All elevations and depths recorded herein are referenced to existing surface grade. Explorations and site features were located by a tape and compass survey. Elevation control was established by interpolation of the site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. 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 March 27, 1986. A total of three (3) power and hand auger borings were placed in and around the proposed expansion area. The locations of our explorations are shown on the accompanying exploration location map, Figure 1. Boring depths ranged from 5.0 to 7.9 feet below existing grade. All explorations were monitored by W.L. Bicket, senior engineering geologist from this office. Records of encountered soil types, conditions and apparent stratigraphy Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 6 were maintained in the field and are summarized in the accompanying Exploration Logs, Appendix A. Samples obtained in the excavations were visually classified by the geologist in the field. Site Stratigraphy Site subsurface conditions have been interpreted through our exploratory data and site reconnaissance notes. Other exploratory data and infor- mation were used as background material and for correlation purposes. Specifically, the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates study for landslide hazard evaluation,I and the 1985 GeoEngineers, Inc., appraisal report,2 provided historical documentation and nearby deep boring data. In addition, data from five (5) backhoe pits excavated within the property immediately north were used in our evaluations. In summary, the major slope feature which supports the Riggle property is comprised of pre-Vashon age sediments. Below about elevation 60' sedi- ments of the Whidbey Formation 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. Locally, the clay elements have been found to'be interbedded with medium dense, grey, well -sorted medium sands. Occasional fractures with polished surfaces have been noted within the hard clay seams. Locally, the uppermost portion of the Whidbey Formation is marked by a varved silty clay stratum. This unit was found to have a section thickness of about 5 feet in explorations to the north. This relatively thin zone has been highly deformed locally, presumably by shearing due to past landsliding. A remnant slide plane 1. Report of Lan slide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA," Roger Lowe & Associates, 1979. 2. "Report of Geotechnical Consultation, Property Value Appraisals and Assessments, Meadowdale Landslide Area, Edmonds, WA," GeoEngineers Incorporated, 1985. 0 1 9 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 7 has been interpreted to lie approximately between elevations 66 and 58 feet in the lot to the north, and may involve the Riggle property as well. Locally, the Whidby Formation is overlain by a moderate dense to dense, silty; micaceous, fine sand. These sands and gradationally finer micaceous silts were encountered in our explorations. This unit, and related sand strata at higher elevations 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 are seen locally, indicating 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 and interbeds of hard, very fine sandy silts. Ground water encountered within the subject site generally occurs as a zone of saturation within the fine micaceous sands. 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 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. Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 8 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 areas. Adverse impacts include: 1) unsupported excavation into the steep slope; 2) filling adjacent to or over steep slope areas; and 3) the uncontrolled discharge of storm, domestic, or surface water within the property. The current dwelling foundation location may be positioned over the 1973-1974 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 landslide. events have been recorded locally. Four of these have occurred between 1949 and 1956 within the low wet area two (2) lots to the north. A single event was recorded in the winter of 1973-74 which reportedly involved the Riggle property. It is unclear if the slide plane encoun- tered in explorations to the north 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 throughout the complex should be considered high. The Roger Lowe Associates report of 1979, and a follow-up study by GeoEngineers, Inc., in 1985 have Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 9 developed a general risk assessment format for the Meadowdale 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. According to the risk assessment studies, the dwelling -lies within an area which has a poten- tial for ground failure, with a 10 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. To the west, along the steep slope below about elevation 65', an increased probability (35 percent) of failure within a 25-year period has been projected. The risk assessment values developed in the above noted reports would seem reasonable in light of the local history of instability. 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. We understand that excavation for the new addition will be limited to foundation alignments along the east, west and south building margins. In the event that temporary erosion control 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 permanent Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 10 collector system. This system should be separate from wall and/or footing subdrains. 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 slope instability potential will result. Building Foundations Our exploratory data and interpretations indicate that the existing building foundations may be resting on native soils in the east, and on fill soils in the west. The adversity of this condition is unclear, as basement walls generally appear intact. As mentioned previously, a slight eastward tilting of the east basement wall is noted. The significance of this condition with the observed floor slab distress and/or past recorded earth movement is unclear, but is most probably interrelated to some degree. In concept, the existing foundation system should be compatible with the proposed improvements and the observed foundation area soils. We recommend that a licensed structural engineer inspect the existing foundation system. The engineer should evaluate the 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 differential 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. Design of the foundation system should accommodate potential ground move- ments (most of which will be differential) 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 • Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 11 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 maintained within any given portion of the foundation. Structural framing should be designed such that its stiff- ness will allow some cantilever/spanning effects to accommodate differential movements in the foundation between skimmings. Additional length foundation anchor bolts should be utilized to accommodate shimming. We recommend that the column supports along the west expansion line be designed such that the capability of downward vertical loading is minimized. This recommendation is made to allow for downward movement of individual foundations, during slide activity, without imparting a down - drag load to the structure. The observed moderately dense to dense, native, micaceous, fine grained sands and si-lts should prove suitable for support of spread footing foundations. The depths/elevations at which these materials were encountered range between 4 and 5 feet below present grade in the areas explored (see Figure 1, and Table II in.Appendix A). An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf could be used for shallow footings founded upon the above native site soils. Our suggested soil bearing capacity uses a factor of safety of 2.5 and is based on the following conditions: 1. All footings should be founded on the above noted soils at a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent finished grade. 2. All footing excavations should be dressed and thoroughly compacted. A dense, non -yielding uniform soil condition should be established in all footing areas prior to placement of footing concrete. 3. All footings should be sized according to the anticipated wall or column loadings, and the above soil bearing value. Minimum footing widths of 12 and 18 inches are recommended for all continuous and isolated footings, respectively. Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3. April 28, 1986 Page 12 4. All footings should be free of ponded water and water loosened soils prior to placement of footing concrete. Inspection of the footing and floor slab areas should be performed by the consultant prior to placement of concrete so as to confirm proper condition- ing. An increase of 1/3 for the recommended bearing capacity may be assumed to accommodate short-term dynamic loads. 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" condition be assumed, and that an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 lbs. per cubic foot be used for design purposes. For yielding walls, the "active" condition may be assumed and an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 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 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 13 the backside of the wall. This material should be as described in Table I below. TABLE I Filter Gravel Backfill for Drains Sieve Size Passing by Weight 1 1/2" 100 3/4" 70 - 90 1/4" 30 - 60 No. 8 20 - 50 No. 30 8 - 30 No. 50 3 - 12 No. 200 0 - 1.2 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 permeability 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. The effect of surcharges, such as traffic or floor loads, should also be considered. For a uniformly distributed load behind the wall, a corresponding uniformly distributed pressure equal to 30 percent or 50 percent of the surcharge should be added to the lateral soil pressure for yielding 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 friction coefficient of 0.4 is considered appropriate for the expected foundation soils. An ultimate passive pressure of 300 pcf is available Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 14 for the native micaceous fine sand and silt site soils. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to base friction and passive pressure values used to resist sliding. USE,OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY We have prepared this report for use by Mrs. Jean Riggle and her agents for their use in planning and design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and inter- pretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are changes in the grades, locations, configuration, or type of construction for the improvements, the conclusions and recommendations presented may not be.applicable. If design changes are made, we request that we be given the opportunity to review our conclusions and recom- mendations and to provide a written modification or verification. The scope of our wort: does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variables in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted 9 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 15 practices followed in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, GEOLOGICAL S//E��RVICES, INC- Walter L. Bicket Professional Engineering Geologist .04a� J. Keith Cross, P.E. Geotechnical Engineering Consultant - A.- at TH - 0% i N 0% d �ogA�ti�.�C�STER�•ray� w •.»..• %s'1 4 L Onoij 'ONI S30IA83S IVOIJOl030 996L -IlHdV • £-£99 BBBJ86 0 Z 0 0 co w C.3 APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS • TABLE II EXPLORATION DATA SUMMARY Exploratory Exploratory Bearing Ground Water Boring Boring/Pit Exploration Fill Soils Seepage Pit No. Elev.(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) HB-1 74.0 7.9 5.0 5.0 None HB-2 69.0 7.2 4.0 6.0 None HB-3 86.0 5.0 4.2 4.2 None TB-6 110.0 76.7 -- -- -- EP-1 75.0 19.0 -- -- -_ EP-2 64.0 10.0 -- -- -- EP-3 88.0 6.7 -- -- -- EP-4 76.0 4.6 -- -- -- EP-5 104.0 4.0 -- -- -- 1. All depths are referenced to existing site grades. 2. Elevations are based on interpolation of the site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. 3. All fill depths refer to existing uncontrolled fill soils and may include intermixed or modified native ground. 4. Exploration Nos. TB-6, EP-1, EP-2, EP-3, EP-4, and EP-5 are associated with nearby, previously studied areas, and have been used for stratigraphic correlation purposes. 863-3 April 1986 Jean Riggle Property • HAND BORING EXPLORATION LOGS HBL-1 Elevation - 74' 0.0' - 5.,0' Loose, brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sandy Artificial Fill, poorly sorted. 5.0' - 7.1' Loose to medium dense, brown, mottled, silty, very fine sand, damp to moist, micaceous, uniform. becomes grey beyond about.6.8'. -- grades into -- 7.1' - 7.9' Firm, grey, mottled, very fine sandy silt, moist, micaceous. TD @ 7.9', 3-27-86 HB-2 Elevation 69' 0.0' - 4.0' Loose, grey brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand, moist to wet, poorly sorted, occasional cobbles. 4.0' - 6.0' Firm, grey, mottled, very fine sandy clayey silt, moist to wet, hard digging with hand auger. -- grades into -- 6.0' - 7.0' Medium dense, grey brown, silty very fine sand to very fine sandy silt, wet to saturated, micaceous. -- grades into -- 7.0' - 7.2' Medium dense, grey brown, fine sand, wet, micaceous. TD @ 7.2' 3-27-86 863-3 April 1985 Jean Riggle Property HBL- 1 HAND BORING EXPLORATION LOGS (Continued) HB-3 Elevation 86.0' 0.0' - 2.5' Loose, dark brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium, sandy Artificial Fill, damp to moist, poorly sorted, fine organics in matrix. 2.5' - 4.2' As above, organics clear from matrix, Artificial Fill, damp to moist. 4.2' - 5.0' Very stiff, grey to grey brown, very fine sandy silt, damp, native soils. Refusal to power auger @ 4.6'. TD @ 5.0', 3-27-86 863-3 April 1985 Jean Riggle Property HBL-2 APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS TABLE II EXPLORATION DATA SUMMARY Exploratory Exploratory Bearing Ground Water Boring Boring/Pit Exploration Fill Soils Seepage Pit No. Elev.(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) HB-1 74.0 7.9 5.0 5.0 None HB-2 69.0 7.2 4.0 6.0 None HB-3 86.0 5.0 4.2 4.2 None TB-6 110.0 76.7 -- -- -- EP-1 75.0 19.0 -- -- -- EP-2 64.0 10.0 -- -- -- EP-3 88.0 6.7 -- -- -- EP-4 76.0 4.6 -- -- -- EP-5 104.0 4.0 -- -- -- 1. All depths are referenced to existing site grades. 2. Elevations are based on interpolation of the site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. 3. All fill depths refer to existing uncontrolled fill soils and may include intermixed or modified native ground. 4. Exploration Nos. TB-6, EP-1, EP-2, EP-3, EP-4, and EP-5 are .associated with nearby, previously studied areas, and have been used for stratigraphic correlation purposes. 863-3 April 1986 Jean Riggle Property TABLE II EXPLORATION DATA SUMMARY Exploratory Exploratory Bearing Ground Water Boring Boring/Pit Exploration Fill Soils Seepage Pit No. Elev.(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) HB-1 74.0 7.9 5.0 5.0 None HB-2 69.0 7.2 4.0 6.0 None HB-3 86.0 5.0 4.2 4.2 None TB-6 110.0 76.7 -- -- -- EP-1 75.0 19.0 -- -- -_ EP-2 64.0 10.0 -- -- -- EP-3 88.0 6.7 -- -- -- EP-4 76.0 4.6 -- -- -- EP-5 104.0 4.0 -- -- -- 1. All depths are referenced to existing site grades. 2. Elevations are based on interpolation of the site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. 3. All fill depths refer to existing uncontrolled fill soils and may include intermixed or modified native ground: 4. Exploration Nos. TB-6, EP-1, EP-2, EP-3, EP-4, and EP-5 are associated with.nearby, previously studied areas, and have been used for stratigraphic correlation purposes. 863-3 April 1986 Jean Riggle Property . HAND BORING EXPLORATION LOGS (Continued) HB-3 Elevation 86.0' 0.0'.- 2.5'. Loose, dark brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium, sandy Artificial Fill, damp to moist, poorly sorted, fine organics in matrix. 2.5' - 4.2' As above, organics clear from matrix, Artificial Fill, damp to moist. 4.2' - 5.0' Very stiff, grey to grey brown, very fine sandy silt, damp, native soils. Refusal to power auger @ 4.6'. TO @ 5.0', 3-27-86 863-3 April 1985 Jean Riggle Property HBL-2 HAND BORING EXPLORATION LOGS HBL-1 Elevation - 74' 0.0' - 5.0' Loose, brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sandy Artificial Fill, poorly sorted. 5.0' - 7.1' Loose to medium dense, brown, mottled, silty, very fine sand, damp to moist, micaceous, uniform. becomes grey beyond about 6.8'. -- grades into -- 7.1' —7.9' Firm, grey, mottled, very fine sandy silt, moist, micaceous. TD @ 7.9', 3-27-86 HB-2 Elevation 69' 0.0' - 4.0' Loose, grey brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand, moist to wet, poorly sorted, occasional cobbles. 4.0' - 6.0' Firm, grey, mottled, very fine sandy clayey silt, moist to wet, hard digging with hand auger. -- grades into -- , 6.0' - 7.0' Medium dense, grey brown, silty very fine sand to very fine sandy silt, wet to saturated, micaceous. -- grades into -- 7.0' - 7.2' Medium dense, grey brown, fine sand, wet, micaceous. TD @ 7.2' 3-27-86 863-3 April 1985 Jean Riggle Property HBL- 1 75TH PLACE WEST Lu 0 �_ 100 oc") 90 B.N.R.R. TPAr%wo (D 0 co z m co Lu < Lu o LU I -i cr 0) o D (o Li a co a U. PUGET SOUND 75TH PLACE WEST si 0 c c 0 c 0 0 jj 0 Z 0 -j M 0) Q C, 0 CL O Cc 0 co x uj m 0 ac�0 30 B.N-P P T M A PUGET SOUND . t j REET FILE ! CITY OF EDMONDS 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 27, 1981 Mr. Charles McFarling. 8204 - Greenlake'Drive North Seattle, Washington 98103 Dear Mr, McFarling: SUBJECT: BORING DATA NEAR 15714 75TH PLACE t 1. HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR Enclosed are copies of the cover, location map, boring log number six; and warranty as you requested. If you have questions, please call Bob Franklin, 771-3202. BF:ges Enclosure P 12s a f RANKLIN DT Sincerely, S 4S City Engineer CH DT WA AdmL "IN 0 FINAL .REPORT A.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS,�JNVESTIGATION MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON '-"" RLAT PROJECT NO. 294 02. ........ ... ic* Fl rEn[5 R R ; 0. .Vu9R 5ac o s 9 mc. :4ty l r7 "k ulty of tamonas mw uctoiDer lowrj/,j Plate-A-16 BORING SIX CONTINUED DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER GRAPHIC FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION 40 87 Jill SW BROWN GRAVELLY SAND (DENSE, WET) LANDSLIDE MATERIAL .45 1 oo/;3 50 - 50/4" IIII CLAY LENSES, 48 TO 53 FEET 55 60 1 65 CL DARK GRAY CLAY (HARD TO VERY HARD, DRY, 7 TO DAMP) WHIDBEY FORMATION 57 106 100/3" Jill . I I 70- 56 Jill - LENSES OF LIGHT GRAY CLAY AND F114E SAND 68 TO 76.7 FEET 75- 7 1/9" Jill Ll BORING TERMINATED AT 76.7 FEET ON 8/28/79 60- ROGER. L(3WE IRSSOCIRTES 114C. LOG OF EXPLORATION I?R City of Edmon ds October 160979 Plate -15. WEST SIDE OF 75TH PLACE.w 125 FEET NORTH OF 158TH AVE,."' BORING SIX ' !;** SURFACE ELEVATION 113 FEET ;, , (DATUM MLI-W) DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN ' MOISTURE DENSITY PER GRAPHIC FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION 10 SW BROWN GRAVELLY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE, DRY) FILL M L LIGHT BRO1,1!N CLAYEY SILT WITH LENSES C 5 FINE SAND (STIFF, DRY) 26 Jill LANDSLIDE MATERIAL 10 SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM DE1 25 Jill VERY DENSE, DRY TO DAMP) LANDSLIDE MATERIAL 15 67 Jill 20 47 IIII LENSES OF CLAY AND SILTY CLAY, 18 TO FEET 25 81/9" Jill 30 50/31, lill.. GRAVEL, 28 TO 33 FEET BROWN GRAVELLY SAND (DENSE, DAMP) sw 35 LANDSLIDE MATERIAL 110 ROGER LOWE, FISSOCIRTES MC. LOG OF EXPLORATION City.of Edmonds ' October 16, 1979 Page,-"' 34 U4�� >., 4 USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANT`( We :have prepared this report for use by the City of Edmonds, for "planning purposes: The'data and report should be provided to the public, at the discretion of the City, for informational purposes but not as a warranty of ,.site -specific surface or subsurface conditions. There are possible variations :`:'in surface and subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Within the limitations of the schedule and budget for our 'tiork., and within 4 the"limits-of accuracy of data provided to us by others,,we t..arrant that our work has''been=done in accordance with generally accepted practice in this area. No '>Yother warranty, express or implied, is made. 'The scope of our work did not include services related to construction safety preca.uzions and is not intended to recommend or direct construction means; methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described, and then''only'for consideration in design, not for construction Ruidance. :.T We'appreciat6 the opportunity of wcrkirg with you on this very :`;,interesting project'., We are available to answer any questions concerning this report,or'to provide additional services is necessary. Very truly yours, ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC. Donald W. Tubbs, Geologist `Jon W. Koloski, Associate -.�'-:--•-�'7 *-r• �c's"'T ^r"^--'i^CISJ�.�mt7.'n.^*l.'Q.'^T"f"p': Quast / Dressler Development Services Department Engineering Division 121 51' Avenue North ,Edmonds, WA 98020 16714 - 7e Place Vilest Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone. 425-742.3724 May 6, 2011 RECEIVED MAY 092011 ENGINEERING DIVISION MAY 0 6 2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Re: Meadowdale Area Groundwater Monitoring Request for Reinstallation of PIEZOME TER NUMMERS 4,10 AND 12 Gentlemen: The City of Edmonds collects piezometer data in the Meadowdale landslide hazard area. In a letter to the City of Edmonds dated May 15, 1998, GeoEngineers states on page 3: The average ground water elevations for the five piezometers where data is still collected are approximately 5 feet below the water levels for those five piezometers prior to construction of the LID, and about the same as the levels during the period several years immediately following construction. GeoEngineers, in that letter, went on to opine (on page 5) "that the ground water elevation data is valuable as an indicator of the overall stability of the landslide, and that the City should continue monitoring ground water levels within the Meadowdale Landslide." They recommended reinstalling the. destroyed piezometers. Other reports available to the City (e.g., Landau Associates, Inc., Feb 18, 2004, page 5) confirm the considerable risk of further ground movement in the, Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area and recommend, too, that ground water levels continue to be tested. Considering the fact that there is currently land clearing occurring on the crown of the ridge at 15620 72" °Avenue: West in Edmonds, landslide monitoring should be ongoing. Ground water monitoring.in the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area is a health and safety issue. Please reinstall piezometer numbers 4, 10, and 12 immediately: Replacement of these piezometers is a very high priority because of their location along the axis of previous landslides. Sincerely, , , Lzzeg�4 John T. Quast Laurie J. Dressler CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE COOPER MAYOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • 7110 — 210TH ST. S.W. • EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 771.0235 • FAX (425) 744.6057 • WEB SITE: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us Inc. 1soci May 16, 2011 Ms Laurie J. Dressler Mr. John T. Quast 15714- 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Meadowdale Piezometers Dear Ms. Dressler and Mr. Quast: Thank you for your letter dated May 6th regarding piezometers number 4, 10, and 12. The City has been aware of issues with these piezometers and is taking steps to address them. Meanwhile, the City continues to regularly collect water level data at all other piezometers in the Meadowdale area. In addition, the City continues to inspect the groundwater/surface water collection system installed with Local Improvement District (LID) LID 210 for proper operation. Sincerely, Phil Williams Public Works Director cc: Rob English, P.E., City Engineer Jerry Shuster, P.E., Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Tod Moles, Street and Storm Manager Mike Johnson, Storm Lead • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. Geolechnical Engineering Consultant (206) 822-2725 6020 111th Place N.E., Kirkland, Washington 98033 July 26, 1990 Jean Riggle 15714 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 Geotechnical Engineering Review, Revised Development Concept at 15714, 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0003-089 This report is prepared to summarize the results of a review of the revised development concept for a new dwelling on your 75th Place West property in the Meadowdale district of Edmonds, Washington. We have been provided conceptual sketches of the proposed development. Information including building layout and proposed floor elevations was provided by Vince Ojalla, project Architect. The scope of our work includes, 1) a review of the revised development concept, 2) a review of the data and geotechnical study of April 28, 1986, conducted by Geological Services Inc. and this office, 3) an assessment of those findings, and their applicability to the revised scope of development, 4) augmentation and/or provision of additional recommendations relative to the revised concept where pertinent, and 5) completion of the earth/geotechnical portions of the SEPA and City of Edmonds checklists which you have submitted for our review. Development Plans We understand that the remodeling work which was addressed in the April 28, 1986, Geological Services Inc. report has been abandoned in this development scheme. The revised development plans show a new dwelling and attached garage situated at the top, and over the face of the slope which rises to the east of your current residence. The garage is located on the east side of t11e new dwelling, adjacent to, and a few feet -below the level of 75th Place. A basement/storage area is indicated beneath the western approximate one-half of the garage. The new dwelling is shown to step down the entire slope, anti Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 2 will be connected to your current residence by a common roof section. Site grading to accommodate the development includes cuts for hoth garage and new dwelling found'ations. Construction excavations are shown to be stepped down the slope. Cut depths of as much as 12 feet (as referenced to existing grade) are indicated along the north and south dwelling/garage foundation .lines. Garage storage area cuts are shown to extend some 12 feet into the slope face near the top of slope. Filling is not indicated or. th^ r_orcoptu•il gradin'l SChr`rlie. Data Review and Revised Recommendations The new devel oplihen t scope at this s i i:e will require additional input • rd revision of portions of our original report. Areas to be addressed include: excavation considerations, and revision of the Foundation section to addrps; tiro new dwell ing Fermat and garage ItrU-,ture. In light of the chanred gradir!-i concept, comments on project erosion control, impact on slope stability and risk relative to lands]iding will be made. cxcav3tion Cons id]rations Excavation within bath t:hp r!w-? ing and garage areas will he required "o accommodate Foundal:ions and Floors. You have indicated that finished Floor and foundation el!�v•;`ions will likely result in earth ci.its on the order- of -1 to 12 feet ill the r. .11 ing .and gara(jo areas. Considering the :,loping character of the loi:, cut heights will generally decrease toward the west For a given floor/step level. Earth cuts are expected to extend into fill or colluviUrn and various native site soils. The ex ; ploration data indic+�s 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 clot and the property l ine. Considering thrheight of the anticipated at this site, the excavation should'be evaluated to determine the Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 3 potential impact on adjacent properties and adjacent foundations, primarily t,l the south. 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 cut angles recommended 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 consistency of the soils encountered, as well as the presence of ground water seepage and runoff. The following temporary rut slopes, for the inticipat-d cut hei;nts, are expected to he appropriate for *heir respective soil types: 1.%`iH to 1V for loose to medium dense :artificial Fill, modified ground or loosened sur•ficial soils 1H to I ':Ir medium dense/ medium stiff or better native sand and silticlav-silt soils The ulroVe Vai.1,)5 he considered general g�rlrJ-?lines. Achial slo!iing 1n �J1lS Sh7lliCi ;)r} nirli� `ha 1'P;pnnsi ilitV Qi the contr-l(:tor, .1i h13 continuously11 1F_' .j()l) ,its' to ohs�'rve the Ila!i1r-.%lnd condiri'r)rj pF' the excavation ,oil;. Contine-encie-, in timing, technique -ind Midget should 6P. made to 0C:_,)mmt)�il!---' potential Viri-3tions. i4e r�r:Ulrnlrar)rJ that We I)o to cooni!r,r ear-thwork a.-tivitik�s so that our recommendiLirns could be interpreted, and supplemental input could be given, as requested. Unsupported permanent cut or fill slopes should be r,n steeper than 2H to !V. Considering the character of the ;ite soils, periodic maintenance and cleaning of weathering spoils from sloped areas should he anticipated. During periods of wet weather or in saturated soil condition,, special measures may be required to facilitate construction. Interim excavation :.et(or to loan niggle "rOOK Me. 0003.089 M 25, 1990 Page 4 grading :should he sloped to prevent ponding. It should be noted that the clay -silt site soils are considered highly moisture sensitive, and may tend to deteriorate if worked during rainy weather or in a saturated condition. Delays in construction activity may result from a deteriorated soil condition. If necessary, the use of a covering of crushed rock or pit run gravel over the subgr3de soils should aid in minimizing disturbance -and softening of the bearing soils during construction. We highly recommend that excav 3 ti on equipment which would minimize subgrade disturbance he used it this site. Equipment such as a track mounted backhor, or large excavator should be anticipated. Annrla t i nne The new foundations should extend through all existing fill or disturb :d surficial soils, and he constructed on the underlying firm, non -yielding native soils. 'The indicated foundation cuts should encounter medium dense better silty fine sands and/or gravelly silty sands. These materials shcrul,i provide a commonly acceptable level of performance for residential foundations. Taking into, account the above nandltlons, the recommended roundation Arl geotachnical design cr(teria outlined in the April 28, 1386 Geolnuica' `services Inc. report are generally applicable for the new dwelling. 'owivor. considering the new dwelling position and slope steepness, a 'maximum not, A110 able soil bearing pressure of SO psf should be used for shallgw span Footing foundations. In ,addition, the 'Nest foundation for the new structur•c :.s shown to lie adjacent to the upper approximate one-third of the ea3,t wail o" the AiRing residence. We recommend that this' foundation be extftt}M down to thr level of the existing foundation so as not to adversely load tho existing wall, Letter to. -Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 25, 1990 Page 5 Project, Impact, Erosion Control and Risk Considerations The original geotechnical report concluded that a potential for adverse impacts exists For excavation and erosion, and that planning for these aspects of construction should be anticipated. The.current scope of development calls for temporary excavation for foundations and floors, and a generally increased level of earthwork activity. !;le are of the opinion that the .erosion control measures discussed in the Development Considerations section of that report ,are applicable for the revised scope of development. imparts 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 crit_ria discussed in that section are appropriate for the anticipated scope of development. The discussions contained in the Project Impacts and Slope Stability Secti()n= of the original gt�otechnical report are considered appropriate for the revised devO1opment concept. That is, the revised scope of development is not expected to influence the risk as classifications for this site. SEPA Checklist i'he Following Section addresses the itQmS outlined in .earth portion of the ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS section of the SEPA Checklist. 1. Earth a. General description of the site: The -,ite is Steeply Sloped in areas. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope) ? RIP st,-,eper slopes ora the lot drop to the west at about a 671, .grade above and below the dwelling area. Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 6 C. What general types of soils are found on the site? Medium dense, fine to medium grained sand with gravel in the elevation; 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 April 28, 1986 report by Geological Set vices Inc., pages 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 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 surfacf-s after project construction ? (see architectural plans) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to. the earth. ( see page; 2, 3 and a of th i s r! ,)ort a�ideridum) 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 sequenc_� and numbers for the items listed below correspond to the guidelines format. 1. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, prepared by Geological Services Inc., and the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. 2. As above. Also, see accompanying amended site plan. 3. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 for subsurface conditions and characteristics and NI Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 7 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 April 28, 1986 Geotechnical Report. 5. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 8 and 9, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the above report addendum. a. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1.986, 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. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 10, 11 and 12, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in th;; above report addendum. d. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 10 and 11. e. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 12, 13 and 14. f. Refer' to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, pages 9 a-i 10, and page 4 of the revisions thereto contained in the abr,ve report addendum. 9• fn Amy -minion, landslide farces on structures ire frequently of ,uch large magnitude that it is economically impractical to ciesi �i and construct connecting members that would resist these forces. h. See the above cominents on the Earth section of Environmental Elements portion of the SEPA checklist. i. Refer to Site Geotechnical Study dated April 28, 1986, page 9, j. Generally not considered applicable, but is discussed in the Excavation Considerations section of the report addendum (page 3). Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 26, 1990 Page 8 USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY The conclusions and revisions to the recommendations contained in the April 28, 1986 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 for Jean Riggle and her 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 construc_ion safety precautions, and the recorr;rendations are not intended to direct 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 scrape, sched0c and budget for this study, we warrant that our work has been none in accordance with generally ,acceptod practices followed in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. If there are any questions, concerning this report, please call. Yours very truly, J' J 7� G�J.I Keith Cross, P.E. I-E GEOLOGICAL SERVICES Inc. Consulting Geologists April 23, 1986 File No. 863-3 Mrs. Jean Riggle 15714 75th P1. W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 /6- 7 /,V 75 '-�/ Pl- � &,,�s 7- Reference: Site Geotechnical Study Proposed Residential Improvements 75th Place W. Edmonds, Washington Dear Mrs. Riggle: I= 4 PERMIT COUNTER This letter presents the results of a geotechnical study in the area of your residence at 15714 75th Place W., in the Meadowdale.area of Edmonds, Washington. The following discussions summarize our work to date, and present opinions regarding current site conditions and your proposed dwelling expansion. Plans for remodeling of the existing single story, with basement, wood framed dwelling were provided to us in a preliminary building plan drawing dated February 24, 1986, prepared by Mr. Vince Ojalla, project architect. The proposed building scheme indicates that the existing structure will be extended to the east, west and south. These plans indicate that the proposed improvements will involve expansion of the current living level, and construction of new deck areas in the east and west. Expansion of the existing basement area to match the new building dimension is not indicated. At present, support for the expansion area is indicated through a continuous foundation wall system in the east and south, and by columns in the west. Aside from excavations for additional foundations, modifications of existing site grades are not indicated. 