Loading...
15722 75TH PL W.PDFlillIIII 111111116050 15722 75TH PL W .� � s i. ADDRESS: IS72 ��� 1 TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: J 13l —d 2 9 — 006 000 6 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): ,/ 2670/O 6 / �J �y/� COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: ldo/dllofA ►�le.Ss < ` /l/ Z����O 7— CRITICAL AREAS:. ` (/ z Z i DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ® Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: V+Aono-4 Z d iii�feks 11 2000-133 hlrl,4 1 DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: /2 "S/ c 4k —1 e /F/e- PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: �se4 PERMITS (OTHER): qt% p 2-00 6 t) lu WkL(/ 2.o15 PO I O' � Zom a3ir-2 We- 2bt�10?7l1 PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: e -3 0 SEWER LID FEE $: SHORT PLAT FILE: LID #: Z10 LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: ���T ��'S , ��✓��Gy SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: 6 SOO , ! 77 GEOTECH REPORT DATED:-7114A5 , 4/Lz! g 9 STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 68d 40✓IVO-VtleI L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc > If c L> Ui (Jt s 57) o-O C7 m If W Man it 4W 490 Soo 410 480 4W 0 RECEIVED MAY 19 2000 PERMIT COUNTER S,�5 VL- $ 'lei I Mxrv4e. D,;rrq 4 75 7 -74-0- 4 7" -7-.— ,4 V. 5 0 4- z i 4IG�" - I e G m a T 9 U W r Wo U w� CO W c" LU O W ~ U. - U WO 0. W OZ3 z 0 w rn Oo W J t.,7-' -0 l0 i J .� W M� l L 4 Z i Pa. Wrap 0 mid W v 009 Or mer ri 9 NJ s� lLVN 11 C'm �Q nJ h ocy o ■ I S MMLLJ ton Y I ^ 1 v LU n U Ttf) in lo Q�v��� _. . RJ " tl'+Y•=F,Avlrn•y-ra.r'•y,l'v!i`` .. i f . PERMIT NO: 947.6 - C1 of Edmonds ..�, o PERMIT EXPIRES S S �- lnC 1 g9 SIDE SEWER PERMIT Address of Construction: I �� . �l • �N LID # Property Tax Account Parcel No. Z. CCU t 00 Attach copies of all access and utility easements ✓ Verified and Approved by t t Owner nd/or Contractor: C.on1T_aGt0P_L_ieense' 1 Building Permit #_ Single Family ' -4-�; Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes No ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units _) *RW Construction Permit # ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) Cross other "Private Property: YesElNo ❑ Public **Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. Owner/Contractor (0 re Owner or contractor signature and acknowledgement statement: Date By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled Side Sewer Specifications, and. shall comply with all City requirements outlined'therein. :.. 2 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-425=5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension,329 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Permit Fee $ Repair Fee $ Issued By:Tk� . . ... .... k 4y Trunk Charge $ Date Issued: , Assessment Fee $ Receipt No: City Permit Surcharge Fee . $5.00 Total Fees Paid $ NOTE: -IF JOB'SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A.$45 R&INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site.Ready YES N0 Date: Initial: - Partial Inspection: . Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: Initial: i FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Initial: As -built to Street File: PERMIT MUST BE POSTED`.ON JOB.SITE White.Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bldg;forms;sspermitj lg4/00 C/o N {--14,5' GARAGE C/O TO GRADE HOUSE w J w 9' 42'DEEP to 81' CITY OF EDM❑NDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT ADDRESS 15722 75TH PL W PERMIT NUMBER 9476 HOMEOWNER X X X X X X X X X X CONTRACTOR X X X X X X DATE XXXXXX BRAWN ISMAEL ABILA m o o ° I o r � �= z o z � � z � . o v J` J: O � J� O z o O V o � � z U � r z O :J i L•.7 z lI3 N oat CL of A a 3 z I °•_ � f. --"CITY OF EDMONDS - .PUBLIC WORKS DEPART*T FOR INSPECTION CALL � r permit ',`? SIDE SEWER PERMIT 775--252.5 Ext. 2240 Issue Date PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE FYNNWOOD LINE1. Address of ConstructionUj r 2. Property Legal Description (include all easements) h� l LL. 3. Single Family Residence Multi -Family No. of Units Commercial LU 4. Owner and/or Builder 5. Contractor & License No.' 6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Yes (If Yes Right-of- way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig (/3,1412'17'5/3#41) before excavation) . 1-800-424-555555 F' 7. Cross other private property: Yes No /` Easement required - attach legal description and county easement number. H a READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN: a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on >-' their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to construct side sewers in the public right-of-way. w b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each H installation for one year. ac. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6") side sewer line. o d. -Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30") to any structure. e. Side sewer lines must be laidat a minimum grade of 2% (1.150) O and maximum grade of 100% (450). o H f. No turn in side sewer greater than 45 (1/8.bend) is0allowed between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45 (1/8 bend) and wye with removable cap. g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected to side sewer system. h. Pea gravel is.required for bedding when installing sewer lines through other than granular soil. i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure due to poor compaction of fill. k.. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved by the City. 1. Inspection during normal working hours only..,- Two (,2-) working days notice required. DATE: 7 I certify -that I have read <and/'shall comply with the above PERMIT FEE: (j,P} �) DISAPPROVED BY: Date: Z,5,jO B Date: CONNECTION FEE: Date:94 APPROVED y - (2 - $ w * PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB 4ITE A 1a I19 40 I�1 71J1-VVV-.170-VIUV 3-113—tl3 SHORELINE SAVINGS TAYLOR CUSTOM HOMES 2435-66-01 P 0 BOX 25788 SEATTLE WA 98125 61 MtAUOWDALE BEACH N 198FT TR 158 LESS W 22OFT OF E 45OFT THOF 5131-028-001-0001 88498-78 MEADOWDALE BEACH HODGE EUELL H E BARBARA BLK 028 D-00 - LOTS 1 S 2 PLUS VAC ST 10940 MAGDALENA LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94022 5131-028-003-0009 12-8-82 MEADOWDALE BEACH I LANIL KUbtRl ,M JR BLK 028 D-OC - LOTS 3 & 4 PLUS VAC ST 916 20TH AVENUE EAST SEATTLE WA 98112 d' 5131-028-00-5-0106 7-20-81 JEWELL HARRISON SEATTLE WA 81 98107 MEADOWDALE BEACH BLK 028 D-01 - N 45FT OF LCT 5 PLUS VAC ST ,; 13L—l:caZU d- L.J—lii MLAllUWUALE EEACH RIGGLE JEAN C BLK 028 D-02 - !3,� 7 HIGHLAND CRIVE =202 S 15FT LOT PLUS VAC ST - N 30FT LCT 6 >>� SEATTLE WA 98109 PLUS VAC ST 36. 5131-028-006-0006 1-9-8-1 85 MEADOWDALE BEACH - U S BANCORP MT G CO BLK 028 0-00 - F := JESSEN JESSTEN 2521765 S 30FT CF LCT 6 PLUS VAC ST - N 15FT CF = P 0 BOX 3347 LOT 7 PLUS VAC ST PORTLAND OR 97208 - :I 5131-028-007-0005 141981-83 MEADOWDALE BEACH JENKINS MALCOLM BLK 028 D-00 — ..: 990 S W LONG FARM ROAD S 45FT CF TR 7 PLUS VAC RD WESTLINN OR 97068 5131-029-001-0009 3261-82 MEADCWDALE EEACH raj NORTHFIELC K EDMUND BLK 029 D—OC — LOT 1 7997 VAN UEC.AAR ROAD SE PLUS PTN VAC ST LY ADJ PORT ORCHARD WA 98366 5131= f- 161431—E3 ME�DQWDAi.E BEACH - -: BASS WI=LIAR! L JR & JOYCE R BLK 029 D—CC — LOT 2 -! 13303 INORTHSHIRE ROAD N w PLUS PT": VAC. ST LY ADJ SEATTLE WA 38177 --------_.-------- ----------------------------- , AS3308R S N C H U M i J n u A -S- S E-S—'c'-- 0 -R R E 4 L. P -R O---P-._E R T-_Y- -R -L CWNERSHIP NAME S-TMT LEGAL_OE-SC-R,IPTI.CN ----._ --_ AUCIT PTY Ll M z 0 z • PLANNING DATA NAME: SITE ADDRESS:- Z DATE: Q� ZONING: zo PLAN CHK#: �g ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ;7) �'7971 N� /�/mow/�� �911iiiVJa// CORNER LOT (Yes/No) FLAG LOT —' (Yes/No) SETBACKS: 2-7 Required Setbacks: Front:_Left Side /D Right Side: Rear: 5' Actual Setbacks: Front: Left Side: .5 Right Side:_ 7 5 Rear:_ Street map checked for additional setback required?No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISS�UEeD ( /N LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: Actual:_ BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: E Actual Height:. :'rl►1 Datum PointDatum Elevation:, zlu- PL A.D.U. CREATED?: SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS #: Co/ " SEPA DETERMINATION: LOT AREA: �, i�51)D Critical Areas Checklist w .mation;(soilsltoraphy/hydrology/vegetation) Sit "Address/I.ocation: __ 15722 %STH . PL . W. /EDMONDS WASH I NGTON 1 s h?roperty�Zax.Account Number- #5.131-028-006-0006 3 .-cbppw�i1mate Site Size (acres or square feet): FT � Is. this- si& ne ctiy re �. no, so � 4. atly developed? , If yes; how is site developed? 5: , Describe the .. general site _ i that ... t3iedc all i'�PhY - X Fiat less than 54 el eet evatioa change over entire site. _ Roiling. slopes on site generally Mess than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a' . horizontal distance of 66-feet). "Hilly." slopes present on site of more bran 15% and less than 30`& (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of I0-feet over a . horizontal distance of less than 33 feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Nam_ ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What seasons) of the year?_ 8. Site is in the floodway NO_ fioodplain No of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? .< NO Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily. forested ;meadow ; shrubs ;mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shr ubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: NO For City Staff Use Only 1. Site is Zoned? 5 ' Z 0 2. SCS mapped soil type(s)? _}r ( e, r,I L)r �4� •� Cq,.,,B�ex 'L _$ to-S(r%'oe 3. Wetland inventory or CA. map indicates wetland present on site? 4t• �­,Critical Areas inventory or &A.imnffica Area oa site? es (o a to tJ.✓ yf'«+C%.o- r 5.. Site within d area? C o'lo _� �A,'(drw t r' yw yp crib 6. Site designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? e $ .DETERMINATION ` "STUDY REQUIRED CONDITIONAL WAIVER - - - -,.. Reviewed by: er Date MEA ' �'lti Y�i0 �:tSi `3 n� `'�hc) ., ,.. i -M 1 r''r1+.ii'•+a�_71#,+• 3 a it p ..q, , � a :ta x � �►z. T; :>� a; h ;,� :,.i�.: �.1Lfi ;1996 .' �e 99� t ,,L ; r, �: ?:"'•MIT C 9 01 ?qAr rER Clof crn/ _ �_.r ,. ar t •, 'h,'.:..' �l-.-•--•----r r . .r''u ,�: z z-%' Us' ;2:_• j - _ . . .� =�Wiil/�j1W7._J/; t-�-'yr T f...: ) .9't`y' •�:.^7�lf�J! t: .�_'J :k 4:� `'::.. `"'�ii�:%`i-Ji i.� a �reas3�e��C1ist1���� { _: rr I'W '•9'f-l�� 7t'/''.�Z 1 � .li� hlf £� a, Z.1 i�Sflr ;P. S� 'lI� �' �.5c. � ji? h � i-i'•l•� e'�/t� _ , The Critical Areas �� contained on Al and<submit it to the City: The City will this form is to be .filled out person reviewu t cheddist, ..make a ing Devel+opmezit Permit ";` ` Wil U. Pp 13!_si� a .:.r•�.. L VASit, : _make adetermination of the ` • ._ . Application for the City of Ed6i6nds prior subsequent steps necessary to complete a to his/her submittal of a deve%pmeizt> °`' = ":: ":, de�ielopmeirt permit application. permit to the City. y With a signed cxdipy of this form; the _...._...:. The purpose of tfie. Checklist is to enable ... _.. _::.... _. applicant should also submit a vicinity map City staff to determine whether any, or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel potential Critical Arras are or maybe : with enough detail that .City staff can find:, present on the subject praopecty: 'The' �- .;5-�---- aad identify the subject parcel(s)- In information needed to complete the . taompl adMon, the appLcaz;t shall include Checklist should be easily available from ,� �• • otberVw iae.ut.information (e g -site''.�* ,observations of the site or data available at , . . Plan, topography map, etc.) or: stedies is City Ball (Critical Areas inywentories; 'snaps, cogjuzidion with this Cheddist to assist =- or soil surveys)- staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. . An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner I Applicant: _ . Appriicant Representative: WALT'tA.-'J. PISCO (OWNER) Name � � - Name � 2 _75-TH PL W. Street A ess -intied Address • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 827-7701 FAX (425) 827-5424 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 OLLESTAD RESIDENCE ADDITION EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR Mr. Burt 011estad PROJECT NO. KE98192A September 14, 1998 Revised April 22, 1999 4EMASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, IIVC SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT OLLESTAD RESIDENCE ADDITION 15722 75`h PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON September 14, 1998 Revised April 22,1999 Project No. KE98192A I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed 011estad residence addition in Edmonds, Washington. The proposed location of the addition and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are pre- sented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and verified, or modified, as necessary. The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and develop- ment of the above -mentioned project. Our study included a review of available literature, drilling of exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. This report summarizes our current field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Burt 011estad on May 20, 1998. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated May 20, 1998. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. 011estad and his agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engi- neering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. • 0 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on information provided by Mr. 011estad and design plans provided by Baker Engineers, Inc., P.S. dated April 2, 1999. It is our understanding that present plans call for a partial remodel and the construction of a one- story addition to the existing single-family home utilizing conventional wood -frame construction. Due to the topography on the east end of the existing house, the addition will have a foundation on the east side and will structurally span to connect with the existing house on the west about 14 feet above the existing ground surface. The subject property is located at 15722 75`h Place West in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The property is bordered to the north and south by similar private properties, to the west by the existing Burlington Northern Railroad easement, and to the east by 75`h Place West. Site vegetation consisted primarily of landscaped grass lawn areas. Topography of the approxi- mately 'h-acre parcel consisted of a generally level eastern portion, an approximate 1.511:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) slope down to the existing daylight basement house, and an approximate 2H:1 V slope west of the existing house toward the railroad easement. Total elevation change across the property was on the order of 70 feet. During our field visit, we noted evidence of settlement within the existing wood -frame house. Cracking within the foundation and basement floor slab area and settlement of the concrete stairs leading to the house from the street appear to be the result of long-term differential settlement of the existing structure. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling a series of exploration borings and performing a geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented at the back of this report. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approxi- mately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on a site topographic survey prepared by Kegel & Associates, dated May 20, 1992. Figure 2, Geologic Cross -Section A -A', shows existing surface elevations and inferred subsurface conditions between our borings. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the three exploration borings completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were com- pleted within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition, landslide activity, and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. If additional explorations are performed or variations in subsurface conditions are observed at the 2 • 0 time of construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 3-3/8 inch inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger with a hand portable drill rig operated under subcontract to our firm. The depth of the bor- ings was limited based on the capability of the equipment used for the project. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 2.5- or 5.0-foot depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineering geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented at the back of this report are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM) test designation D-1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside -diameter, split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the subject site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature. � As shown on the field logs, our exploration borings encountered moist, tan, silty sands and gravels underlain by moist, gray, clayey silt. The upper, silty sands were interpreted to represent Vashon advance outwash sediments and the underlying, gray, silty clay was interpreted to represent the non -glacial Whidbey Formation. A more detailed description of the sediments encountered is presented in the following sections. Vashon Advance Outwash The Vashon advance outwash sediments were deposited as the Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet advanced south through the Puget Lowland areas during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation approximately 15,000 years ago. Vast quantities of sand and gravel were deposited by 3 high-energy streams exiting the front of the advancing ice sheet. These sediments were deposited onto the pre-existing ground surface comprised of non -glacial, floodplain and streambed sediments of the Whidbey Formation. Whidbey Formation The stiff, gray, silty clay sediments of the Whidbey Formation were deposited during a previous non -glacial period approximately 300,000 years ago. In addition to the silty clays encountered at depth in boring EB-3, this unit typically contains similar interbedded, fine-grained sediments of sandy silts, clayey silts and silty sands. Both of the sediments described above are considered to be in -place landslide debris deposited in their current location by large-scale, deep-seated, rotational landslide mechanisms inferred to underlie a large portion of the Meadowdale area. The relatively low density of soil samples col- lected during drilling within the upper advance outwash sediments and their stratigraphic location relative to nearby areas are indicative that the topographic bench that forms the house location is the result of this large-scale landslide activity. The inferred geologic conditions below the site are shown on the attached Geologic Cross Section AA', Figure 2. 4.1 Hydrology At the time of our subsurface exploration program, we did not observe surface seepage or surface water runoff on the project site. An existing surface water drainage ditch lies at the base of the slope west of the existing house footprint along the Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) railroad easement. Ground water seepage was encountered in exploration boring EB-3 at a depth of 11 feet below existing ground surface at the time of our field study. The ground water encountered appeared to be a "perched" water condition at the Vashon advance outwash/Whidbey Formation contact. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates down through relatively permeable soils such as the Vashon advance outwash sediments and becomes trapped or "perched" atop a lower perme- ability soil unit such as the silty clay of the Whidbey Formation. The complex landslide activity in the Meadowdale area has had a profound effect on ground water conditions and the flow of ground water in the area. Continuous ground water flow over large areas is unlikely due to the presence of slide surfaces and associated discontinuous geologic contacts. However, we do not anticipate that the presence of the ground water conditions encountered will affect the proposed addition. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to variations in precipitation, time of the year, irrigation, site usage, and other factors. 4 • 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to landslide and seismic hazards. 5.1 Landslide Hazards The Meadowdale area is a densely developed residential area of northwestern Edmonds. The area consists generally of rolling terrain, which is the result of ongoing landslide activity consisting of multiple episodes of primary, secondary, and tertiary earth movement. The area has been the subject of extensive research into the causes, mechanics, and results of the ongoing landslide activity. However, the complex nature of the landslide activity in the area is not completely understood. It is widely accepted, however, that the landslide activity, which likely began during prehistoric times and has continued to the present, is the result of deep-seated instability related to the retreat of the last glaciation of the region approximately 12,000 years ago. Periodic incre- mental movement has been documented throughout the area since the early 1960's, and has caused significant damage to homes, roadways, utilities, and other structures since the area has been densely developed. The Meadowdale landslide complex has been designated as an Environmental- ly Sensitive Area by the City of Edmonds. A geotechnical report, prepared by Roger Lowe & Associates in 1979 and revised in 1984, has characterized regions of the slide area in terms of landslide history, type of landslide movement, and probability in percent of risk of future earth movement within a 25-year period. According to the Roger Lowe & Associates' report, the project site lies in an area designated as having a 10- percent probability of experiencing a slump type slope movement in previously affected landslide material within a 25-year period from the date of the report publication. The owner should be aware that recent landslides indicate that the Meadowdale area is an area of ongoing landslide activity and that similar earth movement could occur at any time in the future. We are in general agreement with the Roger Lowe & Associates' assessment of recurring landslide activity in the vicinity of the subject site; however, predicting the magnitude of future landslide activity is difficult. A quantitative slope stability analysis was beyond the scope of work for this study. The owner must understand the risks associated with development within an area of known, active landslides and accept full liability for future damage, loss of property, or injury as a result of future landslide activity. 5.2 Seismic Hazards Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. Fortunately, the vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt by man. However, large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event and the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event, and the more recent 1996 5.4-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this 5 • area during recorded history. However, there is recent, compelling evidence that great seismic events of magnitude 9.0 or greater are possible in the Puget Sound area. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. Surficial Ground Rupture Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and evolution of the Seattle fault and Seattle basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, p.71-74) suggest that the trace of an east -west trending thrust fault (Seattle fault) may project about 15 mile south of the project site, in the vicinity of the Duwamish Head. The recognition of this fault is relatively new and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the form of raised, wave -cut beach terraces along AM Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island approximately 1 mile east of the project site. A southern arm of this fault system may extend from the south Seattle area westward through the Bremerton area (Gower et al., 1985, Seismotectonic map of the Puget Sound Region, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1613). The recurrence interval of movement along these fault systems is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. In addition, the trace of the South Whidbey -Lake Alice Fault is inferred to project approximately 5 miles northeast of the Meadowdale complex. The earthquake return rate along this fault is not well understood. However, the last documented movement along the fault was in excess of 1,100 years ago. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval, the potential for seismically induced surficial ground rupture for these two faults unrelated to landslide activity is considered to be low during the expected life of the structure. Seismically Induced Landslides The risk of earth movement due to seismically induced landslides exists at the subject site; how- ever, the risk from this hazard to the proposed addition is no greater than risk associated with the existing house. A quantitative, seismic and slope stability assessment was beyond the scope of work for this study. Z Liquefaction The sediments encountered in the area of the proposed addition are considered to have a low potential for liquefaction due to their relatively well graded nature, and absence of adverse ground water conditions. Ground Motion Based on the site stratigraphy and visual reconnaissance of the site, it is our opinion that any earth- quake damage to the proposed structure, if founded on suitable bearing material, would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above -discussed impacts. Structural design of the building should follow Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards utilizing a seismic zone factor 3 and a site soil profile type SE (UBC Table 16-n of the 1997 edition. 7 0 0 September 14, 1998 Revised April 22, 1999 Project No. KE98192A II. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 INTRODUCTION Provided the risks associated with landslide activity in the area are understood and accepted, our studies indicate, from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed addition provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. We understand that the distribution of foundation loads for the one-story, wood -frame addition will be typical; no concen- trated loads are anticipated. In addition, we understand that additional loads placed on the existing structure will be supported by interior columns and that no additional loads will be applied to the existing foundation elements. Based on the depth to suitable bearing soils encountered in our borings, and the evidence of past long-term settlement of the existing residence, we recommend that the eastern portion of the proposed addition be founded on cast -in -place concrete piles extend- ing through the upper, loose, silty sand soils and into the medium dense, gravelly sands and very stiff, silty clays encountered at depth in EB-3 and inferred to underlie the areas in the vicinity of EB-1 and EB-2. Interior columns for the western portion of the addition in the area of the existing house may be founded on spread footings. 6.1 Steep Slope Recommendations The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are offered as a means to identify and reduce risks associated with steep slopes and seismic hazards. Elimination of risks from potential geologic hazards, as identified on this site, is not possible. It should be understood that our recommendations are not meant to stabilize against future earth movement, but will provide vertical foundation support only for the addition, without increasing the risks of potential slope movement. There is no economical means to minimize the potential for movement of the site slopes; however, slope stability of the site will not be reduced as a result of constructing the pro- posed addition. 7.0 SITE PREPARATION Old foundations presently on the site that may lie within the proposed addition foundation area, such as the existing concrete walkway and steps, should be removed. Additionally, any buried utilities that may conflict with the construction of the addition should be removed or relocated. The resulting depressions should be graded in such a way as to avoid excessive erosion or the ponding of water. 0 Site preparation of the planned addition area should include removal of all vegetation, debris, and any other deleterious material from the construction area. Additionally, the upper 3 to 6 inches of organic topsoil should be removed to expose the underlying gravelly sand sediments and the remaining roots should be grubbed. It is our understanding that the addition will utilize structural wood floor and crawl space type construction. Once the topsoil and other organic material is removed from the construction area, protective plastic sheeting should be placed to minimize erosion. In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that tempo- rary, unsupported cut slopes in the upper sands can be made at a maximum slope of 1H:1V. As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act / federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (WISHA/OSHA) regulations should be followed at all times. Due to the limited amount of excavating and site preparation to be performed at the site, we do not anticipate that large temporary slopes will be required. The on -site soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them moisture - sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. However, current construction plans indicate that minimum disturbance of the site soils is anticipated. 8.0 FOUNDATIONS Based on our discussions with Baker Engineers, Inc., P.S. (structural engineer), it is our understanding that the addition will be supported on augercast piling. Each pile will be required to support an allowable vertical load of 9 kips. 8.1 Augercast Piling Cast -in -place concrete piles (augercast) may be used for foundation support of the proposed addi- tion. We recommend that the placement of all piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Soils of glacial origin, such as those encountered at the site, may have gravel lenses or boulders present in them. Encountering such conditions should be anticipated. Augercast piles with a minimum diameter of 16 inches will be capable of supporting the required 9-kip vertical load when embedded a minimum distance of 25 feet below the ground surface. Allowable design loads may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlements of pile supported structures will generally be on the order of 1 inch. The piles supporting the proposed addition will be embedded within the existing 1.5H:1V slope. Therefore, the piles should be designed to resist active earth pressures. We recommend that the piles be designed for an active earth pressure using an equivalent unit weight of 72 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) applied across one pile diameter. Below a depth of 15 feet, a passive earth 6 pressure with an equivalent unit weight of 300 pcf may be used to resist lateral movements. The passive pressure may be applied across two times the diameter of the pile. Due to the loose, sloping condition of the near -surface soil, the vertically installed piles should not be relied upon to provide resistance to lateral foundation loads within the upper 15 feet of the embedded portion of the pile. Lateral restraint for foundation elements can be resisted by passive soil resistance below a depth of 15 feet, as discussed above, or could be achieved by installation of battered piles. Due to the sloping site conditions, a portable "Acker" drill rig was utilized to explore subsurface conditions. As such, the depths of exploration were limited by the capability of the Acker equipment. The borings were terminated within medium dense sands and gravels and stiff clays. However, due to the potential for the presence of weaker landslide soil deposits at depth, the piles have been designed as friction piles, neglecting end bearing support. The medium dense sands and gravels and stiff silty clays encountered at depth in EB-3 are inferred to underlie the eastern portion of the addition where the piles are to be installed. The presence of these soil units must be confirmed at the time of installation. If these soil conditions are not encountered at the depths specified, our recommendations will need to be modified accordingly. Since completion of the piles takes place below ground, the judgment and experience of the geotechnical engineer or his field representative must be used for determining the acceptability of each pile. Consequently, the use of the presented design information requires that all piles be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and observe the contractor's operations. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., acting as the owner's field representative, would keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed following completion of pile installation. 8.2 Spread Footings Spread footings may be used for interior column support for the western portion of the when founded on the medium dense advance outwash encountered at approximately 5 feet below the existing basement floor -slab grade. To limit differential settlement, we recommend over - excavation to a depth of 5 feet, below proposed footing grade and backfilling the excavation using control density fill (CDF). The CDF-backfilled area should extend laterally a minimum of 6 inches beyond the edge of the proposed column footings in all directions. We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be utilized for design purposes including both dead and live loads for footings founded on properly cured CDF. An increase in the above -mentioned bearing pressures of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. All new footings must penetrate to the prescribed bearing stratum and no footing should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils if encountered. Anticipated total settlement of footings founded on properly placed CDF should be on the order of 1 inch. However, loose or disturbed soil not removed from footing subgrade area prior to 10 footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas should be inspected by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prior to placing CDF and structural concrete, to verify that the design bearing capacity of the advance outwash material has been attained and that construction conforms with the recommendations contained in this report. 9.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that all water drained from the site (both new and existing construction) be tightlined the entire length of the western slope to a suitable, low gradient collection and/or disper- sion system below, such as the existing drainage ditch at the base of the slope. It should be noted that off -site drainage may require the appropriate easements. Regular maintenance of the tightline should be provided to ensure that the pipe has not been damaged or separated at joints. If the pipe allows discharge onto the slope, it may initiate soil movement or trigger a landslide event. High -density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe used for permanent drainage is a relatively low main- tenance approach to conveyance of water down the slope. If HDPE pipe is utilized, we recom= mend that it be installed by a contractor experienced in the installation of butt -welded pipe systems. If flexible ADS pipe is used, periodic maintenance will be required. The integrity of ADS pipe is subject to ultra -violet light degradation by sunlight and is prone to crushing from falling debris such as limbs/trees. If conveyance pipes are to be buried, backfill materials should consist of the excavated material compacted to a similar density as the surrounding material. In addition, seepage collars of low permeability soils should also be used to reduce the risk of creat- ing a preferential subsurface flow route along the exterior of the buried pipe. If pipes are to be routed on the surface, we recommend that adequate surface restraints be used to anchor the pipe the along the slope. 9.1 Underground Utilities If the above geotechnical recommendations are followed, we do not anticipate significant differen- tial settlement of the structure relative to other on -site and off -site features. As a result, we feel that the use of standard utility connections should be adequate from the existing utilities along 75`h Place SW to the house. To reduce the risk of ruptured utilities as a result of possible future land- slide activity in the area, the owner may consider utilizing flexible utility connections between the house and existing utilities. Connections of this type can provide a small amount of protection from differential settlement, however, connections of this type are still susceptible to rupture from even small scale landslide activity. 10.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We are also available to provide geo- technical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation 11 depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington JiJA I Robert F. Cousins, P.G. Project Geologist Vzz/99 G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Attachments: Figure 1. Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2. Geologic Cross -Section A -A' Exploration Logs RFC/kp/Id KE98192A8 4/20/99 Id - WP8 12 N v I ^ I IIH I I, OE D EXISTING HOUSE I II I I FOUND PROPERTY ORNER / / J i l l 1 1 I I I I I I I ' c DRIyE�AY SET HY OTHERS / / I I I I / I m 04 h 1 I i / TBMi PKNAIL FOUND PROPERTY JORNER I SET HY OTHERS I DATUM ASSUMED EL •50H .92 WOOD FENCE r, .m. / I / /- / /•r (LAND CAP INI�) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I R I vDUD FENCE I I I EB-Z / -. \ ,. -: ENLE 1 .. �.. I O� .. GTE �_- � I l / /� ,,. � I• I , 1 I I �(OODI BUL(I"' HEAIl ROI CKERY ZJ� / I � I / o„ � CONCRETE BULKHEA I I I I J i I I I I I I so I/� I I I I / I I ON I I 1 1 / / ,.,.. • ' T-t' v Pp K u \ I u I GotpVORE I - I I ! I I I I I /r �I / I I I H i .a m �,�.`. m m` •� I/ / :. ,)Pm w mr u. \� \ - V J Zl I II I I I � I I � � � �rm! I jP , `_ � •I •� I � �.��� �- - �- N �-1 ti _ EXISTING HOUSE I 1 D=0.29.- 1 , I 1 l I I i I Amp m m. mm R=5258.80' f 1 I / .I I I I (BASEMENT FLOOR I 'I{ I p „ EL. = 473.13) r � ROCKER CLP, NT GARAGE - 1 ! I I t. I I 11 I I 1 F01�CRETE HU -A s EB-1 0. I I CONCRETE "BULKHEAD 1�^ . @N 88.09 v IA1 I •�-FENCE _ A CONCRETE BULKHEAD- APPROXGIATE AVv MN pyI _ . _ I EDGE OF - yNDARY PAVEMENT LEGE1D FICAME 1: SrrE PLAN EB-1 EPLoRMW BORE -_ - OLLESTAD ADDITION - _ MEADOWDALE/EDMONDS i PROJECT NO. KE98192A SEPTEMBER 1998 NORTH Z0 40 ASSOCIATEO BASE -MAR 'T'OPOQRARiC YAP MR GrALT RSCO'. SCALE IN FEET' EARTH _ --_ _--- - --9BXL &ASSOCUUM Nc.'DATED 5imis2-..- ._ -- �.__ _. - _. SCIENCES. INC N 4 520 510 500 490, m 480 c c 470 - 0 m 460- N 450 - 440 - 430 420 A• East - 520 -510 •500 •490 480 m c 470.2 `c 0 W 460 N 450 440 LO—J 8 6/19/98 17 20 16 724 Water Level � BIOWCOUntS �I{ 7 ,is EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-'I (Elevation: 495 arbitrary datum) STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION F- a ? W Q RESISTANCE Blows/Foot o U 10 20 30 40 Damp, brown, silty SAND. (Fill) 1 4 A Moist, tan mottled orange, silty SAND with some gray, clayey silt clasts entrained. (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 5 T 1 5 A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moist, tan mottled orange, gravelly SAND, some T 8 silt (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 1 10 I 1 12 15 20 I16 BOH @ 19' 25 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By EW:I Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 • Fax: 425-827-5424 011estad Addition Edmonds, Washington Pro 'ect No. KE98192A Ju16998 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-2 (Elevation: 495 arbitrary datum) SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a o —J ? w Q 0 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 Moist, tan/brown, silty SAND. (Fill) I 4• Moist, tan/gray, silty SAND, some gravel (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 5 I 5' I '' grades to gravelly, silty SAND 10 grades to gravelly SAND I 9' 15 I 9 20 25 . I 13 BOH @ 24' 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 • 011estad Addition Edmonds, Washington Project No. KE98192A Ju10998 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-3 (Elevation: 473 arbitrary datum) SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION F- 0 a ? W Q OO � STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 Moist, tan/gray, silty SAND, trace gravel (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) I 8. 5 I 17 I20 becomes wet 10 6/9/98 15 I 16- Wet, gray, silty CLAY. (Whidbey Formation Derived Slide Debris) 20 I A 24 BOH @ 19' 25 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By ®. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 0 011estad Addition Meadowdale/Edmonds Project No. KE98192A Ju10098 ; - < B111019 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT OLLESTAD RESIDENCE ADDITION EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR Mr. Burt 011estad PROJECT NO. KE98192A SEPTEMBER 1998 CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 ASSOCIATED Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 827-7701 EARTH FAX (425) 827-5424 4SMSCIEIMCES, IIMC BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 C� r: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT OLLESTAD RESIDENCE ADDITION 15722 75 h PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON September 14, 1998 Project No. KE98192A I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed 011estad residence addition in Edmonds, Washington. The proposed location of the addition and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1, at the back of this report. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the above -mentioned project. Our study included a review of available literature, drilling of exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. This report summarizes our current field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Burt 011estad on May 20, 1998. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated May 20, 1998. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. 011estad and his agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on information provided by Mr. 011estad and design plans provided by Baker Engineers, Inc., P.S. dated June 16, 1998. It is our understanding that present plans call for the construction of a one-story addition to the existing single-family home utilizing conventional wood -frame construction with a structural wood floor. Due to the topography on the east end of the existing house, the addition will have a foundation on the east side and will structurally span to connect with the existing house on the west about 14 feet above existing ground surface. In addition, a breezeway is planned to connect the existing driveway and house. The subject property is located at 15722 75' Place West in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds Washington. The property is bordered to the north and south by similar private properties,.to the west by the existing Burlington Northern Railroad easement, and to the east by 75t' Place. West. Site vegetation consisted primarily of landscaped grass lawn areas. Topography of the approximately '/z-acre parcel consisted of a generally level eastern portion, an approximate 1.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) slope down to the existing daylight basement house, and an approximate 2H:1 V slope west of the existing house toward the railroad easement. Total elevation change across the property was on the order of 70 feet. During our field visit, we noted evidence of settlement within the existing wood -frame house. Cracking within the foundation and basement floor slab area and settlement of the concrete stairs leading to the house from the street appear to be the result of long-term differential settlement of the existing structure. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling a series of exploration borings and performing a geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented at the back of this report. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on a site topographic survey prepared by Kegel & Associates, dated May 20, 1992. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the three exploration borings completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition, landslide activity, and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. If additional explorations are performed or variations in subsurface conditions are observed at the 2 time of construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exnloration Borin s The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 3-3/8 inch inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger with a hand portable drill rig operated under subcontract .to our firm. The depth of the borings was limited based on the capability of the equipment used for the project. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 2.5- or 5.0-foot depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineering geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented at the back of this report are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test procedure in accordance with ASTM: D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside -diameter, split barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the subject site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature. As shown on the field logs, our exploration borings encountered moist, tan, silty. sands and gravels underlain by moist, gray, clayey silt. The upper, silty sands were interpreted to represent Vashon advance outwash sediments and the underlying, gray, silty clay was interpreted to represent the nonglacial Whidbey Formation. The Vashon advance sediments were deposited during the advance of the last major glacial episode of the Puget Sound area approximately 15,000 years ago. Vast quantities of sand and gravel were deposited by high energy streams exiting the front of the advancing ice sheet. These sediments were deposited onto a preexisting erosional surface comprised of the finer -grained floodplain and streambed sediments of the Whidbey Formation. These fine-grained sediments were deposited during a previous nonglacial period approximately 300,000 years ago. 3 Both of the sediments described above are considered to be in -place landslide debris deposited in their current location by large-scale, deep-seated, rotational landslide mechanisms inferred to underlie a large portion of the Meadowdale area. The relatively low density of these soils and their stratigraphic location relative to nearby areas are indicative that the topographic bench which forms the site, is the result of this large-scale landslide activity. 4.1 Hydrology Ground water was not encountered in any of the three exploration borings at the time of our field study. It should be noted, however, that a "perched" water condition may occur at the Vashon advance outwash/Whidbey Formation contact. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates down through relatively permeable soils such as the Vashon advance outwash sediments and becomes trapped or "perched" atop a comparatively impermeable barrier such as the silty clay of the Whidbey Formation. The complex landslide activity in the Meadowdale area has had a profound effect on ground water conditions and the flow of ground water in the area. Continuous ground water flow over large areas is unlikely due to the presence of slide surfaces and associated discontinuous geologic contacts. Seepage may result along the lower portions of the western slope of the site where the Vashon advance outwash/Whidbey Formation contact is inferred to be exposed. However, we do not anticipate that the presence of adverse ground water conditions will affect the proposed addition. Seepage may also occur at random depths and locations in unsupervised or non -uniform fills. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to variations in precipitation, time of the year, irrigation, site usage, and other factors. 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to landslide and seismic hazards. 5.1 Landslide Hazards The Meadowdale area is a densely developed residential area of northwestern Edmonds. The area consists generally of rolling terrain which is the result of ongoing landslide activity consisting of multiple episodes of primary, secondary, and tertiary earth movement. The area has been the subject of extensive research into the causes, mechanics, and results of the ongoing landslide activity. However, the complex nature of the landslide activity in the area is not completely understood. It is widely accepted, however, that the landslide activity, which likely began during prehistoric times and has continued to the present, is the result of deep-seated, instability related to the retreat of the last glaciation of the region approximately 12,000 years ago. Periodic incremental movement has been documented throughout the area since the early 1960's, and has caused significant damage to homes, roadways, utilities, and other structures since the area has 4 been densely developed. The Meadowdale landslide complex has been designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area by the City of Edmonds. A geotechnical report, prepared by Roger Lowe and Associates in 1979 and revised in 1984, has characterized regions of the slide area in terms of landslide history, type of landslide movement, and probability in percent of risk of future earth movement within a 25-year period. According to the Roger Lowe and Associates' report, the project site lies in an area designated as having a 10 percent probability of experiencing a slump type slope movement in previously affected landslide material within a 25-year period from the date of the report publication. The owner should be aware that recent landslides indicate that the Meadowdale area is an area of ongoing landslide activity and that similar earth movement.could occur at any time in the future. We are in general agreement with the Roger Lowe and Associates' assessment of recurring landslide activity in the vicinity of the subject site; however, predicting the magnitude of future landslide activity is difficult. Therefore, the owner must understand the risksassociated with development within an area of known, active landslides and accept full liability for future damage, loss of property, or injury as a result of future landslide activity. 5.2 Seismic Hazards Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. Fortunately, the vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt by man. However, large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude event and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude event, and the more recent 1996 5.4 magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. However there is recent, compelling evidence that great seismic events of magnitude 9.0 or greater are possible in the Puget Sound area. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) 'ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. Surficial Ground Rupture Generally, the largest earthquakes which have occurred in the Puget Sound area are sub -crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. For this reason, no surficial faulting, or earth rupture, as a result of deep, seismic activity has been documented, to date, in this area of the King County/Snohomish County region. However, recent published information by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) indicates that the South Whidbey -Lake Alice Fault traverses through the Meadowdale complex. The earthquake return rate along this fault is not well understood. However, the last documented movement along the fault was in excess of 1,100 years ago. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that the. risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed project is low. 5 • • Seismically Induced Landslides The risk of earth movement due to seismically induced landslides exists at the subject site; however, the risk from this hazard to the proposed addition is no greater than risk associated with the existing house. A quantitative, seismic and slope stability assessment was beyond the scope of work for this study. Liquefaction The sediments encountered in the area of the proposed addition are considered to have a low potential for liquefaction due to their relatively well graded nature, and absence of adverse ground water conditions. Ground Motion Based on the site stratigraphy and visual reconnaissance of the site, it is our opinion that any earthquake damage to the proposed structure, if founded on suitable bearing material, would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above - discussed impacts. Structural design of the building should follow UBC standards utilizing a seismic zone factor 3 (UBC Table 16-I) and a site soil profile type SE (UBC Table 16-J) of the 1997 edition. R • • September 14, 1998 Project No. KE98192A II. GEOTECIINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 INTRODUCTION Provided the risks associated with landslide activity in the area are understood and accepted, our studies indicate, from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed addition provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. We understand that the distribution of foundation loads for the one-story, wood -frame addition will be typical; no concentrated loads are anticipated. Based on the depth to suitable bearing soils encountered in our borings, and the evidence of past long-term settlement of the existing residence, we recommend that the proposed addition be founded on cast -in -place concrete piles extending through the upper, loose, silty sand soils and into the medium dense, gravelly sand and very stiff, silty clay encountered at depth. 6.1 Steep Slope Recommendations The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are offered as a means to identify and reduce risks associated with steep slopes and seismic hazards. Elimination of risks from potential geologic hazards, as identified on this site, is not possible. It should be understood that our recommendations are not meant to stabilize against future earth movement, but will provide vertical foundation support only for the addition, without increasing the risks of potential slope movement. There is no economical means to minimize the potential for movement of the site slopes; however, slope stability of the site will not be reduced as a result of constructing the proposed addition. 7.0 SITE PREPARATION Old foundations presently on the site which may lie within the proposed addition foundation area, such as the existing concrete walkway and steps, should be removed. Additionally, any buried utilities which may conflict with the construction of the addition should be removed or relocated. The resulting depressions should be graded in such a way as to avoid excessive erosion or the ponding of water. Site preparation of the planned addition area should include removal of all trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper 3 to 6 inches of organic topsoil should be removed to expose the underlying gravelly sand sediments and the remaining roots should be grubbed. It is our understanding that the addition will utilize structural wood floor and crawl space type construction. Once the topsoil and other organic material is removed from the construction area, protective plastic sheeting should be placed to minimize erosion. 7 In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the upper sands can be made at a maximum slope of 1H:1V. As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. Due to the limited amount of excavating and site preparation to be performed at the site, we do not anticipate that large temporary slopes will be required. The on -site soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material which makes them moisture - sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. However, current construction plans indicate that minimum disturbance of the site soils is anticipated. 8.0 FOUNDATIONS Cast -in -place concrete piles (Augercast) may be used for foundation support of the proposed addition. We recommend that the placement of all piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Soils of glacial origin, such as those encountered at the site, may have gravel lenses or boulders present in them. Encountering such conditions should be anticipated. Augercast piles with a minimum diameter of 16 inches will be capable of supporting loads on the order of 10 tons when embedded a minimum distance of 25 feet below the ground surface. Allowable design loads may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlements of pile supported structures will generally be on the order of one-half inch. The piles supporting the proposed addition will be embedded within the existing 1.5H:1 V slope. Therefore, the piles should be designed to resist active earth pressures.. We recommend that the piles be designed for an active earth pressure using an equivalent unit weight of 72 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and be applied across one pile diameter. Below a depth of 15 feet, a passive earth pressure with an equivalent unit weight of 300 pcf may be used to resist lateral movements. The passive pressure may be applied across two times the diameter of the pile. Due to the loose, sloping condition of the near -surface soil, the vertically installed piles should not be relied upon to provide resistance to lateral foundation loads within the upper 15 feet of the embedded portion of the pile. Lateral restraint for foundation elements can be resisted by passive soil resistance below a depth of 15 feet, as discussed above, or could be achieved by installation of battered piles. Alternatively, passive soil resistance equal to 200 pcf (equivalent fluid pressure) acting against the buried portion of the underpinned foundation element, or any new foundations located at least 3 feet beyond the top of the slope may be used. However, use of this value relies upon placement of compacted backfill around the foundations. This backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557 (modified Proctor). Since completion of the piling takes place below ground, the judgment. and experience of the geotechnical engineer or his field representative must be used for determining the acceptability of each pile. Consequently, the use of the presented design information requires that all piles be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and observe the contractor's operations. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), acting as the owner's field representative, would keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed following completion of pile installation. 8.1 Pin Piles During our initial site reconnaissance, we observed evidence of differential settlement within the existing house. Added loading of the existing foundation elements as a result of the planned construction could cause additional, differential settlement within the house. If additional settlement of the existing house is not acceptable, we recommend that all existing foundation elements, which will experience additional loading as a result of placement of the planned construction, should be underpinned using small, 2-inch diameter, Schedule 80 driven pin piles. Pin piles should be driven with a 90-pound jack hammer to refusal, which is defined as less than 1 inch of penetration during 1 minute of continuous driving. Piles installed in this manner may be designed for a maximum vertical capacity of 2 tons per pile. We anticipate that the pin piles will require embedment depths in the range of 18 to 22 feet. Pin piling installation must also be observed by a representative of AESI. 9.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that all water drained from the site (both new and existing construction) be directed away from the steep slopes. Specifically we recommend that drainage water not be directed toward the slope west of the existing house location. If runoff and other drainage water cannot be routed away from. the slope, we recommend tightlining all drainpipes down the entire length of the slope to a suitable collection and/or dispersion system below. Regular maintenance of the tightline should be provided to ensure that the pipe has not been damaged or separated at joints. If the pipe allows discharge onto the slope, it may initiate soil movement or trigger a landslide event. Since there is no evidence of recent soil movement in the area, and the slope to the west is not overly steep, we do not believe that a high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe is necessary for this application. However, we also do not recommend that flexible ADS be used due to potential degradation by sunlight and falling limbs/trees. Instead, we recommend that rigid, PVC pipe be used. The pipe should be buried at least 1 foot to protect it from falling trees and vandalism. 10.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We are also available to provide 0 foundation depends on proper site, preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 19 Robert F. Cousins, P.G. Project Geologist RFC/Id KE98192A1 9/1/98 Id - WP8 C7 p �FC� 3222R�0 G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. Senior Project Engineer 10 • EXPLORATIO.OBORING LOG Number EB-1 (Elevation: 495 arbitrary datum) zw STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION aRESISTANCE a Q 0 Blows/Foot Q 10 20 30 40 Damp, brown, silty SAND. (Fill) 4 • Moist, tan mottled orange, silty SAND with some gray, clayey silt clasts entrained. (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 5 I 5 • __ ___________________________ Moist, tan mottled orange, gravelly SAND, some T 8• silt (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 1 10 I 12 — 15 ;6 20 I BOH@19' 25 30 i � I Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 011estad Addition Edmonds, Washington Project No. KE98192A July 1998 • EXPLORATIGO BORING LOG Number EB-2 (Elevation: 495 arbitrary datum) o STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION F- a ? w Q 0 RESISTANCE Blows/Foot o C 10 20 30 40 Moist, tan/brown, silty SAND. (Fill) I 4 j Moist, tan/gray, silty SAND, some gravel (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 5 I 5♦ I I '♦ grades to gravelly, silty SAND 10 grades to gravelly SAND 9AL I 15 I 9 20 I 1 I i 25 T 1 ♦13 BOH @ 24' I 30 I I i i J I i I Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 011estad Addition Edmonds, Washington Project No. KE98192A July 1998 • EXPLORATIG.IBORING LOG Number EB-3 (Elevation: 473 arbitrary datum) Ir STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION F- a ? W Q 0 RESISTANCE Blows/Foot o U 10 20 30 40 Moist, tan/gray, silty SAND, trace gravel (Advance Outwash Derived Slide Debris) 8 A! I 1 i i 5 I i 17• i 1 20 becomes wet 10 6/9/98 15 I16 A i i Wet, gray, silty CLAY (Whidbey Formation Derived Slide Debris) A 24 20 I � BOH @ 19' i 25 j 30 i I i j i I i Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the tirne and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic , interpretations, engineering analysis, and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 011estad Addition Meadowdale/Edmonds Project No. KE98192A J u IV 1998 N E➢ APPR XINA E I I I I ' LOCATQGN) a I HrP ROPERTI I I SETBYOTHERSY/COR �R ,:..L { I I I +'� / vpOD PENCE 'I II OODj BUL jHEAd R I KERY �J0 f -- �I I D=0.29'215' l•45. 00 IR=5258 HD' + I ROCKER' 88.09+ v 7 � y EB-3 � o EB-1 40 EMDRAI'MY Rower. RASE MAP. 'TIOPOCRAp�W MAP FOR VVW MCO-, KEGEL A ASSOCIATES, NC.. GATED 5/10/92.. EXISTING HOUSE I I ! I I 0 % DRivEYff AY 111 � 04 FOUND PROPERTY ORNER SET BY OTHERS { 1 TBN� PKNA IL EL =508. 92 JATUN. ASSUnED t / / I I I / I /. / / /-� 1\CLAANDtCAPIN vOUD PENCE I G TE I / EB-2 . I —FENCE a � iOLJy ` CONCRETE BULKHEA+' IJ EXISTING H[X1SE '' I / (BASEMENT FLCDR I �`+-` uri J EL. = 473.13)OaR •I- .,I �• y_-jIJ I I GARAGE FOrfRETE BL A� . EB-1 � CONCRETE BULKHEAD T^ I FENCE } CONCRETE BULKHEAD APPROXiAATE ADDITION{ 7h PAVAVENENT T� FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN OLLESTAD ADDITION i MEADOWDALE/EDMONDS + PROJECT NO. KE98192A SEPTEMBER 1998 NORTH I 20 °I ASSOCIATED SCALE IN FEET EARTH I 4SMSCIENCE891INC • • Applicant: City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Walter Pisco Determination # Project Name: Permit Number: ST�ICE Site Location: �15722-75th: Pl =Wester Property Tax Acct #: 5131 028 006 0006 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a Steep Slope Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.1513 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed: ='Any slope over 40 % with more than 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, a 50 foot buffer or 15 foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: For development proposals which will occur within the 50 foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50 foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, .the public or any private party. All Critical Area Studies must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.150). 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. :e property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel -suld not impact the Critical Areas located p on the site they may submit their proposal to she Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Kirk J. Vinish . V November 20, 1996 Name Signature Date 2 IV Critical Checklist G f TY �ca1 Areas _ I :.y:•° te Imaiion (soils/to h /h dnol /v etation) • P Y Y.Y 'w� 1 Site Address/Location:. — 15722 75TH PL . WJEDMONDS WASH I NGTON o 2 y Property TaxplAmount Number. #5131-028-006-0006 .3... `;�CApproxiiiite Site Size (acres or a feet): f j r �� t ) B�O� S4. FT . 4. IS this siteii?ireAtly developed? des; no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography_ Check all -that apply:: i Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.' _ Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet Over a horizontal distance of 6&feet)_' . ly_ slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a . horizontal distance of Tess than 33-feety.����� Other (please describe); SEP 14 1998 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Rom_ ; Approx. Depth: T. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water:Q_; Approx. Depth: What seasons) of lire year?- S. Site is in the Roodway b10-- flovdpiain_ of a water course. 9. Site contains a creels or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round?, NO Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? X 10. Site is primarily. forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: �ItriJ�. For City Staff Use Only 1. Site is Zoned? S — Z. 0 /. 2. SCS mapped soil type(s)? f %' e+' r.�"I Ue Lc,L-4,1+1 �,oley- Z'$ 4 '5(4,0 < 3. Wetland inventory or CA. map indicates wetland present on site? /, 4v -,Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indica Area on site? cS 51,0, w- to tJ.