613 - 222ND STREET SOUTHWEST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 206 / 481 - 5183 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 2 Authorization for our work was granted on April 14, 1986, by Mr. Vince Ojalla, acting in behalf of the owner. 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. The scope of our study is in general compliance with our proposal letter of March 6, 1986, and included a literature research., site reconnaissance and documentation, subsurface explorations, consultation, engineering evaluations, and the preparation of this report. The Riggle property lies within the area of the Meadowdale landslide complex. 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 . depressed 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 initiation 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 alignment, 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 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 3 effect of the rock mass along the slope toe. More recently, the incor- poration 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 500 foot wide zone which runs roughly parallel to and immediately east of the Burlington Northern Railroad track alignment. Landslide features within this zone are thought to be primarily non - circular failures, 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 th"is 39 year period at least 22 episodes of sliding have been recorded or interpreted to have occurred 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 1985, have been used by city of Edmonds staff in determining general risk assessment and establishing development guidelines for this area. In general, development within the complex area is considered by the city of Edmonds to be conditionally feasible, but will 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 issuance of a building permit for this site. SITE CONDITIONS AND EXPLORATIONS The Riggle property is located 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 property supporting an unfinished dwelling foundation, and on the south by residential property. The property lies to the west of 75th Place W. and is situated on a prominent Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 4 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 about 31 degrees. To the west of the dwelling area, the slope steepens to about 33 degrees between the break in slope (about elevation 70') and the west property margin. A total vertical relief of about 90' is indicated within the property. Our explorations and observations indicate that a quantity of artificial fill underlies the proposed expansion area, and possibly portions of the existing dwelling as well. Interpreted fill depths of 5.0', 4.0', and 4.2' were recorded in explorations HB-1, HB-2, and HB-3 respectively.. Based on current site grades, interpreted fill depths, and the elevation/ position of the existing dwelling;" it would appear that the fill under- lies the dwelling's western one-half (approximate). The fill is comprised of a loose mixture of sands and gravels and includes organic matter in some areas within its upper elevations (2.5' in HB-3). The origin of the fill is unclear, but may have been derived from within the subject lot. Filling along the western steep slope area related to landscaping improvements is observed as well. Tension cracking of the slope surface in the garden area and along downslope areas suggests incipient failure. An arcuate scarp feature, showing an offset of about 12 inches, is observed in the yard of the property to the south (at about elevation 65') and extends northward onto the Riggle property. The depth of these features would appear to be shallow as compared to the surface expression, and most probably involves primarily slope fill and colluvial materials, Within the subject property, ground movement has caused damage to the basement floor of the existing dwelling. The entire history of the Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 5 distress within the existing basement area is not known to us. At present, several inches of vertical displacement and lateral separation of the floor slab within the western basement area has occurred. Realignment and shimming of support columns has been performed to maintain support for the dwelling. Our information indicates that slope movement occurring during the.winter of 1973-74 may account for some of the floor slab damage and an apparent slight eastward tilting of the east basement wall. A second contributing source for basement slab distress could be related to subsidence and displacement of loose fill soils underlying the west building area. While not observed on the Riggle property, areas of springs and surface seepage occur along a low east -west trending drainage depression two lots to the north. Several features interpreted as remnant landslide scarps are noted within the lots immediately north of the Riggle property. Field Explorations All elevations and depths recorded herein are referenced to existing surface grade. Explorations and site features were located by a tape and compass survey. Elevation control was established by interpolation of the site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. 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 March 27, 1986. A total of three (3) power and hand auger borings were placed in and around the proposed expansion area. The locations of our explorations are shown on the accompanying exploration location map, Figure 1. Boring depths ranged from 5.0 to 7.9 feet below existing grade. All explorations were monitored by W.L. Bicket, senior engineering geologist from this office. Records of encountered soil types, conditions and apparent stratigraphy Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 6 were maintained in the field and are summarized in the accompanying Exploration Logs,.Appendix A. Samples obtained in the excavations were visually classified by the geologist in the field. Site Stratigraphy Site subsurface conditions have been interpreted through our exploratory data and site reconnaissance notes. Other exploratory data and infor- mation were used as background material and for correlation purposes. Specifically, the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates study for landslide hazard evaluation,1 and the 1985 GeoEngineers, Inc., appraisal report,2 provided historical documentation and nearby deep boring data. In addition, data from five (5) backhoe pits excavated within the property immediately north were used in our evaluations. In summary, the major slope_feature which supports the Riggle property is comprised of pre-Vashon age sediments. Below about elevation 60' sedi= ments of the Whidbey Formation 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. Locally, the clay elements have been found to be interbedded with medium dense, grey, well -sorted medium sands. Occasional fractures with polished surfaces have been noted within the hard clay seams. Locally, the uppermost portion of the Whidbey Formation is marked by a varved silty clay stratum. This unit was found to have a section thickness of about 5 feet in explorations to the north. This relatively thin zone has been highly -deformed locally, presumably by shearing due to past landsliding. A remnant slide plane 1. Report of "Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA," Roger Lowe & Associates, 1979. 2.. "Report of Geotechnical Consultation, Property Value Appraisals and Assessments, Meadowdale Landslide Area, Edmonds, WA," GeoEngineers Incorporated, 1985. Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 7 has been interpreted to lie approximately between elevations 66 and 58 feet in the lot to the north, and may involve the Riggle property as well. Locally, the Whidby Formation is overlain by a moderate dense to dense, silty, micaceous, fine sand. These sands and gradationally finer micaceous silts were encountered in our explorations. This unit, and related sand strata at higher elevations 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 are seen locally, indicating 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 and interbeds of hard, very fine sandy silts. Ground water encountered within the subject site generally occurs as a zone of saturation within.the fine micaceous sands. 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 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. Mrs .' Ri ggl e File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 8 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 areas. Adverse impacts include: 1) unsupported excavation into the steep slope; 2) filling adjacent to or over steep slope areas; and 3) the uncontrolled discharge of storm, domestic, or surface water within the property. The current dwelling foundation location may be positioned over the 1973-1974 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 landslide events have been recorded locally. Four of these have occurred between 1949 and 1956 within the low wet area two (2) lots to the north. A single event was recorded in the winter of 1973-74 which reportedly involved the Riggle property. It is unclear if the slide plane encoun- tered in explorations to the north 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 throughout the complex should be considered high. The Roger Lowe Associates report of 1979, and a follow-up study by GeoEngineers, Inc., in 1985 have Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 9 developed a general risk assessment format for the Meadowdale 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. According to the risk assessment studies, the dwelling lies within an area which has a poten- tial for ground failure, with a 10 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. To the west, along the steep slope below about elevation 65', an increased probability (35 percent) of failure within a 25-year period has been projected. The risk assessment values developed in the above noted reports would seem reasonable in light of the local history of instability. 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. We understand that excavation for the new addition will be limited to foundation alignments along the east, west and south building margins. In the event that temporary erosion control 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 permanent Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 10 collector system. This system should be separate from wall and/or footing subdrains. 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 slope instability potential will result. Building Foundations Our exploratory data and interpretations indicate that the existing building foundations may be resting on native soils i.n the east, and on fill soils in the west. The adversity of this condition is unclear, as basement walls generally appear intact. As mentioned previously, a slight eastward tilting of the east basement wall is noted. The significance of this condition with the observed floor slab distress and/or past recorded earth movement is unclear, but is most probably interrelated to some degree. In concept, the existing foundation system should be compatible with the proposed improvements and the observed foundation area soils. We recommend that a licensed structural engineer inspect the existing foundation system. The engineer should evaluate the 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 differential 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. Design of the foundation system should accommodate potential ground move- ments (most of which will be differential) 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 relevel-ing is Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 11 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 maintained within any given portion of the foundation. Structural framing should be designed such that its stiff- ness 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. We recommend that the column supports along the west expansion line be designed such ,that the capability of downward vertical loading is minimized. This recommendation is made to allow for downward movement of individual foundations, during slide activity, without imparting a down - drag load to the structure. The observed moderately dense to dense, native, micaceous, fine grained sands and silts should prove suitable for support of spread footing foundations. The depths/elevations at which these materials were encountered range between 4 and 5 feet below present grade in the areas explored (see Figure 1, and Table II in Appendix A). An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf could be used for shallow footings founded upon the above native site soils. Our suggested soil bearing capacity uses a factor of safety of 2.5 and is based on the following conditions: 1. All footings should be founded on the above noted soils at a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent finished grade. 2. All footing excavations should be dressed and thoroughly compacted. A dense, non -yielding uniform soil condition should be established in all footing areas prior to placement of footing concrete. 3. All footings should be sized according to the anticipated wall or column loadings, and the above soil bearing value. Minimum footing widths of 12,and 18 inches are recommended for all continuous and isolated footings, respectively. Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 12 4. All footings should be free of ponded water and water loosened soils prior to placement of footing concrete. Inspection of the footing and floor slab areas should be performed by the consultant prior to placement of concrete so as to confirm proper condition- ing. An increase of 1/3 for the recommended bearing capacity may be assumed to accommodate short-term dynamic loads. Pressures on Subqrade 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" condition be assumed, and that an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 lbs. per cubic foot be used for design purposes. For yielding walls, the "active" condition may be assumed and an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 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 Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 13 the backside of the wall. This material should be as described in Table I below. TABLE I Filter Gravel Backfill for Drains Sieve Size % Passing by Weight 1 1/2" 100 3/4'' 70 - 90 1/4" 30 - 60 No. 8 20 - 50 No. 30 8 - 30 No. 50 3 - 12 No. 200 0 - 1.2 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 permeability 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. The effect of surcharges, such as traffic or floor loads, should also be considered. For a uniformly distributed load behind the wall, a corresponding uniformly distributed pressure equal to 30 percent or 50 percent of the surcharge should be added to the lateral soil pressure for yielding 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 friction coefficient o•f 0.4 is considered appropriate for the expected foundation soils. An ultimate passive pressure of 300 pcf is available Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 14 for the native micaceous fine sand.and silt site soils. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to base friction and passive pressure values used to resist sliding. USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY We have prepared this report for use by Mrs. Jean Riggle and her agents for their use in planning and design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and inter- pretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are changes in the grades, locations, configuration, or type of construction for the improvements, the conclusions and recommendations presented may not be applicable. If design changes are made, we request that we be given the opportunity to review our conclusions and recom- mendations and to provide a written modification or verification. The scope of our wort: does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not i-ntended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variables in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted Mrs. Riggle File No. 863-3 April 28, 1986 Page 15 practices followed in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, GEOLOGICAL SERVICES, I Uj �a �t� C. Walter L. Bicket Professional Engineering Geologist J. Keith Cross, P.E. Geotechnical Engineering Consultant ®v,•sseoe0e ®� AEI TH a0 � ®p o: i o si o m i B Q/STER+.•° t� v �66Y �s10NA1 �� ®a 6 0 EP 5 O I-1 863-3 APRIL 1986 GEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. FIGURE 1 APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS TABLE II EXPLORATION DATA SUMMARY Exploratory Exploratory Bearing Ground Water Boring Boring/Pit Exploration Fill Soils Seepage Pit No. Elev.(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) HB-1 74.0 7.9 5.0 5.0 None HB-2 69.0 7.2 4.0 6.0 None HB-3 86.0 5.0 4.2 4.2 None TB-6 110.0 76.7 -- -- -- EP-1 75.0 19.0 -- -- -- EP-2 64.0 10.0 -- -- -- EP-3 88.0 6.7 -- -- -- EP-4 76.0 4.6 -- -- -- EP-5 104.0 4.0 -- -- __ 1. All depths are referenced to existing site grades. 2. Elevations are based on interpolation of the'site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. 3. All fill depths refer to existing uncontrolled fill soils and may include intermixed or modified native ground. 4. Exploration Nos. TB-6, EP-1, EP-2, EP-3, EP-4, and EP-5 are associated with nearby, previously studied areas, and have been used for stratigraphic correlation purposes. 863-3 April 1986 Jean Riggle Property HAND BORING EXPLORATION LOGS HBL-1 Elevation - 74' 0.0' - 5.0' Loose, brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sandy Artificial Fill, poorly sorted. 5.0' - 7.1' Loose to medium dense, brown, mottled, silty, very fine sand, damp to moist, micaceous, uniform. becomes grey beyond about 6.8'. -- grades into -- 7.1' - 7.9' Firm, grey, mottled, very fine sandy silt, moist, micaceous. TD @ 7.9', 3-27-86 HB-2 Elevation 69' 0.0' - 4.0' Loose, grey brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand, I moist to wet, poorly sorted, occasional cobbles. 4.0' - 6.0' Firm, grey, mottled, very fine sandy clayey silt, moist to wet, hard digging with hand auger. -- grades into -- 6.0' - 7.0' Medium dense, grey brown, silty very fine sand to very fine sandy silt, wet to saturated, micaceous. -- grades into -- 7.0' - 7.2' Medium dense, grey brown, fine sand, wet, micaceous. TD @ 7.2' 3-27-86 863-3 April 1985 Jean Riggle Property HBL- 1 HAND BORING EXPLORATION LOGS (Continued) HB-3 Elevation 86.0' 0.0' - 2.5' Loose, dark brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium, sandy Artificial Fill, damp to moist, poorly sorted, fine organics in matrix. 2.5' - 4.2' As above, organics clear from matrix, Artificial Fill, damp to moist. 4.2' - 5.0' Very stiff, grey to grey brown, very fine sandy silt, damp, native soils. Refusal to power auger @ 4.6'. TD @ 5.0', 3-27-86 863-3 April 1985 Jean Riggle Property HBL-2 NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRED IFEB 06 Zoos BOB MTINI, Snohnsh Cwntp Tieas 1 By qQ 3 DANTINI `••�� •'�.� IIIi�I��IIIiIIN111�1181i1III�I1111iiNlllll�ll811� 2 2a12o 6 PGS CITY'LlzAIE�. ' SNOH09ISH COUN1�m NAASNINGtON CITY OP..EDMONDS 121 STH AYENUa-140. EDMONDS, WA•'880M ........•..• GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR INGRESS •AND..•l♦G�ESS DURYNG CONSTRUCTION .......... 1. EFFECTIVE DATES' '•J"UNE''. 1 , 1991. 2. PARTIES: _• A. HARRISON JEWLLI,•{owne�•'of burdened property) B. JEAN C. RIGGLE",(oWrier of bepef.ited property) 3. PROPERTIES: ze9a I: ae,,5, -TwN J'I Q•q, IQQ,4el t4a. Oa51310400rp2. BENEFITED PROPERTIES: A. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED- AERFTb 7S �L W BURDENED: B. SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HEAETb 4. GRANT OF EASEMENT: HARRISON JEWELL, as owner of the burdenefl`.ptaperty, hereby grants to JEAN C. RIGGLE, her heirs, suGcesipovs and assigns, as owners of the benefited property, a non=LrgCxusive casement for ingress and egress over and across theSw�^�-.2� `.feet of the above -described burdened property for the purpore.bf ,access during the course of construction of improvements%.•benefited property. This easement is granted on the condition, and subjec- to the owner of the benefited property: a) Protecting the burdened property and any.:impi•ovAments thereon from damage during the course of constructibrs: ;:`:,......• b) Saving and holding harmless the owner of 'tIie 'burSt�n�d property from any and all claims and/or liens by third Par-tifkpi. c) Restoring the area of the easement to the coitidi fxgp' ;'t was in immediately prior to the commencement of construction 1 d) Exerting his best efforts to conclude all construction :.act-ivity in an expeditious manner. 5:;• jNFORCEABILITY: ThP Easement hereby granted to the owner of the benefited pr6�"rtabove described may be enforced by the present as well as •;thA future owners of the above described benefited property. 6. �04SID6ATZ&. All par'tie's agree that each has received good and valuable cons ider4tion•`inauutual benefits as a result of having entered into this agreeipent. ` .... .......... 7. SSIGNATURF}$ 8. AC OWLEDGEMERtS:... STATE OF WASHINGTON SS •. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I kgow Pr hAve satisfactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed.•this.'instrument and acknowledged to be HER free and voluntary act fox"•th0"uAias and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this 7 `day of.:��ne,• 1991. OTARY PUBLIC" in.. a_nd for the State of Washington, :• ;' Commission Expires,;,,, k -q y . -'�i .Staff °E '� . _ r. d) AkeX.tii`rit� -his best efforts to conclude all construction activity trn% •an•.•expeditious manner. S. ENFORC&` B�1 YL•ITY., `• The Easement h4h :ranted to the owner of the benefited_ property above °de5cribeoyi y to enforced by the present as well as the future ownehs_o j3ie above described benefited property. 6. CONSIDERATION: All parties agree thi t:.each has: received good and valuable . consideration in mutual bftefits as a.••fesult of having entered into this agreement. 7. SIGNATURES• 8. AC OWLEDGEMENTS: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING J I hereby certify that I know or have pat..VfActory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed this instrument a tnd•'acki9owledged to be HER free and voluntary act for the uses and'15urpo'sed,.mentioned in the instrument. DATED this �_ day of Mne OTARY PUBLIC in and for the..tateof Washington. commission Expires: j),;y,g•y;• 5 ON r1P� iik�� 40 04. to d '�� .STATE► °� ..�. 3 AT9..OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. •COUNTY; `OF KING ) . r7 hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence ' th,7t IfA2ISbN JEWELL has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be hi$.._ -f're�:. aztd voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in ''the instrument,, DATED. -this % -:� day of _fie, 1991. 40TY PUBLIC in and for the State of � ��;..��...,,,,�s� ,� WASHINGTON, '`,•` �N Ai,�j�. * ate' Commission Expires: v , wqrP1 i .u.pdUN` cp ? + .ory4A EXHIBIT "A" The ,06rth 45•, feet of Lots 5, Block 28 of the Plat ,df Mez1ddwdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 of PlakEs, '. Page:•' `38, records of Snohomish Coun t, "'W siiirsq om'. Together with a portion of vaCaated,,.315th-•Avenue West lying adjacent. i; EXHIBIT "B" The •,.south 13. feet of Lot 5 plus the vacated street..:='"'Thy North 30 feet of Lot 6 plus vacated street :of block 28 of the Plat of Meaddwd dip •$ea*h• "'recorded in Volume 5 of Plats,`-•paje-"3$.;•' records of Snohomish County, Washingt,ch. '% r NO EXCISE TAX 1�111�8111NI�i I�I�I8I81l�lIIiIIVIIIIIBII11llllll REQUIRED 2�@I�211207 4 PGS FEB,06 2006 SNOHOP'9 SH6COl11idTYm RASHINGTON BOB DANTINI snohoush County TMINCI ` � ' • pQ¢ pANTINI ... ..�._L1TY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS� e "' 12LETH.AVENUE N0. I EDIkONDS, WA 98020 "j 6Kl MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT ' ,PHIS AGREED §qT-., made and entered into by and between HARRISON JEWELL.f'irst"pirty,,..end JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the partie§_•'ageeeipg for themselves, their heirs, . executors', administrators.An* d •assigns. Leda I" Sea 5, TWA ar7, w i Tx E s s:E H: : ,P RCe No. Oo5i31oagoo.5a� WHEREAS•, the partle§•;•Hereto are owners of adjoining real estate hereiniei6i. clesdribed and located in EDMONDS, .SNOHOMISH County, WashingtQn•and WHEREAS, the part14i-'ha,Ve 4•',common boundary and desire to share the use of `a.,.commori';easement for purposes of providing drainage and utilities:/to`•theiY respective properties, and WHEREAS, the parties wishing to formalize the common usage by a Grant of Easement, one to the piper,., for purposes of a common drainage and utility easement.,.' NOW, THEREFORE, it is he4eby.."reed 'as follows: I. First party is the owner-oE the"ft7llowinq described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "A" attached 2. Second party is the owner oP`•the`fbllowi6V described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "B" attached 3. First party hereby grants to the';•secWia party, her successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement:,,ov'er,;•'under and across the real estate owned by the first party and"dbsc}+.i,ped in paragraph 1 above for ,"' - purposes of drainage and ut3lit�}%�access to second party's property described in paragra0h'1'2::'aboye bnd existing structures thereon. This easement is intende4-iQAen0iit and be appurtenant to second party Is property and to rqn Wit3i the ". .. land, and includes the right of ingress and egress to serv.71ce•.the' drainage and utilities. a. Second party hereby grants to the .first party,--ht-d successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under r. A. i MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT 'PHIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between HARRISON :'`JEWEIiP first party, and JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the p�•YVi:es 'agreeing for themselves, their heirs, executors, " adinir istra1tors;..4nd assigns. W I.-T., N EIS S E T H: WkI-gRE�X .'the 'parties hereto are owners of adjoining real estate',.6ereinbelpw..-a-escribed and located in EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH County, Washfnc,*ton. ,and WHEREAS, tfi�• parties have a common boundary and desire to share the use;' of`'•'- dommon easement for purposes of providing drainage and lktilitiee .A their respective properties, and WHEREAS, the 'pat'ties wishing to formalize the common usage by a Grant of Easement,"oae Ito'the other, for purposes of a common drainage and utility.. easement, NOW, THEREFORE, flt i$`'h-teby'agreed as follows:. 1. First party iS;.Che.owner of the following described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "A" attached 2. Second party is the'•pwrier of ttA_, following described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "B" attached 3. First party . hereby grants._to .ihe second party, her successors and assigns a nonexclusive easgmp n� over, under and across the real estate owned by the first party and described in paragraph 1 above, for purposes of drairi4ge;mr1i'utlity access to second party's property described in pat*agpdph`2`: above, and. existing structures thereon. This easement is:•intpnded%t:o benefit and be appurtenant to second party Is property �and' to, -'run "With the land, and includes the right of ingress and egress,;to service the drainage and utilities. 4. Second party hereby grants to the first party, ills successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over,;'urfd r.: and aotoss 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 �.' •strudtures thereon. This easement is intended to benefit and be ;apourtenant to first party's property and to run with the land, and ;"ncluais e; •right of ingress and egress to service the drainage anti.• u�rlyties,,: •.:-' 5. ; 'TM `easehtents herein granted are for the purposes of 1. creating ,.adegkiate-' sower and other drainage and utility service common to.- •••irea.f estate owned by both parties hereto, said real estate being;,a6,q,V described, and shall be limited to a 20' parcel, that is 10' on either side.of the common drain lines. 6. The•, patties',' '•their successors and assigns shall contribute equall,.y"" to" the expenses of reasonable repair and r maintenance to and utilities. DATED this , ciay~ o 1991. 01 arr1. ison ell, 'First Party Riggle, SOWnd Party STATE OF WASHINGTON ) jss. ............ COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have '.sAisfAc•'tory evidence that Harrison Jewell signed this instrument.. and'•.acknow-.edged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses%-and*.:purpd'ses mentioned in this instrument. DATED �ine, 7+ t 991 TARY PUBI41'1C iya�nd :for the State of Washington.""• commission Expir-ds .I 26-4 y t�A r�`T\ - SfAtE .' �'' S;4!rE:'OF WI�SHINGTON ) ' ) ss. COQNT%f`OF,•XIN'G ) • I Gerti,.fy:'tlt6t`,z know or have satisfactory evidence that Jean C. Riggie pigned thi5.instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and vo'luaitar act- f•f the uses and purposes mentioned -in this instrument,.' ,•, DATiD OTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. •'�y A j Commission Expires /haT 4-9 y 3 i 7- :' . '> _ • -- --. EXCtSE TAX . 6II�II�II�II�I�BfI�NI��IlI19I�II�IIII REQUIREa IUItlI� ,FEB 06 2006 2pp�p�pp1pp112@7 4 PGS @2i07114'6 4 m 00 SN0H0M15N CO HINGT0N BOB oaNTINI SnotlotRsll Connly ileoswa '•• � 9 SQS nnN71Nl ,•_ Y CITY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS T2LEMAVENU NO. EDIk0NDS. WA 98020 MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT GIN HIS 4GRE4N4 qT., made and entered into by and between HARRISON JEWELL.f•irst•"pOFty,..end JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the partierr, ayreeipq for themselves, their heirs, executors, adminxstt`ators;•4'" assigns. Lerea i See_ 5, TWtJ a�7, Cy w I T x E S S [E N: r:P RCt' i No. Do5i31oagoo 5oa , WHEREAS; UIP, partly ..-iereto are owners of adjoining real estate hereinllei6i,-4eq-dribed and located' in EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH County, Washington ;and WHEREAS, the parties, ha,Ve 4-%common boundary and desire to share the use of a. common ��asament for purposes of providing drainage and utilities/to•`theiY respective properties, and WHEREAS, the particP wehang to formalize the common usage by a Grant of Easement, one to the Other,: fpr purposes of a common drainage and utility easement, NOW, THEREFORE, it is he eby,agYeed•as follows: 1. First party is the owner oP`tMti'ft71lowing described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "A" attached 2. Second party is the owner oflt4e`f6ilowii o described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "B" attached 3. First party hereby grants to the;Aec4OZI.party, her successors and assigns a nonexclusive easertsnt*�ov`er,:•'under, and across the real estate owned by the first part'i and d6"scrUed in paragraph i 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 intendQ51 tQ:benefit and be appurtenant to second party's property and to rqn {xtt3i•the `. land, and includes the right of ingress and egress to serv.•ice•.t%e' drainage and utilities. 1. 4. Second party hereby grants to the _first party, 'hie successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between HARRISON 'JEWELL` first party, and JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the pY�ies egreeing for themselves, their heirs, executors, ac: ini.sv ators and assigns. W I:T':NE,..S'SETH: w$REA&,•;"the `parties hereto are owners of adjoining real estate',•iiereinbelpw •described and located in EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH County, �ashington,.and WHEREAS;tfe t:-parties have a common boundary and desire to share the use,-: of -a: dommon easement for purposes of providing drainage and utilities ;•tq:their respective properties, and WHEREAS, the"'p4itle5•wishing to formalize the common usage by a Grant of Easemebt,- one`:to~ the other, for purposes of a common drainage and utility easement, NOW, THEREFORE, it is h� eby"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*'Vwrfer,af•tiA& 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" dasgmpni; over, under and across the real estate owned by the first party and described in paragraph 1 above, for purposes of draiigq.e;And'utxlity access to second party's property described in pair'agpaph" 2`% above, and existing structures thereon. This easement is:intgiided',to benefit and be appurtenant to second party I s property Va xd` to,-Yun '.with the - land, and includes the right of ingress and egress;to service the drainage and utilities. 4. Second party hereby grants . to the first ,}7axty,_ P,is successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over,;•udd r.: and R ' apt oss the real estate owned by the second party and described in =' pBYagraph 2 above, for purposes of drainage and utility access to ftxst•, party's property described in paracjr'aph 1 and existing .dtrudtures thereon. This easement is intended to benefit and be ap{�urtena�t to first party's property and to run with the land, and ;nciuclis th!e. •right of ingress and egress to service the drainage anal _utilytie�,:' :: ' ..d. : 'T t easefients herein granted are for- the purposes of creatSng .adeq?tate. sewer and other drainage and utility service common to.-'thw-rea-] estate owned by both parties hereto, said real estate bei- g,.-above described, and shall be limited to a 20' parcel, .that is 10' on either side..of the common drain lines. 6. The', I5liTtiez,%'-6eir successors and assigns shall contribute equally to expenses expenses of reasonable repair and maintenance to tiig-`goittin9n.:drainage and utilities. DATED this � day~o9� 1991. arXison ell, First Party C. Riggle, SOWnd Party STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . ----- COUNTY OF RING ) I certify that I know or have ',sAipfictory evidence that Harrison Jewell signed this instrument•.and'acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses"ard*..urpo'ses mentioned in this instrument. DATED _,Nine , % { / 9 9 TARY PUBIJC in*- Arid :for the State of Washington. commission Expizds 0 S tAl s' .. t ST4E.'OF *.WAjSHINGTON ) )ss. COL1NTY`OF.,XiNG ) Z ee'rt;.ty:th6E`;E know or have satisfactory evidence that Jean C. Riggle pigned this, instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and vo'luaitary act"•: far the uses and purposes mentioned -in this instrument,.' DATED; OTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. of �a Commission Expires Op , y.. •l 1 3 ' CITY CLERK CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS. WA 98020 12 QUIT CLAIM DEED NO ,EXCME '1AA UUt7 $2.00 Treasurer's Feo Required .,a, ia1,92 JUL 28 1992 KIRKSnoh wish CoUdy 1 EI�1 By Dep THE GRANTOR, Jean C. Riggle, for and in consideration of mutual benefits to be derived, convey and quit claim to the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation, the followi.ng 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 South fifteen (15) feet of Lot 5, and the East ten (10) feet of the North thirty (30) feet of Lot 6, Block 28, of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach, Volume 5, Page 38, Snohomish County, -Washington, together with a portion of 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. THIS IS A CORRECTION TO DEED FILED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9110010252 DATED this / day of , 19 61,4— u1 - M co ' 1t1TATE'--_41= WASHINGTON) z tf, I> ss COUNT�fFNOHOMISH) STREET FILE CT `� C:> bX, tihs day personally appeared before me w o and `1 Z to me known to b the individu ) described in and who exec d the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged t at 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 E/TXTFORMS NOTARY PUBLIC in and fffVthe State of Washington, residing.at MY COMMk5SION EXPIRES 3-1-93 VOL. 2 6 6 2'PAGE 12 2 4 :«� 1-15 PL w QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR, Jean C. Riggle, 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: C„ The East ten (10) feet of the South fifteen (15) feet of Lot 5, and the East ten (10) feet of Lot 6, Block 28,'.of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach, Volume 5, Page 38, Snohomish County, Washington, together with a portion of 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 C, connection with the construction, maintenance or improvement of the above -described real property for purposes of a public roadway. DATED this 2 3 day of v d 19 17/ r STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss STREET FILE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me and to me known to be t e individuO s) described -in and who execute the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that %V� signed the same as hkik-7 free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 43yz�- day of 19 q �I v FIRMS WIG" W 01-1 7 O r Zo a (7N '4 Z .LI Utd -7152 -&AX--, Q . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the tate of Washington, residing at �? LO NO EXCISE TAX DUE $2.00 Treasurer's Fee Required b /tea 71 OCT 1 1991 �iRU SI R SAO is(oua � iy lreaswer By Deputy •YOL 24.87PAGE1423 GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS DURING -CONSTRUCTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 1 , 1991. 2. PARTIES• A.. HARRISON JEWELL (owner of burdened property) B. ' JEAN C. RIGGLE (owner of benefited property) 3. PROPERTIES: BENEFITED PROPERTIES: A. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO BURDENED: 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 ther,-�k�le-ly20 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 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 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 ;T,jne- , 1991. AMY4 PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires: -q y 2 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 1991. OTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of , , A WASHINGTON, y *�N Ark •.. Commission Expires: �G 97 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. 1 • 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. QUAST 15714 — 75"' Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 August 12, 2000 City of Edmonds Building Division Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf 121 — 5`' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION REFUND OF DEPOSITED MONIES; PLAN CHECK #00-326 Dear Ms. Graf Please withdraw my application, submitted on August 4, 2000, for an accessory dwelling compliance permit and refund all deposited monies (see enclosed copy of receipt #15986 for $353). When I submitted the application, I was unaware of the nature of the amnesty program and of the terms and conditions required for approval. Following discussions with the plan examiner (Ms. Tricia Bennon) on August 11, 2000, receipt of additional literature, and a review of the requirements, it is clear that we do not qualify for a permit under the amnesty program. I do not currently have an accessory dwelling unit. The space we had identified as a possible accessory dwelling unit exceeds 800 square feet. We do not choose to make the necessary modifications to our home to meet the requirements of an accessory dwelling unit. Sincerely, 5 John T. Quast Eric]: copy of receipt me Is9,3 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Mr. Jim Riggle 15714 75t' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development y 4'1J BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 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 V • Ihc.18o)0 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant September 16, 1998 Jim Riggle 15714 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Re: Home Owners Insurance Policy As you may recall, the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Area Ordinance requires homeowners to post and maintain a policy of general public liability insurance. This insurance is required for a period of not more than 10 years from the date of final approval (occupancy was granted on 4/8/93). According to City records, your certificate of insurance has expired. At your earliest convenience please inform your insurance company that a current copy be provided to the City. As a reminder, the policy must be for general public liability insurance naming the City as additional named insured against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from, or out of, the City's involvement in the permitting process for the project in the amount of one million dollars. The policy shall also state that the City will be notified 30 days in advance of policy cancellation. Note, this requirement of insurance is transferable to any and all owners within the 10 year period. If you have recently sold your property, please notify the City in writing of the name of the new owners. Please contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement. Thank you, Vivienne Myers Permit Specialist O Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering June 13, 1997 Jim Riggle 15714 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Re: Home Owners Insurance Policy BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR As you may recall, the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Area Ordinance requires homeowners to post and maintain a policy of general public liability insurance. This insurance is required for a period of not more than 10 years from the date of final approval (occupancy was granted on 4/8/93). According to City records, your certificate of insurance expired on 12/4/91. At your earliest convenience please inform your insurance company that a current copy be provided to the City. • As a reminder, the polic y y must be for o general public liability insurance naming the City as additional named insured against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from, or out of, the City's involvement in the permitting process for the project in the amount of one million dollars. The policy shall also state that the City will be notified 30 days in advance of policy cancellation. Note, this requirement of insurance is transferable to any and all owners within the 10 year period. If you have recently sold your property, please notify the City in writing of the name of the new owners. Please contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement. Thank you, Lara Knaak Permit Coordinator cc: Travelers Insurance Company is Building Official 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 O Sister Cities International—.Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR 7110 - 210TH ST. SW • EDMONDS, WA 98026 • (206) 771.0..235 • FAX (206) 744-6047 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT — PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION Y 8 9 0- 19 C) February 1, 1995 Jean Riggle 15714 - 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: NON -BIODEGRADABLE PRODUCTS AND GREASE BUILDUP IN YOUR GRINDER PUMP Dear Resident: On January 30, 1995, city crews identified a large quantity of prophylactics in your tank along with large quantities of grease. These items are not allowed in this system and can cause failure to the operation of the system. Please refrain in disposing any non - biodegradable products into the system. We realize that grease is biodegradable and is a substance that will be a part of cooking and cleaning. Please try to remember not to dump grease down if possible and to discard it to your garbage as much as possible. As a result of these products, failure of the pump will be the responsibility of the homeowner for all damages incurred. Attached is a letter that may help you better understand the system you have. Sincerely, Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Street Address File Attachment wordata\sewer\15714 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 89p., 0 (1(apy 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 October 10, 1994 FirstName)) « LastName» «Address 1» City)),<<State)) « PostalCode» Dear Resident: Phone:<<HomePhone» This letter is being sent to you with two purposes; the first being we would like you to check your name, address, and phone number so we may assure our records are correct. If they are not correct, please call or send a notice showing your corrected information. The second is to remind 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 to 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 • 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 holidays, 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 wordatAseweAgrinder 89p-194 *STREET FILE 0 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 June 1, 1993 J. Riggie 15714 - 75th P1. 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. 0 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Si00.r Cities International — Hekinan. Japan 0 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, Q-1 % t&o Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc• Everett Akau RH/lk GRIND/LT/TXTSEWER • 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 89p_1q March 9, 1993 Jean Riggle 15714 75th Pl. W. Edmonds WA 98026 Dear Ms. Riggle: .S LAURA M. HALL �`=T MAYOR"+ I have made an inspection on your property to determine whether or not your landscaping installation was sufficient for erosion control and bank stabilization. This inspection revealed that the south and the west sides of the property have been sufficiently landscaped, but that the north side of the property has insufficient protection from erosion. It is apparent that some landscaping which thrive on steep slopes and in shady area have been planted in this area, however, these plantings are insufficient in quantity to protect the slope from erosion_ Therefore, the Planing Division is requiring that you install additional vine and shrub type plantings as well as a bark mulch on the slope north of the newly constructed and remodeled building_ The vines and shrubs must be a type which grow well on a steep slope in a shady area. The plantings must also be installed according to the requirements of the city of Edmonds Landscape Ordinance (ECDC § 20.12). Please find the enclosed copy of the aforementioned code section and a a reference sheet indicating acceptable types of plantings. The City of Edmonds will be unable to release your bond or final your building permit for occupancy until the required work is completed_ Since you have already occupied your building, and are therefore in violation of the Building Code, the City must require a deadline for the completion of the required work. In this case the work must be completed no later than April 9, 1992. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division C. Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 S Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO SEPT. 17, 1991 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 3, 1991 The regular 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 St., 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 John Nordquist, Councilmember Jeff Palmer, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember MNCFNT AnrmnG RAGE SEP � 6 1991 ENG�N�ERlN� STAFF Bob Alberts, City Engineer Peter Hahn, Commun. Svs. Dir. Tom King, Facilities Supervisor Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coord. Noel Miller, Public Works Super. Dan Prinz, Police Chief Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief Rob Chave, Planning Div. Mgr. Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Karin Noyes, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 1991 AND AUGUST 27, 1991 ,.� (C) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LINDA KLEIN ($378.70) AND JEFF BARNES ($383.62) (D) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ASSOCIATED SAND & GRAVEL CO., INC., ON 1991 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD �.✓� (E) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. ON SENIOR CENTER SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (F) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY MID -PAC CONSTRUCTION, INC., ON RESURFACING PROJECT OF TENNIS ✓ COURTS IN YOST PARK, SEAVIEW PARK, AND CIVIC CENTER, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD a (G) ACCEPT OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 10-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM JEAN C. RIGGLE AT "- 15714 74TH LACE WEST (H) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 10-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM GERALD AND SARAH BERNSTEIN AT 15912 75TH PLACE WEST trtAx I) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 26, 1991 FOR CARPETING FOR THE LIBRARY PLAZA ROOM AND AWARD TO INSIDERS, LIMITED ($5,831.63 INCLUDING SALES TAX) I (J) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON EXPANSION OF EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH AT 20406 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANTS: GLORIA S. KENNEDY/AP-6-91 AND LEE KIRK, AGENT FOR EDGEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH/AP-10-91) (K) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2847 LIMITING PARKING ON 102ND PL. W. BETWEEN EDMONDS WAY AND ✓ P EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL AUDIENCE Jim Bartlett, 21420 96th Avenue, said the City is currently working on improvements to their street. which includes a sidewalk. They were told by Jim Walker last fall, that they would be given the opportunity to discuss these improvements with the City staff prior to the work being C T r E MINUTES SUBJECT TO ER 1, 1991 APPROVAL ET FILE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL 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 EC E! V 3 Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor. S Dan Prinz, Police Chief 2 U 1991 Bob Alberts, City Engineer Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent.ENGINEERING 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. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Palmer requested Item (B) (September 10 Minutes only) be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST 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 Cio4,,9,0 (C) ACKNOOWLEDGEMENT 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. (.E) CORRE{FACCEPjT!ANGE OF. QUIT CLAIM _`DEED_ FOR 10 FOOT STREET 'DEDICATION FROM JEAN C. 'F t% RIGGLE ;LTJAT-15714 75th Pl. W. �zr — (F) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 10-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM HARRISON JEWELL AT 15706 75TH PLACE WEST (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. REET Fe EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO 0 Item number: Originator: Robert J. Alberts For Action: x For Information: SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF TEN FOOT STREET DEDICATION (QUIT CLAIM DEED) FROM JEAN C. RIGGLE AT 1.5714 - 75TH PL. W. AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: September 3, 1991 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Copy of Ten Foot Street Dedication (Quit Claim Deed) earances: Dept./Indiv./Im y als ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE_ UP CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK 11 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: The ten foot street dedication (Quit Claim Deed) 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 ten foot street dedication (Quit Claim Deed) from Jean C. Riggle. COUNCIL ACTION: RIGGLE/TXTAGNDA 0 0 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR, Jean C. Riggle, 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 South fifteen (15) feet of Lot 5, and the East ten (10) feet of Lot 6, Block 28, of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach, Volume 5, Page 38, Snohomish County, Washington, together with a portion of 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 this day of 19 17/ STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me and to me known to be the individu s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that SL'u - 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 3t day of 19 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the tate of Washington, residing at Co 6�4g� � Lk_) A RIGGLE/TXTFORMS :�,•CNni ; l�:,9 CLtJZo FILE QUIT CLAIM DEED HE T THE GRANTOR, Jean C. Riggle, 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 South fifteen (15) feet of Lot 5, and the East ten (10) feet of Lot 6, Block 28, of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach, Volume 5, Page 38, Snohomish County, Washington, together with a portion of 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 this day of 19 7/ STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me, y_ . v and to me known to be t e individu s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that C;�1_ 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 7 3 oez- day of ��- 19 Cu- _&Au J - )I-n () C=_� NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the, tate of Washington, residing at Mtn CL L o R RIGGLE/TXTFORMS FlLE G, Unr,- C-,7Td--'12 *mewl /" 64tw- 'l �j�f V� coin TI ;leneer National Title Insurance Company WASHINGTON TITLE DIVISION sd for Record at Request of 11 THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE: Quit Claim Deed THE GRANTOR —JEAN el. for and in consideration of convey and quit claim to 'r,4t F C. It 7- Y ZIP E 0 M U /V O S the following described real estate, situated In the County of S IV vH o M r S N State of Washington including any interest therein which grantor may hereafter acquire: �o FT vF sr5�rca7-3 Ai3aFr LoT (o C3LaCK a ,q pJ/9CENT To 7-H PL !� y'p L 4- S N o !-to M IS f( C U rat 7—y KA.514 / !V C_-r,6 N !!VENUE STAMPS FORM Lae R together with the right to make all necessary cut or fill slopes on the land of grantors 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 thie��..We ys-.Z- day of �%L�,:t�a.