-,y}•h,6% Sa��iS 5.. Site within d area? Oio io �a� `�d's. ryw f0 eNVb Sitb designated on the Environmeatally Sensitive Areas Map? S .DETERMINATION 'T t '• yS'I'UDY REQUIRED CONDITIONAL WAIVER Reviewed by: � PIC= Date f RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 COPY rd FILE IN THE S OFFICE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 199909280162 09/28/1999 10:14 AM Snohomish P.0006 RECORDED County COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATIONMOLD HARMILESS Reference #: Grantor(s): (1) 6ttrt QUP-stad (2) Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec� Twn Rng Qtr_-� OR Lot r Block 2-g Plat iYlp�d a r�i dale t3eacl,. Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) S 131-D28 - o0,- onof,, (2) _Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY: DATE:01 U C PAGE OF Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a' building permit for the construction of a residential, structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as. follows: APPRgVED FOR RECnO PAGI� OF ' 1. Description of Subject Property. This covenant of notification and Indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of I `J 9 ZZ- 'j S t� P taCP (t Jyr- , L (insert street address),_Edmonds Snohomish. County, Washington and legally described as: PARCEL A: The South 30 feet of Lot 6 and the North 15 feet of Lot 7, Block 28, MEADOWDALE BEACH, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, Page.38, records of Snohomish County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated street adjoining, which, upon vacation, attached to said property by operation of law. Situate In the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. PARCEL B: A portion of Lot 7, Block 28, NEADOWALE BEACH, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, Page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, as quieted to Walter J. Pisco in Snohomish County Superior Court Cause Number 96-2-02004-2, described.as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; THENCE South 2'48'17" West along the East line of said Lot 4.85 feet; THENCE North 88'29'23" West 28.40 feet; THENCE North 88'09'43" West parallel.with the North line of said Lot 7 a distance of 77.68 feet; THENCE North 1'50'17" East 5.01 feet to the South line of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; THENCE South 88'09'43" East along said North line 106.16 feet to the point of beginning. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. 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 the risks associated with, development are contained in building permit file number © (o 2 (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposedin accordance with the recommendations of [APPROVED FOR RECO ING:: DATE: �t �!GE 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.Me 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 Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. I Indemnification and Hold Harmless, The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees 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 APPR 4FOR Rjn4 BY: DAT PAGE OF 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 Jlz ,FTIS/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: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This - covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall . not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. APPROVED FOR RECQ G BY: DATE. 6 i� PAGE OF DONE this Z3 day of J For 1199 �. OWNER(S) By: - By: By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �(JtZ Ty signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this®� �/ 91i• eG�OOTARy`1'� dd a ' d NOTAR UBLIC p �' 1 G s= � My commission expires:QTI L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOW\COVENANT n APPR VED FOR RECORDING: BY. DATE:4 ,( �i PA OF 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 expires: L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOW\COVENANT RECEIVED 0 APR - 9 2001 PERMIT COUNTER CONFORMED COPY 200104060239 04/06/2001 11:36 AM Snohomish. P.0003 RECORDED . County NO EXCISE TAX REQUIRED APR 0 6 2009 BOB DANTIM, Snohomish County Treasurer gy 8OB DANTINI [n WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Coo Ralph I. Freese, Inc., P.S. 7009 - 212th St. S.W., #203 Edmonds, WA 98026 EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between BURT OLLESTAD ("OLLESTAD"), a single person, and GRADY HELSETH ("HELSETH"), a single person, for purposes of HELSETH granting an easement for a sewer over, across, under and through HELSETH's Parcel A for benefit of the OLLESTAD's Parcel B, all as described hereinafter below. ..1 pt%A- A_cc�T -9- o 0 5I 31 O z. BOO (oCO RECITALS A. HELSETH owns certain real property in Snohomish Countyiwhich does not have a common address but which is legally described as follows: The South 45 feet of Lot 7 in Block 28 of Meadowdale Beach, as per Plat recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington; Less: A portion of Lot 7, Block 28, Meadowdale Beach, as per Plat recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S2°48'17"W along the East line of said lot 4.85 feet; thence Easement Agreement - 1 i N88029'23"W 28.40 feet; thence N88009'43 "W parallel with the North line of said Lot 7 a distance of 77.68 feet; thence N1 °50' 17"E 5.01 feet to the South line of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S88009'43"E along said North line 106.16 feet to the point of beginning; Together with vacated portion of street adjoining said property on the East; Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington; (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel A"). B. OLLESTAD owns certain real property in Snohomish County which does not have a common address but which is legally described as follows: The South 30 feet of Lot 6 and the North 15 feet of Lot 7, Block 28, Meadowdale Beach, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington; Together with: A portion of Lot 7, Block 28, '_Meadowdale Beach, as per Plat recorded in VolumL -5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the North 15.00 feet or said Lot 7; thence S2 °48' 17" W along the East line of said lot 4.85 feet; thence N88 °29'23 "W 28.40 feet; thence N88 °09'43 "W parallel with the North line of said Lot 7 a distance of 77.68 feet; thence N1'50'17"E 5.01 feet to the South line of the North 15.00 feet of said Lot 7; thence S88°09'43"E along said North line 106.16 feet to the point of beginning; Together with that portion of vacated street adjoining to the West, which attached by operation of law; Situate in the County- of Snohomish, State of Washington; Easement .Agreement -- 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel B"). GRANT OF EASEMENT. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which by HELSETH is hereby acknowledged, HELSETH does grant, warrant and convey to OLLESTAD, his successors, heirs and assigns, a permanent non-exclusive easement over, across, under and through the North 5 feet of the East 40 feet of Parcel A for the benefit of Parcel B, for purposes of installing and maintaining a sewer line servicing Parcel B and connecting to the sewer line at 75th Place West. DATED this _�_­t-kday of4/ r , 2001. 1 G Y HELS5TH STATE OF WASHINGTON ) .) SS. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared before me GRADY HELSETH, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _ X4 day of �Y•" ___. 2001. : U r10TARy N•: PUBLIC i 10-��`•% Easement Agreement - 3 Notary!ya-ulic inland for the State of Washington, residing at _! .:t�✓ My commission expires: U Iv To; Edmonds Building Dept. Re: Garage Permit Address: 15722 75t' Pl. West April 24, 2001 I understand that I will be responsible for maintaining the length of sewer line that is located on my neighbors' property, ( per the easement he granted me), until such time as he amends that easement to include the Ciy of Edmonds as an additional Grantee for purposes of maintainance . Burt 011estad 21XM�T Property Adress RECEIVED APR 2 4 2001 ENGINEERING DIVISION i' JMMASSOCIATED EARTH SCIEPJCES, IIVC October 23, 2000 AESI Project No. KE98192A Mr. Burt 011estad 15722 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Subject: Plans Review for Proposed Garage th BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 827-7701 FAX (425)827-5424 RECEIVED OCT 232= DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 011estad Residence, 15722 75 Place West, Edmonds, Washington City of Edmonds Building Department Permit No. 990603 Dear Mr. 011estad: At your request, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has reviewed the current plans for the proposed garage at the east end of the property at 15722 751h Place West in Edmonds, Washing- ton. During our most recent site visit on August 24, 2000, we reviewed the location of the proposed garage with respect to existing conditions. Based on the data reviewed and observations made during our field visit, in our opinion, the pro- posed garage is feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided the following recommendations are followed and properly implemented. All footing subgrade soils for the proposed garage must be compacted to a firm and non -yielding condition prior to the placement of structural concrete. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design purposes for properly compacted subgrade soils. Footings along the west side of the proposed garage in proximity to the existing slope should be embedded a minimum of 5 feet below existing grade (elevation 496). This includes the portions of the north and south garage footings that lie below the existing concrete retaining wall. This depth to bearing soil will place the footing bottom at the intersection of a 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) line drawn from the toe of the slope at the first floor level, through the subsurface, to the upper, eastern portion of the lot. Footings placed at or below this elevation will not adversely affect the existing slope stability of the site. Backfill soils.inferred to lie upslope of the existing concrete retaining wall may not be suitable as footing subgrade material. Overexcavation and replacement of these soils, if found to be unsuitable by AESI, may be required prior to the placement of structural concrete. We under- stand that the existing retaining wall will remain and will be incorporated into the proposed • Burt 011estad AESI Project No. KE98192A October 23, 2000 Page 2 garage foundation. The project structural engineer should evaluate any changes in loading that may result from the proposed foundation plan. Storm water drainage for the proposed garage should be collected via tightline pipe and routed into the existing storm water drainage system in place for the house. It should be noted that differential settlement may occur due to the differing soil conditions that may underlie the proposed garage area. Differential settlement can be minimized by proper foot- ing subgrade preparation. Preparation of footing subgrade soils should be observed by AESI prior to the placement of structural concrete to verify adequate compaction of the soil has been satisfactorily completed. Subsurface conditions must be verified at the time of construction. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. West Sound Office 74Robe)tFtC-_o`u- sA,.G. Project Geologi PE ,c. WAS I R 18802 VOW r��NALGC" EXPIRES 6/22/ Q John L. Peterson, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer L/cc: Mike Snook, City of Edmonds Building Department, Development Services W:\U6011estad garage.ltr.doc JRR Engineering, Inc. 18609 76th Avenue West, Suite B J Lynnwood, WA 98037-4149 f Phone: (425)-697-5108 Fax: (425) 697-4506 September 6, 2000 1000 s 01FI. Burt 011estad S-, MEND bg'Ds 15722 75th Place West o�� c\r of Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: 011estad Drainage, Construction Observations, 15722 75th Place West, Edmonds, WA JRR #99-02 bear Mr. 011estad: During a site visit on August 29th, 2000, 1 observed your installation of drainage improvements for the above subject project. Overall the installation methods and materials are consistent with the design intent. As we discussed, inadequate cover was provided over the downspout collector on the south side of the house. Either cover the 4-inch PVC pipe with 12-inches of backfill material or cover with 3-inches of controlled density fill (quick Crete is acceptable). This letter may be provided to the City of Edmonds or BNSF Railroad to show your compliance with the . construction documents prepared by JRR Engineering, Inc. Please advise if you require additional information. Sincerely, JRR E ineering, Inc. Ronald K. Riach, P.E. Reg. # 29489 c:lronVeUersW902101.doc CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT j p Planning • Building • Engineering nc.189 December 14, 1999 Burt 011estad P.O. Box 6424 Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: Stop Work Order Permit No. 990603 15722 75th Place West, Edmonds Dear Burt, BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR RECEIVED DEC 151999 DEVELOpMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS As you know, staff has been deliberating over the consequences resulting from the demolition of the residence located at the above noted address. All that remains is the foundation of the 2-story structure. The building permit issued by the Building Official on August 9, 1999 was for partial demolition and remodel of the second floor with a 3rd story addition. Serious problems have resulted now that work has been done without proper permits or approvals. The demolition of structure not covered under the original permit is a direct violation of Section 106.1 of the Uniform Building Code. There are no floor plans for the first floor on file here with the City. New drawings must be created from scratch, which address current construction codes now effect. Staff was also reviewing the past setback variances granted to this project and critical area issues that could now in jeopardy due to not following the approved plans. It is the understanding of staff that it is your intention to build the new house with. the exact foundation layout that currently exists. If that is to be the case, the variances to reduce the minimum side setback and combined side setback (V- 97-29) would continue to be in effect because the overall site plan approved by the Hearing Examiner will not change. So long as no changes to the site plan are proposed, all critical area issues are also moot. The garage is an entirely different matter. It is a nonconforming structure that will require separate approvals and permits if modifications are proposed. Building Division compliance will not been such an easy task and will require significant work on your part. A structural review of the existing foundation must be made by a State of Washington licensed Structural Engineer to confirm its Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 011estad Letter Page 2 12/14/99 integrity and ability to support a 3-story building. No floorplans for the first floor have ever been reviewed or approved. It is our understanding that the structure was demolished without the existence of a floorplan for the first floor. A new building permit application for the entire home must be filed with the Building Division for review of the first floor and how it is incorporated into the second and third stories that have already been approved. Be sure to keep in mind the maximum height allowed (25 feet from average grade). If the new codes require a change in height of the first floor, it could have a negative impact on the total height of the house. This is an unfortunate situation that could have been prevent had you consulted with the City prior to demolishing the entire home due to the rot and water damage found during the initial construction phases. Double fees for the violation will be assessed at the time of building permit submittal. Work on the project cannot proceed until approval is received for the entire home. If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or Jeannine Graf, Building Official. Sincerely, Karissa Kawamoto Planner cc: Building Official DST's DEC p 7 1999 Mr. Wilson, PE'R*r W�,EFI This letter is in regards to my addition -remodel project at 15722- 75t` Pl. West, (Permit # 990603). As I stated in my previous letter, as the sheetrock was being removed from the walls, extensive rot was revealed the cause of which was a combination of a massive carpenter ant infestation and plumbing that had been leaking for many years. The structural integrity of about 80% of the exterior walls had been compromised so badly that there weren't any options but to remove the rotten wood. By the time all of the rotten wood was removed, what little that was left would have been impossible to integrate into the replaced structure so it also had to be removed, essentially removing the entire structure. Trying to build around this would not only have been next to impossible, it would have poised some signifigant safety concerns. My intentions were always to perform this project in accordance with the building permit that was issued and as the existing decay revealed itself I was increasingly concerned as to what I should do. I was certain that the city's primary concern would be that a safe structure be built and that since the footprint of the structure remained exactly the same and there were no changes from the plans that were approved for the permit, that I would probably be OK though I would probably be assessed an upgraded permit fee when the inspector came out and saw the additional work. I would also like to explain my situation. I am in year three of this project and have exhausted nearly all of my resources. I have sold my house, cashed in my 401 k and savings accounts, and have borrowed heavily to realize my dream home. In addition to this, the loan on the house has to be re -financed by July 2000. I had no idea at the time that I bought this house that this project would be so difficult to complete. I bring this up only to show how dire my situation is and to say that I am willing to do anything you may ask to make this right and to get started again as soon as possible before I lose everything. Very Sincerely Yours, Burt 011estad 12/06/2019 16:41 4257454A G THIRY. El PAGE 02 City of Edmonds Building Dept. Dear Permit People: Dec 6,1999 oFo o °vF� ptRM/T I'm writting this letter In support of Burt dllestad ,who my wife and I hope will be our new neighbor.We have not known Burt a long time but what we do know of him we Iike.We both feel he will be a good addition to our growing neighborhood.The fact that the old house he is replacing was full of dry rot could be all the more reason that he should start the new house from the ground up .In my opinion every new home thats built down here with the proper drains and water control orgy adds to the stability of this area.The building down here has to be a cooperative plan between us as builder /home owners ,the city of Edmonds and just (if not more )the Burlington Northern Railroad.We hope you will do everything you can to help Burt to expatiate the construction of his new home. Thank You Gil and Janet Thiry 15810-75th pl west Edmonds,Wash iJ I QUAST/DRESSLER 15714 — 75TH Place West Edmonds, WA 98026-4521 December 6, 1999 RE: BURT OLLESTAD REMODEL BUILDING PERMIT 15722 — 75TH PLACE WEST, EDMONDS, WA To Whom It May Concern: RF F pFRM 0>1999 O �T coU�lFR We are the immediate neighbors to the north of the house being -remodeled by Mr. 011estad. Please be advised that we have reviewed Mr. 011estad's building plans and have watched with close attention his efforts to remodel the above referenced property. During the tear down phase, we noticed that the walls were distorted, possibly by previous earth movement. Some of the wood (wall studs and sills) were infected with what appeared to be dry rot. We were most pleased to see this substandard house removed. We believe that. Mr. 011estad has replaced the previous studs and sills with construction meeting or exceeding existing standards. The result of his efforts will be a stronger, better -built structure. Certainly, the new home will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Sincerely, John T. Quast Lauri . Dressler REcElvEr M RECEIVED NOV 19 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. NOV 191999 To Whom It May Concern, CITY OF EDMONDS P M1T COUNTER During the course of doing the demolition work on the t�� floor of the remodel/addition project at 5722 75ffi PL West, (Bldg. Permit # 990603), I was informed,(I was in California at the time), that as the sheetrock was being removed, large amounts of rot in the exterior wall framing was being uncovered, it's apparent cause due to a massive carpenter ant infestation and water leaks in the kitchen and bathroom plumbing walls. I was told that it would have to be replaced for there to be structural integrity. A decision was made to remove those timbers that were rotten and to patch in good wood. A few days later when I called, I was told that there was so much rot that there wasn't much of the exterior walls that were salvageable and that in many places one could shove a screwdriver right through the studs. It was then that I decided that the remodel was going to have to be a lot more extensive and that almost all of the existing walls would have to be upgraded with new wood in the interest of safety. I was told that since the footprint of the structure remained exactly the same and there were no changes to the.plans that were approved for the permit, that it would be OK though I probably would be assessed an upgraded permit fee when the inspector came out. As you can see from the attached photo, there is still the back foundation wall as well as part of two side foundation walls and three stub foundation walls left. Additionally I still have all of the windows and doors from the basement that will be re -installed where they were and all of the wood from the original structure that was still good enough to reuse. At this point I am more than willing to pay whatever additional fees are needed and anything else necessary to facilitate the resumption of this project. Sincerely Yours, Burt 011estad s5A,�� ��w© w. - «x2�� »� FAX To: N- r. Rurt dllestad Phone: (1�� j 481-4860 i Fax (42 -� 1485-2281 phone:— -- CC: Date: September 9. 1999 Number of pages including cover sheet: 12 )Frow: RO` JACKSON -- Cate Ilus management Corp(�ravon - .