-�ii / 9' 9' / '�.. .III i ..T ot J P ;z NOTARy STATFIjtU�,' A9HNG County ogt On this day personally appeared before me G/-eQ <`J� to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that ��-Q— signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my band and official seal this dazd REST FILE NooR, STREET FILID EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVEVUTES March 23, 1993 THESE MINUTES WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 6, 1993 The work meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember* Michael Hall, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jeff Palmer, Councilmember Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember Sara Belz, Student Representative STAFF Paul Mar, Community Srv. Dir Art Housler, Admin. Srv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bob Alberts, City Engineer Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Rec. Mgr. Rhonda March, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barb Mehlert, Recorder Before approval of the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Palmer noted an item was unintentionally omitted from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, TO SET THE DATE OF APRIL 6, 1993 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU- SIONS OF LAW ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S. DECISION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING AT 1110 DALEY PLACE (FILE NOS. AP-93-2 & CU-92-1.78) Under discussion, City Attorney Scott Snyder noted the item will be posted as a "Council Delibera- ti'on". MOTION CARRIED with Council President Earling abstaining as he did not participate in the subject hearing. Councilmember Dwyer arrived at 7:02 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN- CILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items are as follows: l S (A) ROLL CALL rCILfi k5 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS FOR WEEK OF MARCH 15, 1993 V (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY (E) RESOLUTION 765 OF COMMENDATION FOR RETIRING FIRE CAPTAIN.EARL BARNARD (F) RESOLUTION 766 ESTABLISHING PROCUREMENT POLICY (G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM CHARLES AND BETTY LANTZ FOR ✓ 207TH PL. S.W. (H) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM DAVID DENIKE AT 8504 218TH L✓ ST. S.W. (I) RESOLUTION 767 SETTING HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20 FOR LID 213 FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ✓ (J) REPORT ON QUOTES TO REPLACE BACK STOP AT CITY PARK AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION FROM ECONOMY FENCE ($2,643.42) U (K) AUTHORIZATION TO.°VACATE,, WEST 10.FEET OF CITY RIGHT -OF;: AY TOAN RIGGLE AT 15714 - 75TH PL. W., AND' HARRISON JEWELL AT 15706 75TH PL. W. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1993 (Item (B) on the Consent Agenda COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, FOR APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 16, 1993 COUNCIL MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTIONS NOTED IN A MEMO FROM THE COUNCIL ASSISTANT. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Hall said she would like the Council to reconsider their prior action of designating sta- tion wagons for staff use instead of the sedans they requested. Mayor Hall said Staff has ascer- tained that the sedans more fit their needs, and the station wagons cost between.$800 and $1,000 more per vehicle. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS TO: Permit Coordinator, Building Division FROM: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector OWNER: ?4"4- ADDRESS: 157 (4- —KVw')PL W After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements mustbe met. PLAN CK # Z*3 DATE: IA4=4�f AM 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 IS FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROMANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACIL- ITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS REPSONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30.SOG) 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, TIGHTLINES, 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 mainlines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connection to the City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is required. LID# Z-!© Fees paid: Yes No to ' - Charge (ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction; and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50 % of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.05.010) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS IEDPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. R(E DC18 90)RIOR TO THE BS1"! I 1 TING OCCU- 19. S ' Gc rr,G��J2f!3zfT/Gi✓ jicJ �_ �7isi � �7c, -7 20. "YISF �C�ZiuC-7Z"�t iu� � /AL/ A 'sl Fi , ��-sfir9i4A-rl oN (�� I I 5;T4. t- t,v. 1.P: 3 ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE, ■■■'..■■.■■■■■■.■■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■.■■■■■.■■■.■■■■.■.■.■..■■■.■ UNIT UNIT LTEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK ISSUE QTY COST • TOTAL :30 ' .: 5 Z 17 _ 24'.. 2 .. �1?►!1oV� IL'.'.. Sln&4 Bev Z 7o. . 3. I LAT;, . pew .(V ;sroem ' . lb�ofedcy-Lp u� :.. 5�,:►�rr+ .Sr�v�,+z..: L►►�� w bYGI. L Au ACO : %VA t&Z. U JF—.. .: • . 1. F Lar7 . 30 q Sty . 7 , •ttEs�t uY� u s ` ; ..., _.._- :. , ..... �., ; z Z 50 � 5dv. " .glEt�i. Z 1L1= 1®pa►JT . ,eiw�..,,. Vim. G�i �IJ� to• 11:�� : �� 9�r;i n �a.i. �� . �-...:...w. ;..: - � (✓.,o.. I � � 25� '?F�ISU Z ii�A?�Ji C.I ZAT1 a� Z =G o LIS ' - 'O1G ►2C,r Icy°ja � : 2 2 19 Z 4 6;5; e,�n o� m, tv ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE ■■■■.■■■■Nunn ■■■■■■■■.■■■..: mum Sam :.■■■■■■■.:■■■■■.■'■■.`■:■:r.t.:::: UNIT. TTFM DBSCRIPIION OF WORK ISSUE QTY COST w• -•. i� .. '��J - .... Sy— .mil 7iyy., ` z �F-tov� Iz"-Stta2w� ax3 '�%f . LF 3 . (►.�ST�c.L � L� � . ,51'LXwI D►�ai►.1 �I �L : ' N9'ArLI.. 11)� 5MJ 1 �1q� SW 11 �L... �:.I NEE. W (51:1�i_ � • 1. F= iro C! ; ;. �✓� ny2` ..3'j l 0. . ,o '' �i+aE.SI�i Z U✓F , ,, ram. , 25,, , `; Y ,�� v cc%.� tv4 x 22 Tn�: IS ; �o spa wB' �t f Vain :P i'j-,o, 25tszv '1F�1SL7 PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLI T PROJECT NAME: 1��E7C�LF PLAN CHECK #: 1 PROJECT ADDRESS: -' 1,$71`V 75 ALAI RECEIPT DATE: /0/30A70 EVIEW D BY:(nitial/Da e) PLAN. WATER COMMENTS FIRE BLDG. SEWER STREET ENG. Setbacks/Variance/SetbackAdjustment Conditional Use Permit. ,. < -..{... ADB Requirements '••S Re uirements Other Zoning Requirements �:. ••-`••`•''•'•""�`•�`�"•`'�"`�•�`""`• Underground Wirin Re uired Lot Slope 15% o {v« :•<' } as Ej....... ..:.......... 3 Z V '• i SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit , {, <»`; s "<<<N<A` < 4 1 '7 Tree Cutting Plan .. � �>}��..... .': Plat/Subdivision Requirements q } j j` "{ "9 Legal. Descrition Verification Quit Claim/Street Dedications /o'Sr `" Easements -Public/Private > �.r;<>jvh::>•� 4 i rho. Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee �♦. { :? i^?vk>v :r>{::Mzr;':>:.>.::> `<41 Engineeringe/ >� Inspection Fee -- {.}.v•r .•/zS•?6j ::{.j::::::{`.::ii:r::e :n. .. �q\�YY.;rvv�:r :.:::.:%'t^k�::� is rit<:;f•:%:.:.::;rr::j f•{.:{%v::;.<. r... iv /.-.. . Y... Drainage Plan On -Site :4K4�yY'.,�•C,.`.Y%>i �r.�•':-: <.• :«�>::.;.,:r:',�}:"; Y?F:}:{:i?4:2`t {}.4:%;[: :i :•,.•:.{,{'ryrjnt!: - '7 � 15:: Setback ='To of Bank, --Stream, Water Courses �} .{:'^• :' •� i>i,\ti i'hi}: ;..jj:>.j::jjj::;;:j;:ry:::.:};.:;;>:>>;;::.:.::.:. {:nkr.':}}r�:C:.W%: in `yw.}{Frt]?..rf..•: 6 Setback -Storm Drain Line A6 7 ` en Ditch -Existing . //-2- 8O Culvert: Required Ala 19 Culvert Size" .. { .:{{.i:•j:}j.';:.:;;:•)%j :}z; :;:.»::<::::>,:>::.:;;:;sj{.};};};};:>;. h'i�li:vj::}:}iiihjjji: ;;20> Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff �t- {4 :SY };................. 21 Catch Basin Required. ::; : +•}v:...::::::::4}Wn ,.>:<<<>> ::::�.;;��::;}.}}:>:.}: .. Drivewa 'Slo e & Vehicle Access \{}}}iti.}. n;2'S:::::;•} :}:': ti: n}y: %;j;i:{}fj <:,::,:,.:.. ... Sidewalk Required ��( sd—G/rr�G 4S0 =a 41, 24 Curb & Gutter Required 4 Curb Cut For Drivewa Re uired •j :} :j:i: j}j fi;.:,:::>.<:<::<:>::::>;:::<::><I°:>I> '`• at 26 Street Paving Required ;:::::^..:> ::. ::.::.::::::::;.:.>:: 4 27 Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required ES Street Name Sign Required ^/a <' ............................... <'x<': 4 29 Other Signing Required 4- 30 Bond Required For Public Improvements `w' j `'{'`" <`>i r <:`I ¢ FEMA Map Check/Water Table :::.::..:. r.:: -.:. ¢32 Side Sewer Availability �5 :ry:.}...:`:''" "`` Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # 21 Create Street File Existing Water Main Size36 Water Meter Size � ,:.:.<.::r ................. ..............,..... Service Line Size} Water Meter Charge Required .:, :39: Hydrant Required `;.:::::.:..::..:::.;>;::::::::.:..>:..._.:.:.;;:;:::> 40 Hydrant Size Existing : "::::.«::.>::`.<:»: ```: :. IN 41 .: Fire Line Charge Required - S rp inkier s .w :'. `;.< 4 42-'. Street Cut ...............o� 411 43- Miscellaneous sir p!i/ f�jn10 44 Reviewed By: FIRE (S R E E T LE/2 4 ew � PLANNING ENGINEERING fiiM. Its EYRUMORKS U O. PUBLIC WORKS J. KEITH CROSS, P.E.110 Geotechnical Engineering Consultant �C (206) 822-2725 6020 111'" Place NE, KrWand, Washington 98= JUL July 10 1991 COUNTER Jean Riggle 15714 75th Place West. Edmonds, Washington 98020 Geotechnical Engineering Supplemental Discussion, Landslide Risk, Proposed Addition and Alterations For the Riggle Residence, 15714 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0003-089 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 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 April 23, 1986, 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 Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 10, 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 1 1 1" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 10, 1991 Page 3 Site Visit Observations On July 9, 1991, Walter Bicket of Geological Services and I visited the subject properties (giggle 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 111m Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 10, 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 111" Place NE, Kirkland, Washington 98033 Letter to Jean Riggle Project No. 0003-089 July 10, 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, AA J. Keith Cross, P.E. J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. 6026 111- Place NE, IgMand, Washington 98033 JUNK PFB�tL CQl1-dI,E� May 10, 1991 City or Edmonds City Planning Department Edmonds, Wa. 98020 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 Pl. W. and 196th — Hwy 5224. This is the only route that shell be used_ Sincerelu, wean C. Riggle STREET FILE. r CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering `890 199- April 17, 1991 Jean Riggle 15714 - 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Cash contribution for five foot sidewalk Dear Ms. Riggle, LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR When I wrote you the letter dated April 4, 1991 regarding street dedication and site restoration bond requirements, I overlooked the requirement for a five foot sidewalk. A sidewalk is required along 75th P1. W., but since development is sporadic in that area, we are not requiring the construction of the five foot sidewalk at the time your house is constructed. In lieu of construction, a cash contribution of $450 is required to cover the cost of constructing a five foot sidewalk across your property frontage. The cash contribution goes into a special account for the construction of the sidewalk along 75th P1. W. at a later date. Payment can be made anytime before the engineering final inspection. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, G'�'� a✓�� ..vlzc ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt RIGGLE2/TXTST530 Al ber`ts t • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan LANDAU A ASSOCIATES, INC. Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies April 4, 1991 City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO RIGGLE RESIDENCE LOT 6, BLOCK 28 OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH 15714 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of plans and other submitted documents concerning proposed additions and alterations to the Jean Riggle residence. Our review was conducted using City Ordinance No. 2661 as the standard for comparison. A list of the documents we reviewed is included as Attachment 1. The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide area approximately 800 ft north of the intersection of Meadowdale Road and 75th Place West, and between 75th Place West and the Burlington Northern railroad track This property may have been involved in landslide movement in 1973-74. An excerpt from the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates report provides a historical perspective on that earlier movement. This information is contained in Attachment 2. Our review of submitted documents for this project indicates that there are several inconsistencies, omissions, and issues which may require additional attention. These are summarized as follows: • City Ordinance No. 2661 requires that a lead design professional be identified for each project. We are assuming that Vince Ojala, the Project Architect, is this lead design professional, and that the general note on Sheet 1 is his declaration. If our assumption is incorrect, the lead design professional must be identified and a declaration provided. • The Vicinity Map of the landslide hazard area submitted to the City incorrectly places the Riggle property about 400 ft north of the actual location. Since risk of landslide hazard for a particular property is predicated on location within the Meadowdale area, we suggest that the City request a map indicating the correct location of the property. • The Owner's Liability Statement and the Owner Landslide Acknowledgement Declaration have not been submitted as required under Ordinance No. 2661. • Ordinance No. 2661 requires that a Site Topographic Map be prepared by a licensed land surveyor. While topographic information is included on some P.O. BOX 1029 • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020-9129 • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 of the submitted documents, a formal survey properly stamped and containing the required items was not submitted. The 1986 Geological Services geotechnical report references site boundary and topographic survey data prepared by Group 4, Inc. With that exception, the topographic information contained in the submitted documents is undated with no reference to source. • Ordinance No. 2661 requires a Grading Plan prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. While some information related to site grading is distributed throughout the submitted Project Plans, a formal Grading Plan properly stamped and containing the required items was not provided. Given the configuration and topography of the site, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed residence could pose a significant challenge in terms of site preparation and grading. Critical issues related to site preparation and grading include clearing activities, disposal of excavated soil, temporary and permanent erosion control, cut slopes, and the impact of grading activities on adjacent properties (i.e., temporary slope easement). • The topography and configuration of the site will make temporary construction access along 75th Place West difficult to achieve. The formal Grading Plan should indicate how temporary access will be provided. If it is proposed to access the site from adjacent properties, the City should determine if the associated grading activities will necessitate compliance on the part of the owner(s) of the adjacent property(ies) with the permitting requirements of Ordinance No. 2661. • The section on Sheet 11 of the Project Plans indicates that cuts on the order of 10-14 ft will be required along the north and south sides of the new addition. The Site Plan on Sheet 1 shows a 5-ft setback between the south side of the new addition and the south property line. On the north side, the setback is a minimum of 12 ft. Since the maximum recommended inclination for temporary cut slopes at the site is 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical), insufficient space exists between the dwelling and the property lines to use unsupported cuts during construction of the foundation. Unless construction easements are obtained from the owners of the adjacent properties allowing cut slopes to extend beyond the property lines, shoring will be required during construction of portions of the foundation. Since shoring can add significantly to the cost of construction, we suggest that the design professionals review the plans in terms of constructability and revise them to indicate shoring where required. • Ordinance No. 2661 requires a Tree Cutting Plan prepared by a registered forester or licensed landscape designer. A formal Tree Cutting Plan properly stamped and containing the required items was not provided. The Site Plan on Sheet 1 of the Project Plans indicates that at least five trees will be removed from within the immediate construction area. This is inconsistent with the response to Item 4.b. of the Environmental Checklist,.which indicates that only two trees will have to be removed. The City should determine whether the information presented on the Site Plan meets the intent of Ordinance No. 2661. • The Site Plan on Sheet 1 of the Project Plans does not indicate the location of sewer and water service as required by the Residential Permit Submittal Requirements. The City should determine if the Site Plan meets the intent of their ordinance. 