-1 4 Fu:ier Drlv'e, Suite ;n; - ------Irvin„-- Phone: (972) 719-6156 Fax phone: (y;') `19-61 1 fAkRK`. ❑ UI-,eT).t for\o!u revietir a R4epl., ASAP [] comment telephone conversation, a<< a is FAX COPY of the exccuteJ Lict.Ms r.e- line to he located BNSF's l 1 ,v at Edmonds. WA- 1'l�: s note that before entry is to be grade onto BNSF's property, BNSF's R Hipol +iii ;:e a to t-e notiftt�d in advance at ('206) 625-646?.1 w•i11 be mailing to vc,u ORJGiN.-� i_` of these executed. Licenses. ,, have i:uvv further questions, please contact me anrA*:C` 19-61 >6. rr k�%nzc, avo C4.1 Cc: NMr. Bri:m E. Hipol-- Seattle (f) (206) 62J_h;74 (BNSF) Mr. Trem flu"- Seattle (f) (206) 6?-5-6 . -', (BNSF) Form Approved by VP -Law PIPE_ LINE LICENSE 99-22201 THIS LICENSE, made this 3rd day of September, 1999, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, between THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, its successors and assigns, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called "Licensor"), party of the first part, and BURT OLLESTAD, an individual (hereinafter, whether one or more, called "Licensee-), party o;.the second part. WITNESSETH, That the parties hereto for the consideration hereinafter expressed covenant and agree as follows: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Licensor grants a non-exclusive license to Licensee for it and/or its contractors to construct and maintain ONE (1) STORM WATER DRAINAGE PIPELINE. 4-INCHES IN DIAMETER WITH T-PERFORATED DIFFUSER PIPE and shall be constructed and maintained in a manner as set forth on the attached EXHIBIT "C", Sheet Nos. 1 to 3, dated September 3, 1999, and made a part hereof (hereinafter, whether one or more pipe lines, called the "PIPE LINE"), acress or along the rail corridor of Licensor at or near the station of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, Line Segment 50, Mile Post 21,54, the locaticn of the PIPE LINE being more particularly shown on the attached EXHIBIT "A", Drawing No- 1- 18469, dated September 2, 1999, and made a part hereof- 2 This agreement shall be effective��e- , - , 199a 3. Licensee shall use the PIPE LINE solely for carryinu STORM VATAER and shall not use it to carry any other commodity or for any other purpose whatsoever- 4. Licensee shall pay Licensor as compensation for this license the surn of TINO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS i 32,SJ0.00 5- Licensee shall, at its own cost and subject to the supervision and control of Licensor's field engineer, locate and/or relocate, construct and maildain tree PIPE LINE in such a manner and of such material that it will not at any time source of danger to or interference with the present or future tracks, rcadi-: a ci rail corridor of Licensor, or the safe operation of is railroad. When thf: PIP! - LINE is used for oil, gas, petroleum products. or other _flamnnabie or hijy volatile substances under pressure, the PIPE LINE shall be constructed, installed and thereafter maintained in conformity with the plans and specifications shown on print hereto attached, marked Exhibit B and made a part thereof. If at any time Licensee shall, in the judgment of Licensor, fail to perform properly its obligations under this paragraph, Licensor may, at its option, arrange for the performance of such work as it deems necessary for the safe operation of its railroad, and in such event Licensee agrees to pay, within fifteen (15) days after bill shall have been rendered therefor, the cost so incurred by Licensor, but failure on the part of Licensor to perform the obligations of Licensee shall not release Licensee from liability hereunder for loss or damage occasioned thereby. Licensee's emergency contact L can be reached at COgc1-0? ,(4 I. of 7 Z[/Z 3JHd 6LG ZLS:01 5'L `Jti!. 13iti7`l40_'3 Cl d3S 6. Licensee shall reimburse Licensor for any expense incurred by Licensor for false work to support Licensor's tracks and for flagman to protect its traffic during installation and maintenance periods and for any and all other expense incurred by Licensor on account of the PIPE LINE. (The current rate, subject to change without notice, for furnishing of Licensor's Flagman is a minimum daily charge of $500.00, for the first eight hours, or any part thereof, per day, with an hourly charge of $95.00 per hour for any time over eight hours per day). 7. Prior to any boring work on or about any portion of the Premises, Licensee shall explore the proposed location for such work with hand tools to a depth � of at least three (3) feet below the surface of the ground to determine whether pipeline(s) or other structures exist below the surface, r�ovided. however, that in lieu of the foregoing, the Licensee shall have the right to use suitable detection equipment or other generally accepted industry practice (etc .., consulting with the Underground Services Association) to determine the existence. or location of pipeline(s) and other subsurface structures prior to drilling or excavating with mechanized equipment. 8_ Prior to installation, five (5) days advance notice must be given to Licensor's Roadmaster, Brian E. Hipol at Seattle, WA., telephone (206) 625- 6462. 9. (A) EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9 (B), LICENSEE SHALL RELEASE, INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD HARMLESS LICENSOR FOR .ALL LOSSES, DAMAGES, EXPENSES, INJURIES OR DEATH TO LICENSEE. ITS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND CONTRACTORS, ARISING IN ANY MANNER FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS .AGREEMENT, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY LICENSOE'S NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT. LICENSEE FURTHER AGREES TO RELEASE, INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD HARMLESS LICENSOR FOR ALL LOSSES, DAMAGES, EXPENSES, INJURIES, OR DEATH TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING LICENSOR, WHICH ARISE IN ANY MANNER FROM THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE. USE, STATE OF REPAIR OR PRESENCE OF LICENSEE'S PIPE LrNE, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT RESULTING SOLELY FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF LICENSOR. (B) WHENEVER ANY EMPLOYEE, AGENT OR CONTRACTOR OF LICENSEE OR ANY OF LICENSEE'S PARTIES MAKES ANY CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH AGAINST LICENSOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, OR ANY APPLICABLE SAFETY ACT, (45 U.S.C. § 51 ET. SEQ.), FOR ANY INCIDENT CAUSED, WHOLLY OR IN PART, BY PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES OR CONDITION BELONGING TO OR SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF LICENSEE, OR CLAIMS OR ALLEGES THAT HE OR SHE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF LICENSOR OR IS FURTHERING THE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF LICENSOR, LICENSEE AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS LICENSOR FOR ALL LOSSES, DAMAGES, COSTS OR EXPENSES RELATED TO SUCH CLAIM, REGARDLESS OF LICENSER'S NEGLIGENCE. 2of7 Z t /E 3ovd rS ' F 6 r 411 Y..J , 0N r r.N r ^'1731d:) - WOL3 t i - S i 66-60-d3S THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY LICENSEE SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE FACT, IF IT 1S A FACT, THAT THE LOSS, DAMAGE, DEATH OR INJURY WAS OCCASIONED BY OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF LICENSOR; ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS EMPLOYEES, OR OTHERWISE, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT LICENSEE SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ASSUME SUCH LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF LICENSOR OR ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS WHERE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH LIABILITY WOULD VIOLATE STATE OF WASHINGTON LAWS. 10_ if at any time during the term hereof Licensor shall desire to make any use of its rail corridor with which the pipeline will in any way interfere, including the relocation of existing or the construction of new pipeline(s) and other facilities in which it shall have an interest, Licensee shall, at Licensee's own cost, within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice from Licensor to such effect, make such changes in the pipeline as in the judgment of Licensor may be necessary to avoid interference with the proposed use of its rail corridor. 11 _ (a) Licensee shall, at its expense, procure and maintain throughout the term of this License a comprehensive general form of insurance covering liability, including, but not limited to, Public Liability, Personal Injury and Property Damage, _as well as Contractual Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Such insurance shall contain no exclusion with respect to rail corridor of Licensor in the care, custody or control of Licensee. Licensee's contractors shall also procure and maintain the above coverage when on Licensor's property. LICENSOR AND CATELLUS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION SHALL BE NAMED AN ADDITIONAL INSURED. (b) All risk insurance on the PIPE LINE of the Licensee, or Licensoes property in Licensee's care, custody and control, shall contain a waiver of subrogation of claims against Licensor. Licensee shall maintain Workers Compensation insurance which shall contain a waiver of subrogation against Licensor. (c) All insurance shall be placed with insurance companies licensed to do business in the State in which the PIPE LINE is located, with a current Best's Insurance Guide' Rating of B and Class X, or better. Licensee stall provide Licensor in advance of said installation a Certificate of Insurance evidencing such insurance. Insurance must provide for coverage of incidents occurring within fifty (50) feet of a railroad track, and any provision in the insurance policy to the contrary must be specifically deleted. (d) A Railroad Protective Liability insurance policy issued in thr: name of Licensor with limits of $2,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage per occurrence with an aggregate of $6,000,000 must be provided when construction work will be performed within fifty (50) feet of Licensees tracks. The policy will remain in force during the construction phase of this project and must be provided prior to Licensor signing this license. 3of7 71 1.`h 320Vd C S ! A 6IL. 3-6'CII X.I'3I1I 1dI ";."1"1. .d.r3:HCld:3 bI=SI FE:-GO--d3S (e) In lieu of providing a Railroad Protective Liability Insurance policy, Licensee may participate in Licenser's Blanket Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy available to Licensee or its contractor. The limits of coverage are the same as above. The cost is 600.00. I elect to participate in Licensors Blanket Policy; ❑ I elect not to participate in Licensoes Blanket Policy. if) The furnishing of insurance required by this Section shall in no way limit or diminish the liability or responsibility of Licensee as provided under any Section of this License. 12- Upon written notice from Licensor, Licensee agrees to assume the defense of any lawsuit, or other proceeding brought against Licensor by any public body, individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity, relating to any matter covered by this License for which Licensee has an obligation to assume liability for and/or save and hold harmless Licensor. Licensee shall pay all the costs incident to such defense including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, investigators' fees, litigation expenses, settlement payments, and amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments. 13. (a) Licensee shall comply with all federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations in its use of Licensoe's rail corridor, including, but not limited to, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, arld Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA). Licensee shall not maintain a treatment, storage, transfer or disposal facility, or. underground storage tank, as defined by RCRA, on or under Licensoes rail corridor. Licensee shall not release or the release of oil or hazardous substances, as defined by CERCLA, Licensees rail corridor. Notwithstanding any other requirements in this contract, Licensee assumes all responsibility for the investigation and cleanup. of sgch release and shall indemnify and defend Licensor and its agents for all costs and claims, including consultant and attorney fees, arising in any manner out of such release or Licensee's failure to comply with environmental laws, except to the extent such costs or claims are proximately caused by Licensors gross negligence or intentional misconduct. (;b) Licensee shall give Licensor timely notice of and/ release, violation of environmental laws or inspection or inquiry by governmental authorities charged with enforcing environmental laws with respect to Licensoes rail corridor. Licensee also shall give Licensor timely notice of all measures undertaken by or on behalf of Licensee to investigate, remediate, respond to c•r otherwise cure such release or violation- (c) In the event that Licensor receives notice from Licensee or otherwise of a release or violation of environmental laws which occurred ' or is occurring during the term of this License, Licensor may require Licensee, ,at Licensee's -sole expense, to take timely measures to investigate, remediate, respond to or otherwise cure such release or violation. 4 of 7 ZI/S 3OVC1 FSi9 GIG ZLe:OI XI: ONIALJ1' - �3-1-f'73.Ta'0--140Lid SI'SL 6F--60-d3S 14- If default shall be made in any of the covenants or agreements of Licensee contained in this document, or in case of any assignment or transfer of this License by operation of law, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice in writing upon Licensee; but any waiver by Licensor of any default or defaults shall not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this License for any subsequent default or defaults, nor shall any such waiver in any way affect Licensor's ability to enforce any Section of this License. The remedy set forth in this Section shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other remedies that Licensor may have at law or in equity. 15. Licensee shall promptly pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of any construction, alterations or repairs done, suffered or permitted to be done by Licensee on the PIPE LINE and shall indemnify Licensor against any loss, liability or expense incurred by Licensor on account of such liens. licensor is hereby authorized to post any notices or take any other action upon or with respect to the PIPE LINE that is or may be permitted by law to prevent the attachment of any such liens to Licensor's premises, provided, however, that failure of Licensor to take any such action shall not relieve Licensee of any obligation or liability under this Section or any other Section of this License. 16_ In the case of eviction of Licensee by anyone owning or obtaining title to the rail corridor on which the PIPE LINE is located, or the abandonment by Licensor of said rail corridor, Licensor shall not be liable to Licensee for a.-: damage of any nature whatsoever or to refund any payment made by Licens<. to Licensor hereunder, except the proportionate part of any recurring rent:,; charge which may have been paid hereunder in advance. 17. Any notice to be given by either party shall be deemed to be proper'; served if deposited with the United States Postal Service, or other acceptable mailing service, postage prepaid, addressed to either party, at the addresses and department shown beneath signature of the parties. 16. In the event that Licensee consists of two or more parties, all the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall be the joint and several covenants and agreements of such parties. 19. Any contractor or subcontractor performing work on or in connection with the PIPE LINE shall for the purpose of this license, be conclusively deemed to be the servant and agent of Licensee acting on behalf and within the scope of such contractor's or subcontractor's employment for Licensee. 20. Neither Licensee, nor the heirs, legal representatives, successors or assigns of Licensee, nor any subsequent assignee, shall underlease or sublet the PIPE LINE nor assign or transfer this License or any interest herein, without the prior written consent and approval of Licensor_ 21 _ It is understood and agreed that this License shall not be placed of public record. 5 of 7 Z,tf9 311Hd SSI9 EIL ZL6 QI X.L:ONTr,! 9:'91 G6_SO--d3S `? r 22. Ali the covenants and provisions of this License shall be binding upon the heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of Licensee. No assignment by Licensee shall be binding upon Licensor without the written consent of Licensor in each instance- 23. All questions concerning the interpretation or application of provisions of this License shall be decided according to the laws of the State in which the PIPE LINE is located. 24. To the maximum extent possible, each provision of this License shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable few, but if any provision of this License shall be prohibited by, or held to be invalid under, applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective solely to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, and this shall not invalidate the remainder of such provision or any other provision of this License. 26_ The waiver by Licensor of the breach of any provision herein by Licensee shall in no way impair the right of Licensor to enforce that provision for any subsequent breach thereof. 26. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this license, Licensee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and decisions issued by any federal, state or local governmental body or agency established thereby relating to Licensee's use of Licensors premises hereunder. 27. This license is given by Licensor and accepted by Licensee upon the express condition that the same may be terminated at any time by either party upon thirty (30) days' notice in writing to be served upon the other party, stating therein the date that such termination shall take place, and that upon the termination of this license in this or any other manner herein provided, Licensee, upon demand of Licensor, shall abandon the use of the PIPE LINE and remove the same and restore the rail corridor of Licensor, as near as possible, to the same condition in which it was prior to the placing of the PIPE LINE thereunder. fr. case Licensee shall fail to restore Licensors rail corridor within Thirty (30) days after the effective date of termination, Licensor may proceed with such work at the expense of Licensee. No termination hereof shall release Licensee from any liability or obligation hereunder, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date the PIPE LINE is removed and the rail corridor of Licensor restored as above provided_ 28. This License is the full and complete agreement between Licensor and Licensee with respect to all matters relating to license on the Premises, and supersedes any and all other agreements between the parties hereto relating to license on the Premises_ Catellus Management Corporation is acting as agent for The Burlington Northern And Santa Fe Railway Company. 6of7 Z [ /G 31.)Hd ES [ 9 61 L :11 x.L , ON! AN i - sn-T T3.LHJ' WOZ13 L l ' S 1 GG-60--d3s WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement in duplicate the day and year first above written_ THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA Fri RAILWAY COMPANY By: Catellus Management Corporation . Its Attorney in Fact 545 Fuller Drive, Suite 105 I ing, TX 75038 M Cls BURT OLLESTAD P.O. Box 6424 Lynnwood, WA. 98036 7--� By: AQ20 ---- 7of7 ZI/e 30Hd ESIS 6IZ ZG6'QI xi:oNInmi - S l II3idJ'FIC .'::' 2,1 ;SI 66-60-33s IMAINU NU. 2 2-4GLV I 4F EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND BURT OLLESTAD FORE WORTH. TEXAS SECTION: _ ` — v SCALE: 1 IN.=400 FT. TOWNSHIP: 27N MAP PACIFIC, _ Div. `y\ RANGE: 4 E PARCEL SCENIC SUBDIV. L.S.0050 /� DATE 09/02/1999 UP 21.54 ES i24O•SO a � f PROPERYY +1NE •a � � yy i a �/./jy�y i � PROK..RTY 18-C c j r,\ \` r DESCRIPTION OF PIPELINE PIPELINE SHOWN BOLD rJ CARRIER CASING CARRIER CAS IN+:, PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE SIZE: _ 4. N,,,A LENGTH ON RIW: 6C3' NIA.__ CONTENTS: STORM WATER WORKING PRESSURE:I TY PIPE MATERIAL: - PE — BURY: BASE/RAIL TO TGP 0; CASING SPEC IF ICATION / GRADE: SDR7 — BURY: NATURAL GROUND WALL THICKNESS: _ Q-188 BURY: ROADWAY DITCHES — COATING: NIA CATHODIC PROTECTION VENTS: NUMBER N/A SIZE — HEIGHT OF VENT ABOVE GROUND — NOTE : CASING TO BE .LACKED OR DRY BORED ONLY NEAR EDMONDS COUNTY OFSNOHOMISH STATE OF VJA 5 MK ,^AW'r;,r; fir. 1- 1 a.a -. ZI/B 3ovd E9I9 6IL 3LB:0I X1:0NIA61 - Sfl-113.I.V3:N021.3 81 :51 66—SO—c 3S T unac, P.E. x - Augmt 25,1999 Mr. Ron Jackson Contract Specious: Catellus Management Corp. 4545 pullcr Dive, Suitc 105 Irving, TX 75038 near iron: Barlin&n North c 249 O=d=W Ammo Smuh Soim NA sue, Wub*M 99LU C"o 625,6L70 M*) Q54115 i�•� Tnatltnd"BNSF.COM EXHIBIT "C" SEPTEMBER 3, 1999 I have reviewed the 011estad permit request. SHEET ? OF 3 The installation is approved with one change. ?he terminating point of the tightlize pipe is too far i io BI\i SF"s drainage ditch. The pipe cannot extend any closer than 1 S feet to the ararest rail AND must not be lower in elevation then the tap of the rail. This must be corrected so that, the diffuser pipe and rock does not interfere with our ditch mainten nee. Additionally, I havc attached a copy of my letter of August 11, 1999. All of the conditions of this letter must be met and should be incorporated into the pemlit. Sincerely, Treut A Hudak Manager Fingiueering Attachment cr,: $rian IEpol with plains Zt/0t 90VC1 ESIS GIL ZGE'QI X1,0NIANT - sn,i I3ivo-woN1 i 6I °St se-s -d3S Fi�giaen�• August 11, 1999 Mr. Bert 011estad P. 0. Box 6424 Lynwood,'WA 98036 Mr. flllc=d: Bat"liag20A Ne! 2454 Oaadcml Am= Saudi She 1-A Scala. win "134 i106) as-6m C40 as-61 j 5 (FIX) 'rnacas bNSF.COM EXHIBIT "C" SE -FEMBER 3, 1999 SHEET 2 OF 3 1lze Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) is ir. receipt of your proposers d-rainage plan onto otrr right-of-way. Your plans are approved as fax as BNSF is concerned based upon your August 3, 1999 ply submitted and the subsequent fax, dated August 10,1999, by your` engineer, b . Ronald K. loath, PE. BNSF`s approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The entire drainage system must be con str=ed per the plans, iaco:�azating all of your cngi u=T's recommendations. 4. '1'cu must inspect and maintain the drainage systemIzueliy area after any rraa;.:z storm event 3_ You are responsible for any damage to BNSF right-of-way or -swacturcs 2s a resuit of the discharge from the drainage system. 4. You must be, in compliance with the County and City regulations regarding stornr; -ater discharge .flow rates and incorporate oa site retention if required. S. An inspection by the design engineer mr-st be completed and documented dming and after coastructiou to verify that the system was constructed according tt the playas. A copy of this inspectioa document must be made available at BNSF's request. Because none of your drainage system in on BNSF property a pipeline pci-rnit i_g not .rcquired- Sincerely, Tr=t M. Hudak Construction Engineer ZI/II 39Hd ESI9 GIL ZLS'QI XJ'JNIANI S(1^•.'TiLt'S'!1C?I? SL-ST SS-61--d3S SEPTEM _BE' 'Aq9q DRAMS FOR 5n.EP EXHIBIT "C" SL OPES of, the ddl the, sW�o-j-n.mb�joh Alhe _461 . dk�e i T b6 7-.Aid&' 4 kIft 7 Li &;64U,6j� -it]. . coax., m4st , b,6- C*2�4tloo.- A r, '0Y r ittial die conxete­1-"'Choi -which tt6) pipe nt, the top ."of the 'ejulf cine o Lids installation. This 01_�Achor. s46uld' - be moved at far away froth _-Ab�i face --*f the..4110pe,ax -to. Maximizo.ith support posafb447 11hoiald be de- -w#hstand the. weight of th16 *At4r-,wtthin tho pig. -­ tk�Ci 'details -below' wm�Aonly used to , eippori.jAd, hold the,'.PtV6, 1EL-Place, ,which 'Shpul&b.e ' e�d- for' Ahliv ixxxtall- nz isjjoo_,l$jhe pfj>,e1ina_fa1l3V'Jt wilt be the a:-V4jjn*t&ljthe ­- owners respbn IbIlity t to railway pro;itrty- due to 'allure of the - pipeline, the proper', y ovrner wili. be resp oiLsible for damages. The property *nt!r must. not deposit grass -clippings. P or, Slope at ay time_ Amv4 --4tw bat :' *0 INN vjle_*�j fwai fan !-4n W", T Caml qt M sr- ­%- Du4,1AM— �/t- a %" Q*V'. straps V2- stoo"to ;j concrvt& c4iw SHEET 3 OF 3 LVwWtWt,04 qrWrW fart yr CrVPd In* -4 Rebw fiev- Visor _r dV E.' is cg&* ck-v— pw*e -it t". Prowly i <;Iftrl<nr naval b-4 OWCe-d MCA. a or< cal track. The at boVi 4--Y4.W,&N,4 dittalVA-V01 t_0066a to eAStbr?,;:t?)0 affCA. , # *Mdm for I op� E-do IL.F NOT Zl/,Vl 30VCA CS19 GIL E4.6:01 X.1:5NIAal - Sf­*F13,U43:WCMzJ 0�7:S1 LnG-60-d3S AUG 1,&�19V9cIT CITY9�(op�F MEo�NsMEMORANDUM OsF� CrR. CH RON COPY Mailed q / q f Date: September 3, 1998 Faxed To: Jeannine Graf, Building Official From: Don Fiene, P.E., Hydraulics Engineer Via: Jim Walker, P.E., City Engineer Ef Subject: Drainage Policy - Meadowdale Drainage Basin According to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, stormwater detention is only required for new development or redevelopment involving more than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface. For developments involving less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface, there are no drainage detention requirements found in Section 18 of the code. The Meadowdale Drainage Basin Study does recommend direct drainage connection to a closed pipe system for new development, without giving specific details on when to implement this requirement or what the threshold should be. The basin study was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This issue should be addressed in the applicant's geotechnical report, and our consultant should verify that a drainage system connection is proposed. Developments involving less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface do not necessitate review by the Engineering Division. Attached is a Meadowdale drainage area map which outlines the area where the policy applies. R%Engr%Don%MemoMead.doc City of Edmonds RONALD K. RIACK P.E. d.b.a. JRR Engineering 16030 52nd AVENUE WEST EDMONDS, WA. 98026-4724 Phone. (425) 787-6020 FAX. (425) 742-5221 August 17,1999 AUG 2K1999 r on Fiene P. E. Hydraulics Engineer DEV COTY OF EDMp ACES CTR PAICAfr M . D y g Nos City of Edmonds 121 5" Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 SUBJECT: Drainage Plan for Mr. Burt 011estad, Site Address: 15722 73 Place West Edmonds, WA., JRR #99-02 Dear Mr. Fiene: As discussed in our telephone conversation today regarding the above subject Project, I believe the proposed improvements do not necessitate a detention system. Proposed (new) impervious surfaces total to approximately 1050 s . ft. and about 200 sq. ft. of the existing impervious surface is to be removed. Erosion does not appear to ave been a pro em on this si e n no erosion problems are -opected as a result of the proposed improvements. It is my understanding the proposed tight -line to the toe of the slope complies with City code and is going to be acceptable to the BNSF Railroad. If you require additional information please give me a call so we can determine what exactly is required to approve Mr. 011estad's building permit application. Sincerely, J Engineering q� v' onald K. Ring , P.E. X" cc: Burt 011estad, Owner Q .r - ~ 71re CACurrad Word Documads\9902LOLdoc Foci NO Santa Fe 2 Ra;1 w'�y August 11, 1999 0 TRENT M. AK, P.E. Construction Engineer Mr. Bert 011estad P. O. Box 6424 Lynwood, WA 98036 Mr. 011estad: Burlington Northern A* 2454 Occidental Avenue South Suite 1-A Seattle, Washington 98134 (206) 625-6150 (206) 625-6115 (Fax) Trent. Hudak®BNSF. COM REGS'v E0 Q�G � 21999 PERM�S The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) is in receipt of your proposed drainage plan onto our right-of-way. Your plans are approved as far as BNSF is concerned based upon your August 3, 1999 plans submitted and the subsequent fax, dated August 10, 1999, by your engineer, Mr. Ronald K. Riach, PE. BNSF's approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The entire drainage system must be constructed per the plans, incorporating all of your engineer's recommendations. 2. You must inspect and maintain the drainage system annually and after any major storm event. 3. You are responsible for any damage to BNSF right-of-way or structures as a result of the discharge from the drainage system. 4. You must be in compliance with the County and City regulations regarding stormwater discharge flow rates and incorporate on site retention if required. 5. An inspection by the design engineer must be completed and documented during and after construction to verify that the system was constructed according to the plans. A copy of this inspection document must be made available at BNSF's request. Because none of your drainage system in on BNSF property a pipeline permit is not required. Sincerely, Trent M. Hudak Construction Engineer City of Edmonds Plan Review Corrections Plan Check #: 98-315 Date: July 30, 1999 Project Name/Address: 011estad Remodel/Addition Contact Person/Address: Robert Cousins AESI Fax (206)780-9438 Reviewer: Karissa Kawamoto Department: Planning I understand that there was a Snohomish County Superior Court Summary Judgement issued over a property line dispute with the adjacent owner to the south. Were their documents (i.e. new record of survey) recorded with the County Assessor to establish the new property boundaries? The variances approved on the property were subject to a condition regarding the processing of a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA). Copies of the original decision are attached. Our records show no LLA application ever processed on this property. I have an inquiry in to our legal counsel to see if the Summary Judgement and any recorded documents are essentially the same as a LLA, thereby eliminating this requirement. I have not heard back. There may still be the need to obtain the LLA. This would involve a new survey document showing the new and old property lines with signatures from owners with vested interest from both sides. This is then recorded with Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds Building Official has informed me that your building permit application expires on September 14, 1999. If your permit has not been issued upon that date, new application and new plan review fees will be assessed. This may also cause the variance approval to lapse. You received a one-year variance extension from Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor in July 1998. That extension is vested for the life of the current building permit application. If the current application expires, the variances may also become void. It is my hope that if a new survey was recorded along with the Summary Judgement, that the LLA is not necessary, however, I must await an answer from our legal counsel. Please contact me ASAP if you can provide copies of any the recorded documents or to get the LLA filing requirements. I will let you know what direction I get from our attorney when it becomes available. DATE FAXED (Attach fax transmittal) PAGE OF t Landau Associates Environmental' and Geotechnical Services Ms. Lara Knaak City of Edmonds July 19, 1999 RE�'Erv�o 250 5`h Avenue North JUL, 2.21999 Edmonds, WA 98020 DEv TM N RVICE � ss CIR RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW,. PROPOSED OLLESTAD ADDITION 15722 - 75TH.PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Knaak: This letter contains our comments concerning geotechnical review of a April 22, 1999 revised geotechnical report by Associated Earth Sciences,. Inc. (AESI) for the above noted proposed project. Plans and/or other project documents which may need` to be modified as a result of changes to the geotechnical report were not received by our office for supplemental review. Landau Associates initial review comments are contained,. in a.November 5, 1998 letter; this re -review follows the general outline of that letter. Our November 1998 letter contains" a list of documents required of the applicant, but not included in the original submittal. These -documents were not included. in the re -submittal: The City must determine which of these documents are required for this project, and which, if any, require geotechnical review. We understand that AESI is acting as Lead Design, Professional for the project.. Since the Lead Design Professional must be a licensed architect; or engineer, and since professional engineer Mr: G. ,Aaron McMichael, P.E:, sealed the. latest AESI report, we assume Mr. McMichael is taking the "lead" role: The City should confirm that this is the case. AESI reiterates the need for proper drainage, and. recommends that existing and. new storm. water drainage systems be routed to the east ditch along the BNSF Railroad line. We concur with this recommendation.. An easement from BNSF is usually required for such discharge. The: City should verify that the appropriate easement has been obtained prior to issuing a building permit. WAPATO CREEK PLACE 4210 - 20TH STREET E. SUITE F • TACOMA. WA 98424-1823 (253) 926-2493 Fax: (253) 926-2531 E-mail: info@landauihc.com Edmonds, Portland Spokane Tacoma AESI provides. two options regarding drainage pipe down the slope, butt -fused. HDPE or snap together ADS. In our opinion, only butt -fused HDPE should be used for this application. In addition, footing and roof/yard drainage should be collected in rigid PVC pipes, either perforatedor blank depending 'on usage, androuted to a collection point prior to downslope discharge to the railroad right of way. AESI's recommended methods for installing the down slope drain pipe appear appropriate. Our.November 1998 letter identified several issues with the site topographic map. The City must determine the adequacy of the existing map, and determine if property line and setback. issues have been adequately addressed. Landau Associates comments concerning a need to discuss potential use of flexible utility connections, to include a cross section through the proposed addition, and accurately describe groundwater conditions, have been adequately addressed by AESI. AESI now correctly notes .that soil at foundation level represents previously disturbed landslide material, and that groundwater observed -in one of the,borings represents a perched groundwater condition. Further investigation does not appear necessary, based on current data submitted by the applicant. The original foundation scheme shown on the drawings included a hybrid system incorporating augercast piles,•reliance on old foundation elements, and new shallow footings/pin piles. The revised plan outlined by AESI calls for pile support along the east end of the addition, and shallow spread footings supporting the west end- of the structure.. The design capacity. for individual piles has been revised downward to 4.5 tons (from 10 tons), and an estimated pile settlement value is now provided. A recommended bearing capacity for shallow spread footings is also included in the revised report, along with an estimated value for settlement. The possible use of pin.piles has been dropped from the proposal. The above -described modifications to the proposed foundation scheme are consistent with our understanding of site geology/hydrogeology, and appear to provide the necessary values for the structural engineer to design -various foundation elements. AESI's proposal to have a field representative onsite to monitor foundation installation is acceptable, and addresses Landau Associates concern with current, unknowns at -pile foundation level. 07119/99. I:XPROJECl1074\080.101rereview.ltr.doc LANDAU AssoclATEs 2 7 . In summary, the revised geotechnical report prepared by AESI adequately addresses the concerns .cited in our November 5, 1998 preliminary review letter. The City'must determine if subsequent review of project plans and specifications is necessary, or if the current plans accurately reflect.AESI's report revisions. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Edward J. Heavey, P.E. Senior Engineer and William D. Evans, CPG Associate WDEIEJH/jas l ASSOCIATED CITY UOPY EARTrArWMSCIENCES, IIMC September 14, 1998 Revised October 14, 1998 Revised April 22, 1999 Revised May 20, 1999 Project No. KE98192A Burt 011estad Post Office Box 6424 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 827-7701 FAX (425) 827-5424 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 ON, gy7s19 F� ci'�6y 9y ,Yop ° oFsc s � Subject: Geotechnical Plan Review and Minimal Risk Statement 011estad Residence 15722 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. 011estad: As requested by you, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed a review of the architectural and structural and.drainage plans for the proposed addition to the existing residence at 15722 75' Place West. The plans reviewed consisted of architectural and structural sheets pro- vided by you, prepared by Baker Engineers dated April 2, 1999. AESI's Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Geotechnical Engineering Report for the project was dated September 14, 1998, Revised April 22, 1999. Based on our review of the above documents, we have the following comments: 1) Storm water tightlined down the western slope below the existing house footprint should be conveyed the entire length of the slope to a suitable discharge point below the toe of the slope and should NOT be allowed to discharge mid -slope as shown. We recommend that this be confirmed at the time of construction. 2) Erosion control of all areas to be stripped of topsoil or where unprotected soils will be exposed during construction should be implemented by utilizing adequate drainage, hay bales, and protective sheeting in addition to erosion control measures as shown on the architectural/structural plans. With the inclusion of the above comments, it is our opinion that the plans reviewed by us conform to the recommendations in AESI's geotechnical report and that the risk of damage to the proposed addition, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the report. The proposed construction will not increase the potential for soil movement above the Roger Lowe & Associates' projection of having a 10 percent probabilityof experiencing a slump type slope movement in previously affected landslide material within a 25-year period from the date of the report publication. We have enjoyed working with you on this project and look forward to its successful completion. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington L�iJ�i� LSl � • G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. Senior Project Engineer GAM/kp KE98L92A9 5/20/99 Id - WP8 2 • MEMORANDUM Date: May 3, 1999 To: Jeannine Graf, Building Official From: Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer q('(4 Subject: Drainage system requirements for 15722 — 75' Pl. W. — 011estad addition/remodel (PC — 98-315) Ronald Riach, PE, prepared a drainage plan and submitted it to the City of Edmonds on behalf of his client on April 23, 1999. This plan indicates that drainage will be collected in a tightline system and then will be released into the ground via a spreader trench. This type of system is specifically prohibited in the Meadowdale area. Because the applicant is proposing . less than 2000 square feet of new impervious surface, Don Fiene indicated that detention is not required, and told the applicant this prior to permit submittal. The Landau report dated November 5, 1998, indicates that the drainage must be routed to the Puget Sound. The City Engineer, Jim Walker agrees with this requirement. The applicant must show how the drainage that is being collected in a tightlined system will be conveyed to either the Puget Sound or a public stormwater conveyance system. Detention of the stormwater is not required. iecelveo ,ZJ99 cLITY OFTEDMONDS CTR. City of Edmonds Development Services Department • R E C E V E D. CORPORATE OFFICE ASSOCIATED . 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 EARTH APR 2 3.1999 Kirkland, Washington 98033 701 JEMSCIENCES IIVC 82 DEVFIOPMEN7 SERVICES CTR: FAX FAX (425) 82727-5424 r17Y OF EDMONDS April 22, 1999 Project No. KE98192A Mr. Burt 011estad 15722 75' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 ST-RNE-ET, Subject: Revised Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Geotechnical Engineering Report 011estad Residence Addition 1�57,.22 75>' Pr'Mv .e5s4 V, Edmonds, Washington BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 We are pleased to present four copies of the above -referenced revised report. The report has been revised to include recommendations concerning recent design changes to the proposed addition, as well as review comments by Landau Associates. This revised report summarizes the results . of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazards, and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that.the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 4ertF. Cousins, P.G. Project. Geologist RFC/Id KE98192A8 4/20/99 Id - WP8 S • CORPORATE OFFICE ASSOCIATED R C E I V 911 Fifth Avenue, suite 100 EARTH E Kirkland, Washington 98033 (4241827-7701 SCIENCES, IIVC APR 2 3 1999 FAX (425) 827-5424 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR: September 14, 1998 CITY OF EDMONDS BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Revised April 22, 1999 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Project No. KE98192A FAX (206 780 9438 Burt 011estad P.O. Box 6424 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Subject: Lead Design Professional 011estad Residence 15722 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. 011estad: As requested by you, we are acting in the capacity of lead design professional during the permit process for.the proposed addition to the house at 15722 751h Place West in Edmonds, Washington. To the best of our knowledge, the design recommendations provided in our geotechnical engineering report dated September 14, 1998 revised April 22, 1999 have been incorporated into the project design as a means to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage from earth movement as discussed in the report. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 99 EXPIRES 27 lZool G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. Senior Project Engineer GAMN KE98192A3 G�Zfj 5"f5"�y� �. RECEIVED• CORPORATE OFFICE ASSOCIATED APR 2 3.1999 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 EARTH ,, (425) 827-7701 A0 SC 1 E IV C E S, 11V C DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTFI. CITV AF Fr1MANDS FAX (425) 827-5424 September 14, 1998 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Revised April 22, 1999 . Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Project No. U98192A FAX (206) 780 9438 Burt 011estad P.O. Box 6424 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Cl ti Subject: Lead Design Professional 011estad Residence 15722 75`' Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. 011estad: As requested by you, we are acting in the capacity of lead design professional during the permit process for the proposed addition to the house at 15722 75`'' Place West in Edmonds, Washington. To. the best of our knowledge, the design recommendations provided in our geotechnical engineering report dated September 14, 1998 revised April 22, 1999 have been incorporated into the project design as a means to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage from earth movement as discussed in the report. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 'r EXPIRES 2127 Zoo/ G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. Senior Project Engineer GAM/Id KE98192A3 atva 67sA�9 LANDAU AASSOCIATES,9 INC. rt�' , Environmental and Geotechnical Services November 5, 1998 Ms. Lara Knaak Y k is City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED OLLESTAD ADDITION 15722 - 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Knaak: In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of plans and other submitted documents concerning a proposed addition to the Burt 011estad residence. Our review follows requirements outlined within City of Edmonds (City) Ordinance No. 2661. A list of the documents we reviewed and referenced is included as Attachment 1. The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide area, approximately 50 to 100 feet north of the intersection of 158th Street Southwest and 75th Place West, and between 75th Place West and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) right-of-way. This property is reported to have been involved in landslide movement in 1955-1956 and 1973-1974, and is also reported to have experienced localized slope instability in the late 1980's. Information from the 1968 Dames and Moore and 1979 Roger Lowe Associates reports, and a January, 1997 Geological Services, Inc. field memo regarding the subject site, provide a historical perspective on this reported slope movement. Our review of submitted documents for this project indicates that there are several inconsistencies and issues which require additional attention. These are summarized as follows: • Several items were not included in the submittal package we received that are required by City Ordinance No. 2661. The following items were not included: Land Clearing / Tree Cutting Plan Drainage Plan / Stamped by Licensed Engineer Grading Plan / Stamped by Licensed Engineer Structural Design Calculations Affidavit of "Notice of Application Posted at Job Site" Lead Design Professional statement on drawings Applicant/Owner's Liability Landslide Acknowledgment Declaration Geotechnical Declaration / Statement of Landslide Risk Architect and Structural Engineer Declarations 1 November 5. 