04/04/91 EDMOND6\RIGGLELTR 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. • Ordinance No. 2661 requires a Drainage Plan prepared by a licensed engineer. Based on documents contained in the submittal, a storm sewer system common to both the Riggle property and the adjacent Jewell property may have been installed sometime during the 1980s. The Site Plan on Sheet 1 of the Project Plans indicates that an existing drain is located along the north property line. However, there is no other confirmation that the system exists or that the system was installed as designed. Further, calculations performed for that storm sewer system were based on previous site development plans, not the current plans, which would result in an increase in the calculated amount of impervious cover. While some proposed storm drainage features are outlined on the Project Plans, a Drainage Plan prepared specifically for the currently proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance has not been submitted. Since surface and subsurface drainage is critical in unstable areas, a formal Drainage Plan must be developed for the site. The Drainage Plan should also address the ability of any existing storm drainage systems to adequately handle calculated flows. • Neither the 1986 Geological Services report nor the 1990 J. Keith Cross report provide estimates of foundation settlement under anticipated building loads. • The reclassification of slide potential within the Meadowdale landslide by GeoEngineers, Inc. in February 1985, subsequent to the City -installed drainage improvements, was based on an overall lowering of the ground water surface. Where ground water is still at or very near the ground surface, it is probable that the risk of movement is still as high as it was prior to City improvements (i.e., 35-90 percent probability of movement within a 25-yr period rather than 10-30 percent probability as noted on the most current City Landslide Hazard map). While wet to saturated conditions were observed at a depth of about 6 ft in Geological Services Hand Boring 2, actual ground water conditions across the site have not been well documented. It is our opinion that insufficient information exists to accurately assess this subject. For this reason, it is recommended that the design professionals involved in this project consider the installation of piezometers for assessment of ground water and slope conditions. City Monitoring Well No. 6 could probably be used during this assessment. • On Page 9 of the 1986 Geological Services report, the consultants assess the risk of instability for the eastern portion of the site at 10 percent and the western portion at 35 percent, an assessment supported on Page 5 of the 1990 J. Keith Cross report. While these assessments would appear reasonable within a broad application of the findings of the 1979 Roger Lowe report and the 1985 Geolingineers report, it is our opinion that on a more site -specific basis, the Riggle property may be subject to a higher risk of instability than those findings would indicate. Mapping by Roger Lowe and GeoEngineers, which shows a higher risk of instability within the western portion of the property, possible evidence of past sliding on properties to the north and south, documented subsidence and possible sliding on the property in 1973-74, the relatively steep configuration of the site, and observed tension cracking west of the existing residence in 1986 all point to a relatively high potential for future instability. Relatively recent sliding that occurred during construction of a residence south of the property, a site with similar risk factors, demonstrates the hazards of construction within the area. 04/04/91 EDMONMRIGGLELTR 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. • On Page 9 of the 1986 Geological Services report, the consultants recommended that flexible connections be employed for underground utilities. The Project Plans do not specify flexible connections. • Sheet 1 of the Project Plans contains a general detail and calculations for proposed cantilevered retaining walls. Sheet 1 has not been stamped by the Structural Engineer. In addition, calculated values for dimensions A and C are not consistent with the detail and may have been incorrectly entered in the table. The Structural Engineer must review the retaining wall design and calculations, and stamp this drawing. • The section on Sheet 7 shows a structural connection between the driveway slab and the east foundation wall of the garage. No detail of this structural connection has been included on the Plans. We suggest that the Plans be revised to include a detail of this structural connection and that the Structural Engineer review and stamp the Plans accordingly. • Foundation Details 1, 2, and 3 on Sheet 2 are not consistent with the Foundation Plan on Sheet 2, the section on Sheet 7, or the detail of cantilever retaining walls on Sheet 1. The details on Sheet 2 provide set dimensions for the footings labeled by detail number on the Foundation Plan. This implies that all labeled foundations are to have footings of similar dimension and construction. However, foundation walls along the north, east, and south sides of the lower floor of the new addition and the garage will also serve as retaining walls to some degree. Footing dimensions and construction for these walls will vary according to the height of each retaining wall and requirements for lateral resistance at the base of each wall. The details on Sheet 2 and the section on Sheet 7 also do not indicate whether or not keying is required as shown on the detail on Sheet 1. It is our opinion that the Foundation Details and the Foundation Plan could be misinterpreted, resulting in the construction of inadequate foundations. We recommend that the foundation plans and details be reevaluated and any ambiguities or inconsistencies regarding foundation design be resolved. • The Project Plans indicate that the new addition will tie into the existing residence, placing additional loads on the existing foundation. The 1986 Geological Services report mentions that ground movement in 1973-74 may have caused floor slab damage and some tilting of the east basement wall. On Page 10 of their 1986 report, Geological Services recommended that a licensed structural engineer inspect and evaluate the existing foundation systems. There is no indication that this recommendation was followed for either the previous development plans or the current plans. Accordingly, we suggest that the Structural Engineer evaluate the condition of the existing foundation to determine whether adequate capacity exists under anticipated increased loads. • On Page 11 of the 1986 Geological Services report, the consultants recommended that additional length anchor bolts be used in the event shimming was required to compensate for differential settlement. The consultants also recommended incorporating provisions in column supports that would minimize downward loading during possible slide activity. The Project Plans apparently do not incorporate either of these recommendations. 04/04/91 EDMOND6\RIGGLELTR 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. • The general note on Sheet 1 of the Project Plans implies a joint declaration by both the Architect and the Engineer. We assume that "Engineer" refers to the Structural Engineer. However, only the Architect has stamped Sheet 1. We suggest that the "Engineer" be identified and that this individual review the declaration and/or confirm the validity of the statement. • A note under Detail 2 on Sheet 2 of the Project Plans states values for equivalent fluid earth pressures and the coefficient of friction apparently used for foundation and retaining wall design. There are some inconsistencies between these values as labelled and the recommendations provided by Geological Services in their 1986 report. Additionally, factors of safety have not been applied to the design values for passive equivalent fluid pressure and the coefficient of friction as recommended by Geological Services. We recommend that the design values on the drawings be reevaluated and any inconsistencies with the Geological Services recommendations be resolved. We further recommend that foundation and retaining wall designs based on these values be reevaluated. • Elevation and section views on Sheets 5, 6, and 7 show wall footings for the western portion of the residence founded about 3 ft below existing grades. In the 1990 J. Keith Cross report, the consultants recommended that all foundations extend through existing fill. Since the Hand Borings from the 1986 Geological Services report show up to about 5 ft of fill existing across portions of the property, footings constructed as shown on the Plans could be founded in fill. It is our experience that contractors will bid and attempt to build strictly according to the plans. We recommend that the plans be reevaluated and any inconsistencies or ambiguities regarding footing embedment be resolved. • Section A on Sheet 7 of the Plans shows foundation drains along the upslope side of the footings. At two locations, the basement east foundation wall and the laundry/mechanical room east foundation, the foundation drains appear to intersect grade beams. The intersection of the drain and grade beam is not indicated on Detail 3 on Sheet 2. Consequently, it is unclear how the intersection will be handled during construction. Section A on Sheet 7 calls for a drainage swale in the drive apparently oriented parallel to the garage entrance. The section does not show how runoff will be collected and drained. The Site Plan on Sheet 1 indicates rockeries on the north and south sides of the new addition. However, details for drainage of the rockeries have not been included in the Plans. The Project Plans show the location of roof drain downspouts and provide minimal information regarding size of roof drain tightlines but do not otherwise indicate the layout or details of the roof drainage system. The Plans also provide only minimal information regarding layout of the foundation drainage system, and do not provide specifications for drainage products or installation. 04/04/41 EDMONDS\RIGGL .LTR rj LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Since drainage is critical for potentially unstable sites, we suggest that these drainage features and the Plans be reevaluated in conjunction with the development of a formal Drainage Plan. • Sheet 7 of the Project Plans indicates that backfill placed under the drive shall be free -draining. The note under Detail 2 on Sheet 2 states that fill is to be free -draining. Table 1 in the 1986 Geological Services specifies a recommended gradation curve for filter gravel backfill for drains behind retaining walls. The report further contains recommendations for placement of the filter gravel. These recommendations do not appear on the Plans, nor do the Plans provide specifications for other backfill materials or criteria for fill placement and compaction. In addition, it is unclear whether the free -draining backfill is to be placed wherever backfilling is required or just beneath the drive and against the garage east foundation wall. We recommend that the Plans be reevaluated regarding these ambiguities, and that specifications related to fill material, placement, and compaction be provided as appropriate. • Section A on Sheet 7 of the Project Plans shows that the footing for the west side of the new addition is founded near the east basement wall of the existing residence and slightly above midheight of the wall. The position of this continuous footing may impart a surcharge effect on the existing basement wall. The 1990 J. Keith Cross report recommended that this foundation be extended down to the elevation of the existing basement wall footing. The 1986 Geological Services report provided recommendations for increasing equivalent fluid pressures for walls subject to surcharge effects. These recommendations are not reflected in the design values for equivalent fluid pressures shown on Sheet 2 of the Plans. We recommend that the Geotechnical Engineer and the Structural Engineer review the foundation plan and comment on the position of the proposed footing. • Section A on Sheet 7 of the Project Plans implies that the midlevel floor slab for the laundry/mechanical room is fill -supported. However, the Section also shows a 2HAV apparent finish grade well below the slab level, which implies that the slab is structural. We recommend that the Plans be reevaluated and that this ambiguity be resolved. • Section A on Sheet 7 of the Project Plans indicates that temporary excavation cuts are to be sloped at a 1H:1V inclination. Based on the 1986 Geological Services report, up to 5 ft of fill exists across portions of the site. In the 1990 J. Keith Cross report, the consultants recommended a maximum slope inclination of 1.25H:1V for temporary cuts in existing fill, modified ground, or loosened surficial soils. These recommendations do not appear on the Project Plans. Since the upper portions of site excavations could be in existing fill or otherwise loosened or disturbed soils, it is our opinion that the information on the Plans is misleading, and we recommend that the possible need for flatter slopes be indicated on the appropriate project documents. We recommend that the plans and other submitted documents be returned to the applicant for action. The lead design professional should review the documents and make whatever appropriate changes are necessary in order to be consistent with the requirements of Ordinance No. 2661 and recommendations provided in the geotechnical reports. In addition, the 04/04/91 EDMONI)MRIGGLELTR 6 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1] 0 Geotechnical Engineer and the Structural Engineer should evaluate and comment on specific issues raised herein. Please note that Landau Associates did not review structural calculations. We have reviewed the documents submitted for the proposed additions and alterations to the Riggle residence concurrently with documents related to the proposed adjacent Jewell residence. Each project will impact the other in similar ways, particularly along their common property line. Simultaneous construction of both projects may mitigate some of the concerns previously expressed. However, since it is uncertain that construction will occur simultaneously, we have reviewed each project assuming it will be developed independently of the other. If the projects proceed simultaneously, to mitigate common concerns the City should determine whether to include provisions for schedule coordination in the permitting language to ensure that progress on both projects will be concurrent. Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/sg No. 74-21.10 3 copies submitted Attachment 04/04/91 EDMONMRIGGLELTR 7 Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager a��n��d// GVa 4 Wade Gilbert, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. ATTACHMENT 1 • Sheets 1-7 of Project Plans (Landau Associates designation for reference), Vince Ojala, Architect, October 1, 1990. • Drainage Calculations for Harrison Jewell/Jean Riggle Residences, Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc., Revised December 11, 1986. • Environmental Checklist, signed by Vince Ojala, Architect, October 2,1990. • Geotechnical Engineering Review for Revised Development Concept, J. Keith Cross, P.E., July 26,1990. • Site Geotechnical Study, Geological Services, Inc., April 23, 1986. • Storm Sewer Plan for Jewell/Riggle Residences, Sheet 1, Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc., December 1981. • Untitled map indicating location of Riggle Residence, Submitted to City of Edmonds, Undated. 04/04/91 EDMONDMRIGGLE.LTR 8 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. . . 4 . .' , ;7' 0 0 ATTACHMENT 2 (Page 10, 1979 Roger Lowe Report, Reproduced by Landau Associates.) Numerous smaller landslides occurred between 1948 and 1956. Information derived from maps supplied to us indicates that as many as 9 smaller landslides occurred in the area of the foot of the northern third of the 1955-56 landslide. Two smaller landslides are shown as having occurred in the area of the foot of the southern third of that landslide. A fairly substantial landslide also occurred in the 1960s. The area of that movement was roughly the same as that of the 1946-47 slide, but was slightly greater in extent. The exact date of these landslides could not be determined from information available to us. Maps provided to us indicate that a landslide occurred during the winter of 1970-71, centered approximately 220 ft northeast of the Laebugten Wharf access road. The area of movement was approximately 350 ft long and extended 50 ft east of 75th Place West. The landslide reportedly also moved 3 inches in the 5-year period between 1971 and 1976. Two widely separated landslides occurred in 1973-74. The southern area of movement was approximately 425 ft long and was centered approximately 350 ft north of the Laebugten Wharf and 65 ft east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The headscarp for this landslide was located about 80 ft east of 75th Avenue West. The northern area of movement was approximately 220 ft long and was centered 1,200 ft north of the wharf and 200 ft east of the railroad tracks. The headscarp for this landslide extended to the west edge of 75th Place West. In summary, it appears that historic landsliding has occurred within a zone approximately 400 ft wide adjacent to and immediately east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Except for one reported incidence of approximately 4 inches of lateral movement of the railroad tracks, the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks do not appear to be within the area subject to ground movement. It appears that nearly all the active failure surfaces within the Meadowdale landslide complex emerge at the surface east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and that the primary failure surface probably emerged at approximately the position of the shoreline prior to the construction of the railroad. 04/04/91 EDMONMRIGGLELTR 9 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. � STREET FILE � CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 1 890 199 - April 3, 1991 Jean Riggle 15714 - 75th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Site restoration bond for 15714 - 75'th`P1. W. Dear Ms. Riggle, 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 total restoration. Please submit the required bond. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt RIGGLE/TXTST530 v " Cv • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 6?90 194- ��n City of Edmondh STREET FILE' I�T,rOF-WAY CONSTMJCTION PERMIT Permit Number: Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 15714 75 Place West B. Type of Work (be specific): Install New Service C. Contractor: Washington Natural Gas Company Mailing Address: 815 Mercer Street, State License #: Seattle, WA 98111 D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Contact: Gary Swanson Phone: 224-2080 Liability. Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): .'I E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUP, GTE, WNG, CABLE, -WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ® Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: VJ, P. ravement or uoncrete uut : U T eS ejIVO U. Jlze or k 111: X : Yt. unarge jo APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this applications, agrees t l}old she C' taf Edmonds hayry�less from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that -may be made a�atnst the Ci�of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employ- `2 ees, inchtding or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings incl � defense costs, a attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. I 1-i5� THE CON7RACTOR'IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND M RIALS FOR A PERIOD F ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ES77MA7ED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UN77Lr THE FINAL S77ZEET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY 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: 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. 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 times for inspection purposes. Signature: mama 2 ,a a Date: November 6, 1991 (Contractor or Agent)'. CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK .... _ ......... ... ...... . FOR. CITYUSE.ONLY..... _ __ ................. APPROVED BX:: R RIGkT OF WAY DEPOSIT. TME.:AUTHORIZED>: VOID AFTER ;1.::.I.EA.Iz— - -- -:DAYS: :.:.. DISRUPTION.>FEE/FUND 111:.. RESTORATION _....... .. .... .. DATE _:. ISSUED BY:.: NO WORK SHALL. BEGIN Engrg. Div. 1991 .FIELD INSPECTION NO* (Full, I - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments• Diagram• CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION O YES O NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Uiv. X • w fa fay Washington Natural Gas — Awasl;mglon EierWC—Parry I S714 —1�5 Pt- vJ NSA WN qv� Wa un 2- Addendum to City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Kerry Walsh Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 622-6767 x2761 pager ao�14 q(JFA vLQ5(o plc) c-LtTS C�9 z X Key: -w- water -g- gas -ss- sewer water hydrant 815 Mercer St. (P.O. Box 1869), Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 622-6767 z' NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRED tFE6 06 2006 '.•••... •• ` BOB DANTINI, Snohomsh Cwaty 10501 g� 8 DANTI -------------- - — - -- - I iII�I ��IIII IN full 118111111111111 111111111 A ' 11000712S MYNSHINGTDH GS CITYL CITY OF;EDMOND,S 121 STH AVENUE -NO. EDMONDS, WA••'Sg0?A ;: :GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR AIGIZESS'•AND;.•SS DURING CONSTRUCTION �....... 1. EFFECTIVE DATE'.," •3'UNE'' 1 , 1991. 2 PARTIES: tt oa- A. HARRISON JEWLLk•`(pwner•`of burdened property) B. JEAN C. RIGGLE "JoWrier of bepef.ited property) 3. PROPERTIES: Le9Q I ; 13ENEFITED PROPERTIES: A. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTA);HED• AE' RF-,Tb BURDENED: B. SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED hEAETb 4. GRANT OF EASEMENT: HARRISON JEWELL, as owner of the burdened* property, hereby grants to JEAN C. RIGGLE, her heirs, si1Gcesso3;s acid assigns, as owners of the benefited property, a non=eRclusi.-re; easement for ingress and egress. over and across thee,-_k -.Ai•2p•'`• `.feet of the above -described burdened property for the pu#o4,e:bf access during the course of construction of improvements•.•..upon;'tbe'•,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•'buadgn6,d property from any and all claims and/or liens by third parti$p�. c) Restoring the area of the easement to the condf$ pn'�-f was in immediately prior to the commencement of constructio. ; 1 d) Exerting his best efforts to conclude all construction activity in an expeditious manner. iNFORCEABILITY: The- Easement hereby granted to the owner of the benefited Prope'• rtyabove described may be enforced by the present as well as '.;tho future owners of the above described benefited property. 6. i--027SIDE!RATTOi�' All par'tie's agree that each has received good and valuable cons ider$tion•'in Autual benefits as a result of having entered into this agreeipent•.•` 7. SIGNATURgS: 8. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I kpow qr hAve satisfactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed.•thir instrument and acknowledged to be HER free and voluntary act'for"the'uabs and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED this % day, of .:_�� e •- •; 1991. OTARY PUB41C'in.and for the State of Washington, Commission EXpires,;., rt}a -q V i't 4''" 9I4t'' ,nun.,iS; r•. , _ eX.tii4igehis best efforts to conclude all construction activity art• an,.expeditious manner. 5. ENFORCEABYL•ITY:., The Easeme nt hereby ritnted to the owner of the benefited. property above'de5dribe0_i cl a enforced by the present as well as the future ownehs off tiie above described benefited property. 6. CONSIDERATION: All parties agree that each has received good and valuable consideration in mutual b"efits as a.•Yesult of having entered into this agreement. 7. SIGNATURES: C 8. AC OWLEDGEMENTS: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have gfit�ztactory evidence that JEAN C. RIGGLE has signed this instrument and•`ac.. owledged to be HER free and voluntary act for the uses and,iur�ose9,mentioned in the instrument.. DATED this day ofT�ne. :T991. .'NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the:6tate of Washington. commission Expires: 5 ON p�b'dyiip.� 4o ti C� -Q-t w ;gym % NO ,Ma,,,, • ' _ STATV....OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY, `OF KING ) . .•'7 herby certify that I know or have satisfactory .evidence that i•FAI2RISbN JEWELL has signed this instrument and acknowledged to be: hi$.._ f"red,. and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in 'the instrument.; DATE-th'i:S day of e, 1991. 40TY PUBLIC in and for the State of p4 •�;.��...,,..,'�-� WASHINGTON, °,,•�`''*N Ar,��'-•. "a�: Commission Expires: 03 404 * �.*A .......... Vs, -ice �i L. ... • ��xN i ...... 3 _ _ EXHIBIT "A" The ,06rtb 45,, feet of Lots 5, Block 28 of the plat ,df Me'ad6wdale Beach recorded in volume 5 ofage_••'38, records of Snohomish Coun, Together with a portion of vacatec1_,.7Sth-'Avenue West lying adjacent. EXHIBIT "B" Tile ,.90U-0 i-5. feet of Lot 5 plus the vacated < stYeet...•-"'Thy North 30 feet of Lot 6 plus vacated street . block 28 of the Plat of Meado.Wd_A•1g $e'eI ''recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, `,•pale•'38.;-' records of Snohomish County, Washingtob. r • = :' - - NO EXCISE TAX -- -- - I IIBIII01111III�IIIIII�IIIIIIII REauIRED ' I�I�IIIIIIIIIIIII�I Il 011 pp ,FEB o s Zoos 1 1pppp1604:13om ��35 00 P� BOB DANTINI Snahmrosh County Tre® SNOH4M�SH COUNTY �pSH1NGTON CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS 12LON AVENUE NO. ,:DAONDS. WA 98020 MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT . IS AGREED6kN,T, made and entered into by and between HARRISON G�MTWi Gaaw*ee, JEWELL.f•irst'`pir�y,,;.end JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the parties.' agreeing for themselves, their heirs, executors, adminlstrators,:16nd *auslgns. L Ja t .' See- 5, TWf J ;-7, CH w I T 411E a S E Ta H:.:•.Pa.RCej No. 005131oagoo.5�a WHEREAS`., the, buries..- iereto are owners of adjoining real. estate herein)3e1:6ut:'de$dribed and located in EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH County, Washingtpn and WHEREAS, the partlee' 'ha:'Ve 4-%common boundary and desire to share the use of `g.,common easement for purposes of providing drainage and utilities. to'their respective properties, and WHEREAS, the partic* wr# hing to feiQalize the common usage by a Grant of Easement, one to the pther._ fOr purposes of a common drainage and utility easement.." NOW, THEREFORE, it is heXeby'..agieed:'as follows: 1. First party is the owner (?166-fallowing described real estate, to 'wit: see Exhibit "A" attached 2. Second party is the owner of,the''ftillowiig described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "E" attached 3. First party hereby grants to the,Aecand ,.party,, her successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement:. ov'er,:•'under and across the real estate owned by the first party+ and'descp1ped in paragraph.) above, for purposes of drainage and utility access to second party's property described in paragraph'•`2; above.,, ilnd existing structures thereon. This easement is intena'4-`tq:'benojit and be appurtenant to second party's property and to ryn Witri the land, and includes the right of ingress and egress to service•.tbe' i drainage and utilities. 4. Second party hereby grants to the .first party,'"''tile. successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under 'qnd` ti. r. ✓ :4 MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between HARRISON :'JfiWELZ first party, and JEAN C. RIGGLE, second party, each of the ' P�-Ries `agreeing for themselves, their heirs, executors, adi iJiistrators••_�nd assigns. W�iEF2EAS�,;:,'ttie 'parties hereto are owners of adjoining real estate',:3iereinbelpw*described and located in EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH County, Washington; and WHEREAS, thp- ••parties have a common boundary and desire to share the rise;' of='•e: c3ommon easement for purposes of providing drainage and titiliti' ;•tq aheir respective properties, and WHEREAS, thL--g4rt1es wishing to formalize the common usage by a Grant of Easement,-`one.to•the other, for purposes of a common drainage and utility easembnt�, NOW, THEREFORE, it is•`hereby'agreed as follows:. 1. First party i$:.Che.owner of xhe following described real estate, to wit: see Exhibit "A" attached 2. Second party is the',pwniar of t" 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 :eas9nfnt, over, under and across the real estate owned by the first paintY and described in paragraph 1 above, for purposes of draiiia.e,Arld'utility access to second party's property described in pa}'ag�aph-` 2`: above, and. existing structures thereon. This easement is..•intpiid4a",t-o benefit and be appurtenant to second party I s property `arid'' to•.• -run `7dith the land, and includes the right of ingress and egress''t'o servipe the drainage and utilities. 4. Second party hereby grants to' the first iarty,� iUs successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over,;''*U,der and r. ` actoss the real estate owned by the second party and described in =` paragraph 2 above, for purposes of drainage and utility access to Irst•: party's property described in paragraph 1 and existing `.' .strudtures thereon. This easement is intended to benefit and be appurtenant to first party's property and to run with the land, and ;nciuclis 1Xe..-Tight of ingress and egress to service the drainage anti., uti•l�,ties,:':;: •� `easehients herein granted are for the purposes of creatYng..adegpate:,sewer and other drainage and utility service commono.the`irea3 estate owned by both parties hereto, said real estate bei.. g,,ab. described, and shall be limited to a 20' parcel, that is 10' on eitherside:of the common drain lines. 6. The, p4ties', ,.'1.6eir successors and assigns shall contribute - equaljy" Y.m'• ,the expenses of reasonable repair and maintenance to thp--`go=q..h• :drainage and utilities. DATED this d0y~ o0 arXison ell, First Party am., C. Riggle, S nd Party STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss . ...... COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have sAi-p factor-y evidence that Harrison Jewell signed this instrument•.and`•.ack'howiedged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses%-and.'..mentioned in this instrument. DATED �inc� 7a / 99) ` TARY PUBLIC 3 an :for the State of Washington.""• commission Expizds .1) 7,Z L'e-i y c SO wo. fQ l O , «y' 2 ' � oaf � }� ,r. 3T4TE•`OF:WAjSHINGTON ) )ss. COQNTY`OFA• iNG ) I oert�.(y;th8iE`,I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jean C. Riggie pigned this•. instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and vo7u.Aary ac ,--far the uses and purposes mentioned -in this instrument, DATED: "Tu,ze .7 , 99/ i OTARY PUBLIC 1n and for the State of Washington. '. Commission Expires //-o74-9 y 3 'ti: P RIArj, COUNTER GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 1 , 1991. 2. PARTIES: A. HARRISON JEWELL (owner of burdened property) B. JEAN C. RIGGLE (owner of benefited property) 3. PROPERTIES• BENEFITED PROPERTIES: A. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO BURDENED: 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 the`;;,e,ly20 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 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- 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 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 -- day of �� n , 1991. 'ROTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires: E • • 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 7 day of -3�4,0— , 1991. AOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of WASHINGTON, Commission Expires: 3 • 0 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. • • 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. MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT 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: 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 "All 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. 4. Second party hereby grants to the first party, his successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under and 1 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 201 parcel, that is 101 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 _Zday of 1991. 2" , 0 < Aarrison,, ,O-Vell,'First Party Plan C. Riggle, SqVc(grnd Party STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING 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 7 F j 9191 WTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires jj�(,-?Lj M sra% E E 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 T nG� 7, , 971 3 44TARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires 1 MAR 1� e)l PERMIT COUNTER STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY UNITS Pronarty Address_ /3'7 11/- 7-. -q 10LL R/. Legal Description S' /.1' f 7- a -,- �411J,1 F Iq7- To 3 N 3u FT t o7"� L3L�GrK^ �� 7STh' PLOP(/ SNo 7414 M / 5 tf (!'o U N T' Y yv 4-514 /•N C—'% /Y VA I have read the requirements for accessory units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for at least two years after occupancy by the current owner is granted and until after a Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a permit, shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a Conditional Use Permit. Property Owner Name JF,4 N C. Rt GC-LLF. Date _ STATE OFsWASH GTON) COUNTY�OF SNOHOMISH) I certify that I know.or have satisfactory evidence that �/a z AL signed this instrument and acknowledge it -to be,Cb<:!S/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated _4.) Signature of / Notary Public; /'_1 X ' �T Title `�`%1 ' My appointment FU�1�/ Expires THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR STRICT FILE 0 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND IN'DEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS 000under 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: 0 1. Descrintion of Sub-,=t rrp--erty. Th1s covenant c notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of (insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County,*' . Washington and legally described as: /-0 7--r Q- A/, 30 La7 �SA/D . Xe-co VV / V -Z1 46't') Gv PO R 7-1 & /V 0,": V'1qe-1+7—E0 -7.!1- /+ W q 7,1,q 0- a /V 7- 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.., 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 site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of WSS52079A/0006.040.034 gUILDING WSS/klt 9-10798026/* FER 9 - 1990 STATE OF WASHINGTOM COUNTY OF SNOHOMiSH SS. f. Dean Y. Williams,nohomish County Auditor, do hereby certify that the i�re.-,olng inq'rurnent is a true and correct "COPY Of the document now on file or re - corded in my Otitce. In witness I whereof, hereunto set MY hand this day of IV- WIL S)00 29 the risks associated with development are contained in building ,permit file number (insert number) on file with the . City of .Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or, prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or , lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the 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 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with' development, stating that they have fully informed themselves Ot s.. all risks associated with development of the property and dog therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees WSS52079A/00O6.040.034 -2- WSS/klt 02/08/90 �,101010 arising, from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or. �'nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from'"or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established,through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: (insert insurance requirements and time period, if any --if no insurance.required, so state.) WSS52079A/-0006.040.034 -3- WSS/klt 02/08/90 IL 0 7 2 (14 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,beirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acqp1ring 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 S 1-- 1990. day of OWNER(S) By: By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ss: COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory eviden that signed this instrument and acknowledged WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -4- WSS/klt 02/08/90 9107080264 " .., I o::.'b V (iviv/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes m�AtTi�o n this instrument. �L 'NOTD A`t is cAeday of K2� 1996. , }% �`+'•` 4NiY PUB My commission expires: 9l . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss: COUNTY OF ) 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. DATED this _ day of 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission ex es: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) rR COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence t 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 fq the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of , 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5- WSS/k1t 02/08/90 9T070809 R 4 MUTUAL GRANT OF EASEMENT JUN is M, PERMIT COUNTER 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: 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 "All 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 Is 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. 4. Second party hereby grants to the first party, his successors and assigns a nonexclusive easement over, under and 1 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 201 parcel, that is 101 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 e/ day of Ve,�O� , 1991. arrison ell,'First Party Plan C. Riggle, SOt6dnd Party STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss. COUNTY OF KING 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 in ,. 7 44R�VIPTFBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires 11;2(o-cIL/ F F L .a 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 ✓un�y 7. i OTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Commission Expires !/-oZGP-`3Y 3 8£99-9M UM PooMuuA� 'n t68 a}tn5 'M 'a^v p1£E t£Q64 Aw, HvE'38 31YOMOOM_W 30 1'a'idM�O 8Z NaQ18 C9 101 �8 S i0� SNOI1tlCd g � I B mV ts3. r NOSIUNW 80A 1 AWS OIHdMOOd01 „' R160� 70-R> JUL 915391 nRw OEM S172�� 11M1,1 o, n. ;z fsoa 10£ a}pS 'M 'ana M£ :£OSt es � J LU 6= __. _ _.. _NOlONIHS*1M-�SONOi�03 _� � �._-�- NOV3C :'l� . �� ,y �� 1 3 � z �� i I '9Z *N I9 '9 101 ONH 9 101 'Nld NO S3ON34iS321 21JJI2Jfll3MIP igki r b5 g a N � J � N l � h � W G O z 4 R u aYJ. �� Q � Q ti ny�NN�=��j 33 cawq ;