1998 1:\PRO]ECT\74080.10\OLLESTD.LTR WAPATO CREEK PLACE • 4210 - 20TH STREET E. • SUITE F • TACOMA, WA 98424-1823 (253) 926-2493 Fax: (253) 926-2531 E-Mail: info@Landauinc.com Edmonds Spokane Tacoma Covenant to Notify / Hold Harmless Agreement The lack of several of these documents resulted in our inability to perform a comprehensive review. However, we have attempted to complete as thorough a review as possible in anticipation that the lead design professional can incorporate our comments in a resubmittal. A review of the resubmittal should be anticipated. • City Ordinance No. 2661 requires that a lead design professional be identified for each project. We understand that the project geotechnical firm, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AES) will be filling that role, but that a specific licensed architect or engineer has yet to be identified. The applicant will need to identify this lead design professional, unless the City waives this provision. • The proposed addition will result in additional impervious surface. That situation, the unknown status of the existing drainage system(s), site features such as a hot tub (with unknown drainage discharge point), past slide history of the area and at the site; all indicate the need for proper drainage. We understand storm water will be routed to the BNSF railroad right-of-way (Environmental checklist B. 3. B. c. (1)), however, project plans do not show how this will be accomplished. A drainage plan is needed, including details on how water will be transported down the slope to the BNSF right-of-way. • The topographic map, dated May 20, 1992, prepared by Kegel & Associates, Inc. contains a north arrow, scale, easements, property lines, and existing grade contours (prior to grading) at two (2) foot intervals, all in general accordance with ECDC 19.05.030A. However, the contour elevations are based on an assumed datum taken from a monument found at the intersection of 158th Street Southwest and 75th Place West, not on a datum point per City code. Other partially completed or omitted items for the topographic map that are required by City code include: 1) datum point and height calculations; 2) dimensions between existing physical features and structures on - and off -site within 50 feet; 3) lower floor and footing elevations of existing structures on- and off -site within 50 feet; 4) location of existing sanitary sewers, storm water drainage, septic tanks, drain fields and other sewer/drainage facility components on -and off -site; 5) location of existing underground utilities on and adjacent to the site, including, but not limited to: telephone, cable, gas, electricity, water, vaults, fire hydrants, wires, meters and pipes; 6) designation of known landslide masses or debris flows on or near the site which could threaten proposed structures within 100 feet; and, 7) proposed grade contours added to the map by the Architect of Structural Engineer. The City will need to determine if the existing map is adequate, and, if not, which items will need to be added. • The topographic map contains a note that states "The property lines shown on this drawing are not guaranteed for accuracy." The information shown on the topographic map implies that the existing residence, and the planned addition, extend past the south property line. However, the undated, untitled drawing that contains the site legal description and tax account parcel number shows a different layout for the south property line. We recommend that the topographic map be amended to accurately 2 November 5, 1998 1:\PROIECT\94080.10\OLLESTD.LTR present the locations of the property lines in relation to existing and planned site features. The figure in AES's report should also be modified to reflect the true property lines. The City's "Geotechnical Report Guidelines" require several items that were not presented in the Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AES) report, including: 1. A vicinity map showing existing sewer and drainage facilities within 100 feet of the site. 2. A discussion of proposed underground utilities, including recommendations for the possible need of flexible connections at points of entry to the structure. 3. A cross-section extending across the site drawn perpendicular to existing contours. The cross-section should show soil and groundwater conditions as identified by explorations and should show proposed structure(s) including proposed finished floor elevations superimposed on the cross-section. 4. A description of any surface water or seeps observed at the site. We understand a cross section has been developed for the site, which should be included with the re -submittal. The remaining items should be evaluated by the City and lead design professional to determine specific needs relative to the planned remodel. The AES report describes subsurface conditions based on interpretation of information obtained from three soil borings completed at the site and their review of information presented in other published reports. One of the sources of information cited is the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates (RLA) report. Although the description of soil types in the AES report is consistent with information presented in the RLA study, the soil density information obtained by AES in borings EB-1 and EB-2 is significantly lower than those encountered in EB-3 (to the west) and RLA boring six (located approximately 25 feet north of the northwest corner of the site). It is our opinion, this could indicate a disturbed zone associated with past slope instability. AES should comment on this potential and what, if any, impact if might have on foundation design. The geotechnical report prepared by AES recommends minimum 16 inch diameter x 25 feet long augercast piles for foundation support of the addition. However, the drawings submitted for our review show a hybred foundation system, where the uphill (east) footings will consist of augercast piles; the center support will be on a pre-existing foundation;, and the west end of the addition will bear on new shallow spread footings. AES must comment on the proposed system, and if acceptable, provide a recommended bearing capacity for spread footings, and anticipated settlements for the various foundation elements. The recommended minimum pile embedment is 25 ft, which is deeper than the two borings completed in that area. Boring EB-1 penetrates to a depth of 19 ft and boring EB-2 penetrates to a depth of about 24 ft below existing site grades. The piles will penetrate into slide debris which is often of variable composition and strength. It is possible that soil strengths at depths lower then the depth explored could be lower than those indicated by two borings. In our opinion, the design capacity of 10 tons per pile 3 November 5, 1998 1:\PROJECT\74080. 10\OLLESTD.LTR recommended in the geotechnical report would be adequate with the assumption that the soil conditions to about 10 pile diameters below the pile tip are at least equal, or better than, the conditions encountered at the bottom of the two borings. If soil conditions are worse, than the pile may experience more settlement than expected. We recommend that AES evaluate and comment on this. • In Section 4.1 of their report, AES states that groundwater was not encountered in any of the three exploration borings at the time of their field study. However, according to the boring logs, groundwater was observed in boring EB-3 at a depth of 11 feet on June 9, 1998. The groundwater was encountered immediately above the contact between the described Advance Outwash sand and silty clay from the Whidbey Formation. In the same section AES states that they do not anticipate that the presence of adverse ground water conditions will affect the proposed addition. The apparent discrepancies regarding groundwater must be resolved by AES. Also, AES should comment on the possible need for installation of piezometer(s) to evaluate groundwater conditions at the site. • In AES's report, pin piles are recommended for support of existing load bearing foundation elements which may settle appreciably as a result of planned construction. At this time pin piles are presented as an option. We recommend the City require the applicant have a structural engineer evaluate the existing structure, estimate the amount of structural deformation/settlement which may occur as a result of construction, and make a definitive recommendation on the use of pin piles. If pin piles are to be used, we suggest the lead design professional include pin pile design details on the drawings/specifications. • On Page 7 of their report, AES gives recommendations for site preparation. Tree removal is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Site Preparation section. The topographic map does not show trees in the area of the proposed addition. The City should determine whether a tree cutting plan needs to be provided. • On Page 8 of their report, AES states "Alternatively, passive soil resistance equal to 200 pcf (equivalent fluid pressure) acting against the buried portion of the underpinned foundation element, or any new foundations located at least 3 feet beyond the top of the slope may be used. However, use of this value relies upon placement of compacted backfill around the foundations." It is not clear what this is in reference to, as it does not appear to apply to lateral restraint of augercast piles. Clarification by AES is needed. • The project plans appear to be preliminary in nature. No architect's or structural engineer's stamps have been placed on the drawings, nor are the drawings dated, suitably titled or numbered. Also, no notes pertaining to construction details are shown on the drawing, no depth of pile embedment or pile details are shown, and a shallow foundation is indicated for support of the breezeway. The lead design professional needs to modify the drawings to meet City ordinance requirements. 4 November 5, 19981:\PROJECT\74080.10\OLLESTD.LTR W 60 We recommend the plans and other submitted documents be returned to the applicant for action. The lead design professional should be identified, and should review the documents and make whatever appropriate changes are necessary in order to be consistent with the requirements of Ordinance 2661, recommendations provided in the geotechnical report, and comments in this preliminary review letter. Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. d' � �' &'-4- William D. Evans, CPG Associate WDE/klk No. 74080.01 3 copies submitted Attachment 1 5 November 5, 1998 1:\PROJECT\74080.10\OLLESTD.LTR oil, ATTACHMENT 1 • Project Plans (LAI designation for reference), date stamped June 16, 1998 by Baker Engineers, sheets not numbered. • Environmental Checklist, completed by owner/applicant, undated. • Sheet 1 of 1 - Topographic Map for Walt Pisco, S 30' LT 6 & N 15' LT 7 BLK 26, Meadowdale Beach, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Kegel & Associates, Inc., May 20, 1992. • Site Plan, date stamped June 16, 1998 by Baker Engineers. • Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Geotechnical Engineering Report, 011estad Residence Addition, Edmonds, Washington, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., September 1998 • Landslide Hazard Map, GeoEngineers, Inc., July 25, 1984. • Vicinity and Zoning Map (for the Meadowdale landslide area). • Letter with field observation notes, to Jean Riggle from Geological Services, Inc., January 14, 1987. • Preliminary Geotechnical Review, Proposed Additions and Alterations to Riggle Residence, Landau Associates, Inc., April 4, 1991. • Report of Geologic Evaluation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, Dames & Moore, September 23, 1968. • Field Memo, Geological Services, Inc., January 8, 1987. 6 November 5, 1998 1:\PROJECT\74080.10\OLLESTD.LTR f oFVF AUG ?� 1999 MEMORANDUM °T"'aF EOM ES �r _ NDUM ot4 R. CHRON COPY Mailed ] / 4 n Date: September 3, 1998 axed To: Jeannine Graf, Building Official From: nDon Fiene, P.E., Hydraulics Engineer Via: Jim Walker, P.E., City Engineer) Subject: Drainage Policy - Meadowdale Drainage Basin According to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, stormwater detention is only required for new development or redevelopment involving more than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface. For developments involving less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface, there are no drainage detention requirements found in Section 18 of the code. The Meadowdale Drainage Basin Study does recommend direct drainage connection to a -closed pipe system for new development, without giving specific details on when to implement this requirement or what the threshold should be. The basin study was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This issue should be addressed in the applicant's geotechnical report, and our consultant should verify that a drainage system connection is proposed. Developments involving less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface do not necessitate review by the Engineering Division. Attached is a Meadowdale drainage area map which outlines the area where the policy applies. R%Engrloon\MemoMead. doc City of Edmonds CORPORATE OFFICE ASSOCIATED 911 Fifth Avenue, suite 100 ' EARTH Kirkland, Washington 98033 s" z ' 5 42MSCIE-PJCES,;IN�C , ,'" (425) 827-7701 FAX (425) 827-5424 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 September 14, 1998 FAX (206) 780-9438 Revised October 14, 1998 Revised April 22, 1999 R;E C.E IV E D Revised May 20, 1999 Project No. KE98192A ,MAY 2 51999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES`CTR. "'CITY OF EDMONDS Burt 011estad Post Office Box 6424 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Subject: Geotechnical Plan Review and Minimal Risk Statement 011estad Residence 15722 75" Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. 011estad: As requested by you, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. ,(AESI) has completed a review of the architectural and structural and drainage plans for the proposed addition to the existing residence at 15722 75"' Place West. The plans reviewed consisted of architectural and structural sheets pro- vided by you, prepared by Baker Engineers dated April 21i 1999. AESI's Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Gebtechnical Engineering Report, for the project was dated September 14, 1998, Revised April 22, 1999. Based on our review of the above documents, we have the following comments: 1) Storm water tightlined down the western slope below the existing house footprint should be conveyed the entire length of the slope to a suitable discharge point below the toe of the. slope and should NOT be allowed to discharge mid -slope as shown. We recommend that this be confirmed at the time of construction. 2) Erosion control of ail areas to be stripped of topsoil or where unprotected soils will be exposed during construction should be implemented by utilizing adequate drainage, hay bales, and protective sheeting in addition to erosion control measures as shown on the architectural/structural plans. ����®k Y,,o s/�/?57 With the inclusion of the above comments, it is our opinion that the plans reviewed by us conform to the recommendations in AESI's geotechnical report and that the risk of damage to the proposed addition, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the report. The proposed construction will not increase the potential for soil movement above the Roger Lowe & Associates' projection of having a 10 percent probability of experiencing a slump type slope movement in previously affected landslide material within a 25-year period from the date of the report publication. We have enjoyed working with you on this project and look forward to its successful completion. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington UI'i B 2/27 G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. Senior Project Engineer GAM/kp KE98192A9 5/20/99 Id - WP8 2 BAKER ENGINEERS, INUP.S. • STRUCTURAL DESIGN P.O. BOX 1697 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046-1697 October 14, 1998 Burt 011estad 15722 75th Pl. West Edmonds, WA 98206 Subject: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DECLARATION Job No: 00.98.256 Dear Mr. 011estad: EDWIN F. BAKER, P.E PRESIDENT At your request Baker Engineers Inc., P.S. has reviewed the Geotechnical report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences for the above referenced site. Baker Engineers Inc., P.S. understands the recommendations within the Geotechnical report and has explained to you the risk of loss due to slides on the site. Established measures and recommendations were incorporated into the design to reduce potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Geotechnical report. If you have any questions regarding this declaration, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, BAKER ENGINEERS, INC., P.S. Edwin F. Baker, P.E. President Travis J. McCandless Staff Engineer `y�11y F. 8 cam` OR WAS7� CEO y� r0 8898 EXPIRES 2 / 10 / 6628 212TH S.W. . LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 . (206) 771-6666 Ok71,f 101Al98 FACSIMILE (206) 771-6558 BAKER ENGINEERS, INC., .S. STRUCTURAL DESIGN P.O. BOX 1697 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046-1697 September 18, 1998 Burt 011estad 1b 15722 75th Pl. West RECEIVED Edmonds, WA 98206 AV 2 11998 Re: Augercast pier foundation for 011estad Addition Job No: 00.98.256 PERMIT COUNTER Dear Mr. 011estad: EDWIN F. BAKER, P.E. PRESIDENT At your request Baker Engineers has designed the Augercast piers to conform with the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences for the above referenced site. Three Augercast piers shall be located on the East end of the addition as shown on the plans. Embedment shall be 25 ft. as per the Geotechnical report. Reinforcement shall be (6) #10 bars placed vertically in each pier. Continuous inspection by a qualified Geotechnical engineer is required during the installation of the augercast piers. Please note the associated risks as per the Geotechnical report provided by Associated Earth Sciences for the above referenced site. "Elimination of risks from potential geologic hazards, as identified on this site, is not possible. It should be understood that our recommendations are not meant to stabilize against future earth movement, but will provide vertical foundation support only for the addition, without increasing the risks of potential slope movement. There is no economical means to minimize the potential for movement of the site slopes; however, slope stability of the site will not be reduced as a result of constructing the proposed addition. "(AES, Pr. # KE98192A, September 1998, P7) If there are any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further assistance please contact this office. Sincerely, BAKER ENGINEERS, INC., P.S. Edwin F. Baker, P.E. President Travis J. McCandless Staff Engineer idPIRES `' i) / 6628 212TH S.W. • LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 •. (425) 771-6666 FACSIMILE (425) 771-6558 MED SEP 1#998 I, Burt 011estad, warrant that all information that I have submitted in connection with the permit application for a remodel and addition to the property located at 15722-75th Place West in the City of Edmonds WA. is true and accurate. I further relieve the City of Edmonds Building Department and it's staff from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While my application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusions drawn are those of my own or of my own design professionals. I also understand and accept the risk of developing in an area of unstable soils and will advise any prospective purchasers of the site or any prospective lessees of structures on the site of the slide potential of the area. DATE — Burt 011estad x State of Washington ) sa. County of4�1 1tl I certify that I now or have satisfactory evidence that �: is the person who appeared before me, and said person act' . .:vledged that (he/she) signed this \� l lkd" 1t and deknowledged it to be (his/her) free and for the uses and purposes mentioned irk the N:,I pUBLtG q,.?: 43, • 5.�.. v ���1*'jOp pS 4 Notary Public in and' fort,] of Washington, residing at My appointment expires 6 9— Owcgcqft %/9� 890-19ci STREET FILE � CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR 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. Jessen 15722 - 75th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 This letter is to inform you that you are served by a city maintained grinder pump system. This system pumps your sanitary waste to city gravity sewer lines as your house was too low to obtain gravity flow when city sewer mains were installed. I hope to inform you of the basics of how these pumps function, who to call should you experience alarms, and what precautions should be taken to prevent damage to.your home. 1. The grinder pump was originally installed by the homeowner, but the hardware was purchased by the city of Edmonds' Lid Bond that paid for the sewer project in your area in 1985. These pumps are float activated to cycle the one pump to take your sewage up to where gravity flow can be obtained. 2. The following precautions must be adhered to prevent damage to your home: A. Do not dump any nonbiodegradable products down into the pump tank. VIA your drains in your house. B. Minimize the amount of grease disposed down.your drain. This may cause problems with the float operations. C. Do not empty pools into the tanks without a restrictor approved by the city of Edmonds. D. Do not attempt to access tank or electrical cabinets. Should you have a pump failure from any of the above mentioned items, the homeowner will be held responsible for damage. • :incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International - Hekinan, Japan 3. The city of Edmonds Sewer Section will maintain the pumps every three (3) months to ensure the proper operations. We will also clean, operate and check all components to ensure proper working status. A separate log is kept to your pump that will reflect any maintenance done. We can track reliability and the need for upgrade or repairs when a chain of failures start to occur. Crews will require the use of your water so the tank can be washed down and we will always try to notify you of their presence when they arrive on the site. 4. Should you experience any problems with the pump, there are two alarms that will indicate failure. One alarm is located within your home and has a black push button to reset to silence. There is also a visual alarm located on the electrical box outside your home. When this occurs, please call us at 771-0235 immediately to investigate any problems. Our office hours are 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday. Should an alarm occur after hours, weekends, or holiday, contact 911. There is a 24-hour call person on duty to be dispatched. We do carry parts for all of these systems and should be able to correct most problems within a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Everett Akau or myself at 77.1-0235, extension 349. Sincerely, C Ron Holland ,Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Everett Akau RH/lk GRIND/LT/TXTSEWER �n.DATE RECEIVED NA CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS M MAILING ADDRESS Oail 1 CITY ZIP TE PHONE n NA I— Q P ADDRESS ¢ fnl,iiSZ "71-7G^sr<1w� CITY ZIP NAME , L. It( , ¢ ADDRESS T 0 U a CITY ZIP • [PERMIT EXPIRES USE ZONE ,i PERMIT NUMBER 200109 JOB ADDRESS sfTa�, TL �_) SUITE/APT# PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO, LOT NO. LID NO. LID FEE $ CP Approved Q PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe Permit Required Q Street Use Permit Read ❑ EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required ❑ Sidewalk Required ❑ REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES ❑ NO REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE STATE LICENSE NUMBER 'EXPIRATION DATE I CHECKED By '-L H .. -1 t F9, SEPA REVIEW. COMPLETE.1- EXEMPT SIG ALLOWED,. , a PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCELAO W J EXP NEW RESIDENTIAL a PLUMBING / MECH LOT. COVERAGE .: ALLOWED PROPOSED' REQUIRED °°AFF��R,(,ONN�'TT : ADDITION ; COMMERCIAL Q 'CHANGE OF USE • MAW AW PARKING LOT AREA ,. ... REMODEL" - 'APARTMENT.. SIGN REQ'D PROVIDED REPAIR "GRADING CYDS PENCE X FT) ARKS DEMOLISH O TANK OTHER GARAGE RETAINING WALL ❑ RENEWAL Rz-4r% 4 z CARPORT ROCKIERY �1 , (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: - CH6 v TYPE OF CO UCTI( a U V r' NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL SPECIAL INSPCTOR AREA OF 2 DWELLING AREAS OO STORIES UNITS I NUMBER REQUIRED YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE `lti REMARKS PROGRESS` INSPECTIONSPEF 41 i L rl I I f IA)/A1, '�YTAVIni1/1iA If Ie .`17,Ir? 1 - . - — . - HEAT SOURCE ��� - LA,; r 1 PLAN CHECK FEE U LOT SLOPE % V BUILDING/ DATE DATE INSPECTION BOND REQ'D POSTED 0 YES 0 NO HEIGHT ALLOWED I PROPOSED C7 z W z z 0 z W WI ¢ LL ACKS'(FT) PROPOSED, SETBACKS (FT) WAR, FRO L/R IDE REAR c7 AA/ s � z IEWED BY DATE a OCCUPANT GROUP + OCCUPANT LOAD C7 INSPECTION REO'D o VALUATION I FEE PLAN CHECK NO. ,�� PLUMBING MECHANICAL THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO I'• BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC GRADING/FILL g DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE F SEPARATE PERMISSION. STATE SURCHARGE O W PERMIT APPLICATION; 180 DAYS a PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS ENG. REVIEW FEES SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION H rn "APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS GNr: INQPP;rTlnKl IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF LANDSCAPING 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND INSPECTION FEE C ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RECEIPT i = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE of PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT C (% �7 7 DEEMED TO MODIFY,WAIVEORREDUCEANYREQUIREMENTOFANYCITYORDINANCE 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAYTHE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION." TOTAL AMOUNT DUE RECEIPT J 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. (425) OFF CIALS SIGNATURE �//y DATE O as S NA RE (OW R OR E DATE SIGNED 771-0220 RE ASE DATE ATTENTION EXT 333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL • YELLOW- INSPECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK - OWNER • GOLD - ASSESSOR CITY OF EDMONDS USE PERMIT ZONE �� NUMBER 990603 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION J0B kk SUITE/APT# ADDRESS L5 9 7 7— 9 n',Lj OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS r 1 �c� �. LEGAL DESCRIPTI�CHECKDIVISION NO. LID NO. ZMAILING ADDRESS! / (A n 'O O O 2-4PUBBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved �� CITY ZIP i4 TELEPHONE NUMBER t,- 4� �� �� EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required A".D/ ❑ Street Use Permit Req'gtly n h v PROPOSED � Inspection Required ❑ NAM i Sidewalk Required X0 ❑ (1, MET_ E SIZ� LINE SIZE 1 11 NO. OF FIXTURES PRV R OUIRED Q 3 W x AODR n rl � YE NO ❑ REMARKS Z CITY,, ZIP _ TELEPHONE NUMBER (6i4-f'L I rI e ALL- 0 &4-{n)A-4r4F_ 'rD o w A u a r Ev FAT .1-ea a NAM ( -�Le7v-57- p7- 0Gi�A/ F� POi✓s 1,6 0 �D/� CoAlr7ee(-. qv ADD ' / � {�/ , 1 SW13 EN I EKING MEMO DATED its�vQ�awc v �1/�/� 4'� �� CIT / 1A TELEPHONE NUMBER /v FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY STATE LICENSE NUMBER_EXPIRA ION ATE - , LL RI C OR ::a ADS It SHORELINE# Legal Description of Property - include all easements'"-' SEPA REVIEW COMP ETE'` - . EXEMPT "" SIGN 'AREA', ALLOWED PROPOSED HEIGHT ALLOWED PROPOSED O EXPrj# / ✓ w ,.. .LOT.C. VERAGE.: REQUIRED SETBACKS ,(FTJ; ;PROPOSED SETBACKS (FL) p .. - ALLOWED OWED R PROPOSED "' FRONT SI EiRi li1�s'f'tJ�_ FRONT UR SIDE REAR 0 }rye REAR wi _ w,CpJ✓ Property Tax Account 13 0 (� O� /V O NG IEW g DA E a Parcel No. V �LJ EW Tom" EBIDENTIAL'• J8J PLUMBING/MECH REMARKS' COMPLIANCE OR D, � ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE ,..,. RREMODEL'. - -APT BLDG. �:.. wQ `. �" >.' !/Y �:... / ; SIGN ., ,V A a FENCE �* CYDS. -•x_FT) CHECKEDD 4Y "4, TYPE O^^^^F����C-����ONSTRUCTION"' CO r GR P REPAIR ( 7 /1 111 ® DEMOLISHSWIM INSERWOODST E HOT TUB SPA SPECTOyES AnWL _ _,_ OCCUPANT EICARPORT DYROCKERY 'WALL/. RENEWAL REQUIRED R MARKS V LOAD , PROGRESS: INSPECTIONS PER UBC_ 108., z (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR,' ) x AWN:. UJI NUMBER NUMBER OF.: TNUMBER CRITICA TRuc EvU. Ed I�4ke%L PE`''� 58� m O OF DWELLING " p7-AREAS0STORIES UNITS , Nt� b�•' S OC/Q E/P/1%t%�.OV S DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) �. FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED . .Ipar 6LdAi ,,,, PrAy,:PLAN _VALUATION;':'. FEE -3 CHECK FEE t BUILDING L/-1 HEAT SOUACE: GLAZING PLUMBING Plan Check No. MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE rn Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days Jv�� "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE tJ N w successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, �1 � ��dt�61w Z x. employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of [ W D a whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance �J� = of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT /L modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance = Inor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE o Iaa4 provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information. given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with City and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insura O RCW 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. RE OWNE R G NT DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT Q_ I G% CITY OF OF ICIAL'S SIGNATURE •ATE `—����� EDMONDS ATTENTION CALL FOR RELEA E A w` ATE INSPECTION am 11 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR IGINAL —Inspector O��O —File YELLOW A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 1 _ , /tt 1 PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor Z.r:---r,," EXIST1196 ,nQTutNF- DR PM466 CJII�� r RECEe. E® APR — 9 DEVELOPMENT SERV CES CTR. UTS CITY OF EDMOIDS . SYST. 500 -- ' MAR 2 7 01 DEVELC VICES TY OF EDF ONDS Cif PAVEb +463.96 GRND +419 TOE O O N M 7 +464.52 37 1� 0 c7 GRND O \ I ❑CAT ❑NPR XIMA E + Pl. I I I I I I EXISTING HOUSE I I II I� I I I I F❑UI i I I o Q) DRIVE AYND PRPETY C❑RNER SET BY OTHERS O0 COP HSE 98 I EA TBM : PKNA I L FOUND PR❑PEFTY ❑RNER I D7.99 EL=508.92 I I FN GtBAR N 88189'43' r PO SET BY OTHERS DATUM: ASSUMED I I I I I ' I '� 18 9'± � 08.92 PK PENNT I I I W❑❑ FENCE I / Sm.92 S .2I I I I 4 .79 FND G4 BA CM 0 3FT BH MO® I I I TOE B EN Dl G L A N D C A P IN > I I I TOE ROCK FE � A �� W ❑ LYll FENCE 111 +GRND76 506D1 FENCE 308.38�- 506.66 OP 8H F E EA EA G TE + 97. 77 / I I I I I I I I I I I � 07. e I . C �_ / �ND BH F NCE S CUR HSE I r i +GRND38 I 47EONC O\ LlBi C Q COR ICON I / CHERRY BiN I I I I ❑❑DIBUL HEAR u ( I R CKERY- , i �� re1P3 °° / / + CONCRETE BULKHEA 1 I 468. 9 +� SE .CUR a / / ELDER HERRY I I i T ROCK ` n / I I • ' • • - OE� 7t.86 VQ ° I G I I I I I R ° . I I I I I \ ° 48 BBB GE / / / / Q �� \ T H{G W W V C` 2. co ° ° UT EDGE�STA13 a 300. t1° ° SIX1T EDGE STAIR �jT�r ^T�`^ (If Br I r I t73 11 i- Y ° ° 00. 7 5WEST00. EDGE 301.76 305. 81 r ° ���'°���rrr I l J I 468.32 COP CONE COP CONC Q TOP PH SOUTH E TAIR , TOE. ROCK 4 PCIR [GN(, ° ' / / ° �� ° \ . c I I I 1DE 3fTD 'VAf�^wN . ♦ 417,.31 ° ° I Pj� 500.89 +501 .1 TAG •, Ln � I q�( �SNTD EDGE . . HT � ° °Q \ � ° e C/ - R7 +303.45 •- I'.'� 4 ON a 4 I '-4 �� I ° ° YRD DRN , • Z GRND EXISTING HOUSE t WEST°£ AIR CA E 1167x 473. 13 T/�E506.95 D _ 0 ° 2 9 ' 2 5 e I I ' I TOE ROCK 472.17 COP CONL FFLOOR / - I ° TOP BH GARAGE C COP GARAGE L=45 . 00 ' J I *UP RUCK (BASEMENT FLOOR z I ° 493.0 I I I 500.E ' R=5258 , 8 0 ' I i I I EL. = 473.13) o ' mP 13 1 wEST DG n e+49 54 PATH T E 3FT BH WOOD ,11 R❑CKER� `1w\' DO VVER ° ' GARAGE I iI I I I 1,3 77 _ I I +499. 02-- J I a 472.08 rOjCR LI TE BU KHEA GRHD 1 ° 41 TOP ROCK I BH • • I f ° ° 506.23 I j ' -C!}R"•iT4E )/ A W , 00.34 COP GARAGE CUR GARAGE i 190'± ° I ICL I TA` OE CONCRETE BULKHEAD ING / 7 p11TH I � ('� 1�110 TOE6ROCK +472.28 N 88 ° 09 ' 1 c" W c R w ` LAJ 1 HT C�� A506.72 -HSE I / TO PAIL-- �f +467. 58 ° a .e +4B TOE SOUTH ED X" C NC VL Y J1 22 OS.B1 n VAT METER +418.66 / O d' (!� d. `D + 1 +472.91 OE 2f NIGF� ' 1 I I TOP • TIX' BH • • • . r • ' TOES �y- Cj ` 20• HEMLOCK I I I \ \ • • . • i COP CONC 472• 111 CUR [j�`� / � TUP BH .12 I \ 1, r1 +GRND31 Sp p FENCE MICE CEDAR BUSH CONCRETE BULKHEAD 3 1 EDGE OF PAVEMENT i. I II 1i ,01.43 EA u£}F s{�t, f$Rlyi UU;+ 502 01 iND •ON TOP MANHOLE COVER EL=501.81 SS MANiOLE SCALE: 1" = 10' SPECIAL NOTE THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE NOT GUARANTEED FOR ACCURACY BM: TOP MONUMENT CASE EL=500.00 DATUM: ASSUMED T1 D "ON 8 1NT. 1. 3th. ( 73th. BUILDING JAN 8 - 1997 SEC 5, TWIP 279 R 4E +463.96 GRND +419 TOE c::) C7 0i A V A A Gp 1 I ON I Il/ �HED APPR XIMA E I L❑CAT ❑N) I i RND ) I I IFOUND PROPERTY CORNER / I I SET BY OTHERS I FN G4 BAR I I I I +464.52 GRND I I EXISTING HOUSE I I I I I I JI I WOOD FENCE 3FT BH 1. I I I I B EN 4 .39 � I T OF NC E ROCK ! \ 1 I I I I MR HSE l �466 1 • I I � I +GRND38 I ! I I I MOOD I BUL HEAGONGI R CKERY �O IQ 460. 1 11\ I I I I I I TOE ROCK \ 72.86 aQ c l I I �2. L COPI I I I 7 w N� A° Q CDR COW 30.73 TE46BO5K2 4 473. 00 No C eOR LOML OE 3FT WOOD Q +166.99 IN GRND OE6473.13 D=0°29'25• TRO72.17 CONC FFLOOR L=45. 00' 1 OP ROCK R=5258.80' 7 PATH �3FTIBH WOOD ROCKER I I \ 472.09 TOP ROCK I1 pp CUR HSE �1 T PATH 7 I 111 469.07 ' / I A TOE ROCK +.,2.28 N 88 ° 09 ' 12' W ` HT nnT PATH f +467.58 O O D + +418.66 [)• b. TOE C-)(1� 20' HEMLOCK N a �r- A \ o SPECIAL NOTE THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE NOT GUARANTEED FOR ACCURACY ° 0099'_43" 189'± \ DRIVEWAY rn I CDR HSE 1 90 / EA HS 07.99 FOUND PROPERTY ❑RNER POE SET BY OTHERS 507, 92 +111.71 FND W 1 BAR'\CAP / <LAND CAPIN ) W❑dD FENCE I I I I / / / / GRND 506 Of FENCE 308.38 -- 508.66 G TE / \ OP BH F E EA EA - ZI I / \ \ +/97.77 07. B -j BH F NCE • L(R L FE 4B1I09 cHERRr BIN • • • ° CDR CON (I (\ • � +81 CO 4A. \ CONCRETE BULKHEA SE COR ELDER BERRY • � � . _ A 4 � B , SS tYEt T IR / / / a 4 4 1\.81 v�L Q PR Li\ L'i a - I - \ /� P R�P A ° 491433 T. EDGE STAI A - 3Q0. U A a. SOU EDGE STAIR V� % 4 ° 00. 7 EST EDGE 501.76 505P u \ ,A` TOP BH SOUTH E TAtR• R A SDD.B9 +soi.1 \ to \ V l 3 I I 4 �� SNI EDGE BRASS TAG . . 111 1 Ci HD07 +503.47 \ \ z I I YRD DRN EXISTING HOUSE w I I YEEWEDl�E AIR ° ° • • Z • \ / I A TOP BH GARAGE C 506.95 (BASEMENT FLOOR I I CDR GARAGE i J 3 EL. = 473, 13) � I A Op9 1 WEST EST i 44 A A+4B 5A I .to VPt1vER I I I I ° GARAGE ,1 - �I A 07. 17 A +490.02 EA ❑ CR TE B II��KHEAJ GRND l ° 4 41 �` /\^� 4 / • C13R 23 OP BH ��AW , � 00.31 CDR GARAGE COR GARAGE ' 4 J I I TA` 1� CONCRETE BULKHEAD �tJC� C R ON • C Q P / I Ln H+481 6 V� ,506.72 II TO SOUTH C C K C YL Y 1 I p3.e1 P YAT METER ° 1 22 T� BN iITP BH I +472.91 lE H 2F�HI . • • CDR CONC 472. \ \ LS1R ONC ��� +GRND31 Sop FENCE `E"`E CEDAR BUSH CONCRETE BULKHEAD T'�\ 3 i EDGE OF i PAVEMENT I I� TBM; PKNAIL EL=508.92 DATUM, ASSUMED oa.92 PK PEN4Y EA50'. 43 5e2:1 H(:N TOP MANHOLE DOMINO fAP IZ COVER EL=501,81 JAN 5 ' S 5o1.e1 SS MANHOLE BM, TOP MONUMENTCASE EL=500.00 DATUM: ASSUMED _I, MON R INT. 158 th 6 75th. GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES CODE ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC) 199"1 EDITION. DESIGN LOADS ROOF FLOORS DECKS BASIC WIND SPEED SEISMIC SOIL LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE _ -4 c_ , F 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dIt- m v r- co 0 0 N. W OV 43" W. 25 PSF (SNOW), 15 PSF D.L. 40 PSF LIVE LOAD 40 PSF LIVE LOAD SO MPH (EXPOSURE B) ZONE 3 2000 PSF FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR PIERS 35 PCF EQUIv. FLUID PR. UNRESTRAINED 50 PCF EQUIV. FLUID PR. RESTRAINED INSPECTIONS SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR AUGERCAST PIER CONSTRUCTION. SEE NOTE UNDER AUGERCAST PIER INSTALLATION. FOUNDATIONS EXTEND FOOTINGS TO UNDISTURBED SOIL OF 2000 PSF SOIL BEARING CAPACITY (ASSUMED). BOTTOM OF EXTERIOR FOOTINGS SHALL BE 1'ro" MIN. BELOW OUTSIDE FINISHED GRADE. COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL SHOULD CONSIST OF PREDOMINANTLY WELL GRADED GRANULAR SOIL FREE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL AND DEBRIS, FILL SHOULD BE PLACED IN MAXIMUM 8 INCH LOOSE LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF S5 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINED BY ASTM D -1551 TEST PROCEDURES. CONCRETE f'c= 2500 PSI MIN. 5 1/2 SACKS OF CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD OF CONCRETE AND A MAXIMUM OF ro.0 GALLONS OF WATER PER S4 LB. SACK OF CEMENT. MAXIMUM SIZED AGGREGATE IS 1-1/211 MAXIMUM SLUMP IS 4 SEGREGATION OF MATERIALS TO BE PREVENTED. REINFORCING STEEL 05 AND LARGER BARS SHALL BE GRADE 60 DEFORMED BARS, AND 03 AND 04 BARS SHALL BE GRADE 40, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A-&15: WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A-185 AND SHALL BE ro X ro - W1.4 X W1.4 LAP ONE FULL MESH AT SPLICES. ROOF TRUSSES ROOF TRUSSES SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST SPECIFICATIONS OF THE T.P.I. AND THE U.B.G. HEADERS HEADERS NOT CALLED OUT ON THE PLANS SHALL BE (2) 2 X 8 DF-L 02 WITH ONE CRIPPLE AND ONE KING STUD AT EACH END FOR OPENINGS 4'-0" OR LESS AND TWO CRIPPLES AND ONE KING STUD FOR OPENINGS MORE THAN 4'-0" WIDE. ALL COLUMNS NOT CALLED OUT ON THE PLANS SHALL BE (2) STUDS. BLOCK SOLID TO FOUNDATION. SPIKE LAMINATED COLUMNS TOGETHER WITH Irod a lro" O/C STAGGERED. TIMBER BEAMS AND POSTS(4X AND GREATER) DF-L 01 OR BETTER STUDS HF #2/5TUD OTHER LUMBER HF 02 & SETTER 2X TIMBER SHALL BE KILN DRIED. GRADES SHALL CONFORM TO "WWPA GRADING RULES FOR WESTERN LUMBER, LATEST EDITION". WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. MISCELLANEOUS CONNECTIONS TO BE SIMPSON STRONG -TIE OR APPROVED EQUAL. NAILS SHALL BE COMMON WIRE NAILS. SPLITS SHALL BE NO LONGER THAN 3/4 THE WIDTH OF THE FACE MEMBER AND SHAKES SHALL BE NO LONGER THAN 1/4 THE WIDTH OF THE NARROW FACE. GLUED LAMINATED WOOD MEMBERS , DOUGLAS FIR, KILN -DRIED, STRESS GRADE COMBINATION 24F-V4 (Fb = 2,400 PSI) FOR SIMPLE SPANS AND 24F-V8 FOR CANTILEVER AND CONTINUOUS SPANS. ENGINEERED LUMBER PRODUCTS PRODCTS MANUFACTURED BY TRUS JOIST MACMILLAN 1.8E WS MICROLLAM LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER (LVL) ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESSES: E = 1,(000,000 PSI Fb = 2,600 PSI Fv = 265 PSI Fcl = ­[50 PSI Fr_ = 2,460 PSI 2.OE WS PARALLAM PARALLEL STRAND LUMBER CPSL) ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESSES: E = 2,000,000 FBI Fb = 2,S00 PSI Fv = 29O PSI Fcl = 650 PSI Fc = 2,900 PSI EQUIVALENT ENGINEERED LUMBER PRODUCTS BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED, PENDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECT, PROVIDED THEY HAVE ICBO APPROVAL FOR EQUAL OR GREATER ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESSES. FLOOR AND ROOF DIAPHRAGM APPLY 3/4" T$G STUDD-I-FLOOR (24 O.C.) GLUED AND NAILED TO FRAMING MEMBERS WITH 106 NAILS AT roll O.G. AT SUPPORTED EDGES AND 106 NAILS a 12" O.C. AT INTERIOR SUPPORTS. APPLY 1/2" CDX PLYWOOD (32/1(o) ON ROOF NAILED WITH ad NAILS o roll O.G. AT SUPPORTED EDGES AND ad NAILS a 12" O.G. AT INTERIOR SUPPORTS. WOOD FRAMING ALL EXTERIOR AND LOAD -BEARING WALLS SHALL BE NOMINAL 2 X ro HEM -FIR STUDS a lro" O/C U.N.O. ALL NON -BEARING INTERNAL WALLS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2 X 4 STUDS a 24" O/C. ALL INTERNAL NON BEARING WALLS SHALL BE HELD AWAY FROM THE TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD WITH A SIMPSON STC CLIP, OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT, TO INSURE THAT THE TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD WILL NOT BEAR ON THE WALL. JOISTS JOISTS SHALL BE SUPPORTED LATERALLY AT THE ENDS AND AT EACH SUPPORT BY SOLID BLOCKING EXCEPT WHERE THE ENDS OF JOISTS ARE NAILED TO A HEADER, BAND OR RIM JOIST. SOLID BLOCKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND THE FULL DEPTH OF JOIST. PROVIDE SOLID FULL -HEIGHT BLOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS a 8'-0" O/C U.N.O. _ I I_ 11_I 1_ 11_I I_ I I"I GRAVEL PARKING AREA TREATED WOOD WHEN WOOD JOISTS ARE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 18 INCHES OR WOOD GIRDERS ARE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 12 INCHES TO EXPOSED GROUND IN CRAWL SPACES, THE FLOOR ASSEMBLY, INCLUDING POSTS, GIRDERS, JOISTS AND SUBFLOOR, SHALL BE APPROVED WOOD OF NATURAL RESISTANCE TO DECAY AS LISTED IN U.B.0 SECTION 230ro.4 OR TREATED WOOD. WOOD LOCATED NEARER THAN ro INCHES TO EARTH, OR LOCATED ON CONCRETE SLABS PLACED ON EARTH, SHALL BE TREATED WOOD OR WOOD OF NATURAL RESISTANCE TO DECAY, AS DEFINED IN U.B.C. SECTION 2302.1. ALL SILLS THAT REST ON CONCRETE OR MASONR*'r FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE -TREATED WOOD OR FOUNDATION REDWOOD, ALL MARKED OR BRANDED BY AN APPROVED AGENCY. COLUMNS AND POSTS COLUMNS AND POSTS LOCATED ON CONCRETE OR MASONRY FLOORS OR DECKS EXPOSED TO THE WEATHER OR TO WATER SPLASH OR IN BASEMENTS AND THAT SUPPORT PERMANENT STRUCTURES SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY CONCRETE PIERS OR METAL PEDESTALS PROJECTING ABOVE FLOORS UNLESS APPROVED WOOD OF NATURAL RESISTANCE TO DECAY OR TREATED WOOD IS USED. THE PEDESTALS SHALL PROJECT AT LEAST ro INCHES ABOVE EXPOSED EARTH AND AT LEAST 1 INCH ABOVE SUCH FLOORS. MISCELLANEOUS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT JOB SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY BRACINGS AS REQUIRED UNTIL ALL PERMANENT CONNECTIONS AND STIFFENINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. PRE -FABRICATED ITEMS TO BE HANDLED AND INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS. AUGERCAST PIER INSTALLATION AUGERCAST PIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH CONTINUOUS FLIGHT, HOLLOW -STEM AUGER EQUIPMENT. CONCRETE GROUT MUST BE PUMPED CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH THE AUGER AS IT IS WITHDRAWN. OFTEN, THE AUGURING ACTION MAY TEND TO DISTURB THE SOILS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DRILLED HOLES, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN DECREASED END -BEARING CAPACITY. TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THIS DISTURBANCE, THE PILE CONTRACTOR SHALL ROTATE THE AUGER WHILE PUMPING THE FIRST FEW CUBIC FEET OF GROUT, PRIOR TO STARTING AUGER WITHDRAWAL. THIS WILL MIX ANY LOOSE CUTTINGS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WITH CEMENT, THUS DEVELOPING THE END -BEARING CAPACITY. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE SURFACE OF THE PUMPED GROUT ABOVE THE TIP OF THE AUGER, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES SHALL BE SATISFIED: MAINTAIN A MINIMUM GROUT HEAD OF 5 FEET ABOVE THE TIP OF THE AUGER AT ALL TIMES. ENSURE THAT THE GROUT PRESSURE AT THE GROUT PUMP IS IN THE RANGE OF 150 TO 250 PSI, DEPENDING ON THE LENGTH OF THE FEEDER HOSE USED. EQUIP THE GROUT PUMP WITH A CALIBRATED STROKE COUNTER SO THAT GROUT VOLUMES PER PIER MAY BE CALCULATED. AS THE COMPLETED BELOW -GROUND PIER CANNOT BE OBSERVED, JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE MUST BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF A PIER. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL PIERS. r to N J; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OLLESTAD RESIDENCE EXISTING SQ, FT 2511 LIVING 392 DECK NEW SQ. FT 1020 LIVING 24'1 DECK LEGAL S 30' LOTro PLUS 15' LOT I BLK 28 MEADOW DALE BEACH PLUS A �' PORTION OF LOT 7 ADDRESS 15122 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 982Oro TAX ACCT # 513 102 800 ro00O (o A 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C7 R CITY OF EDMOND,^, V1 • • W z� ti to -a = N N F®1 J L "t m rn L � cro U 0) co co� S ;S r cocli a 0� wo Wa Om 0� >� Ww r \' E AWN BY TJM c EET NO. I 0 0- r� N^ Q ^W