The URL can be used to link to this page

15810 75TH PL W.PDF15810 75TH PL W TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: _ Zk J l BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): rn COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS : �DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: / // Z-e& 1 If DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS (OTHER) PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: 0/c�- SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: 2,10 SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:_1611 t SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:__ SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 6 � M OTHER 6 Y R/ , / %� l X 3( L �P V 1P 566 13106 01V1J1aVA6U1r15-1r ;6L Z�0,iPkk LATEMP\DSTs\Fmms\.Street File Checklist.doc I. :,WY of E D W1 DS .—'T FIL 4 JVE SEWER PERMIT 1i'9*�spection Call 771-3202 PERMIT NO. SEP PUBLICAWWtfdpp rrRess of Construction: Property Legal Description ( Include all easements) : r -- Owner and/or Builder: Contractor & License No: Single Family Residence Multi -Family Commercial (No. of Units ) (No. of fixture Units ) LYNNVJOOD LINE Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No P Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No /, Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK I' cer ify that I have re d and shall comply with the items listed onithe back. Permit Fee: 0.00 Issued By: 1' (j Trunk Charge: 2.5, elp Date Issued: 2 Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: ¢% 2- •� �.r Date Partial Inspection: Comments Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: �. Date nitial Rejected: White Copy - File ason Date Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** Green Copy - Inspector Buff Copy - Applicant P�, . y El W 9 w Q 0 0 0 a CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERM iT PLICATION NAME (OR NAME OF BUS:NESS) 1 1� MA G A DAESS Z4- 1W51-j_ ITY � ., iPHONENUMBER V`AMO,S ( gKOZO J NAM aVr a, I YI ADDRESS ,•••-�.•, I�]�% y2 CITT U"mvwdT I 1 ELEPHONE IT; JiNAM v s ADDRESS O Cl 21CITY E ONE NUMBER UMPERMIT NUM8&3575 )-ZD NBER /sg/D 37.s7"Ie xef5r SLR bt DH -HECK I SUBDIVISION NO. 7 LID NO. 11GHTOF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP, ff�� I—!'� - REOUIRED DEDICATION_ F WAVY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REOUTAED USE PERMIT REOUIRED C )INEERING MEMO DATED ell 11016170 fL EiY6In'leeRliv6 Ii15 �77Gr✓ FE BUILDING SJPPLY SIZE FIXTURE. UNITS /6 I �i-O 1 3 I iEMARYS 1 --.•Li,J.I!(3�� STATE LICENSE NUMBFA V 6010 ...�^ SIGN AREA ENV. RE' .EW ADD NI LegCaI De✓ ipllon Of Property. include all easements ALLOWED PROPOSED COM/P)ETE EXEMPT (sno'wybelow orattach four copies) / s»^^^'o-•R��EUII /1 ' %�( j BA 2A I`\ �^ yl /1 �(J'J u j�/C 1 VARIANCE OR CU PLAN ING REV of 'UAL _!-J , y (� (j , C • 'j7 ii VVV"Nt�N4 IM.CC J u , -III �LI YARDS HEI LOT COVERAGE �+ FRONT �C? SIDE (� -S REAR ZS• zr, i �' / O. !� ' REMARKS U NEW LJ RMDENIUL Q PLUMBING QAOWALTEA Q Q COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL Q Q SIGN LJ REPAIR RETAINING WALL Q DEJOUSM Q EX FVATE p FENCE K__� CHECKED �`..JJ �I�Y 6'5 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 1T— CODE � � Fez MEroh a� Q REMODEL Q Q bWIM SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY OCCU C.OMPLIANCE$NSP. E UTAYESF.O GROUP ? } nJ LOAD 11—INOSSETROTVEI Q Q C NO APT SLIX RENEWAL MARKS X.4 F�e6jY�f�r e p�� [�� T/YS�[%%OA�/y U& STORIES NUMBER OF •:UMBER OF 2 DwELUr{G I UNI'i S SPEc�fAl f�SPE<TIo S ICE Ot< 2 r T '" F�lh G1T A D(x1jt- $•2L•9Py VALUATIONFEE PUN CHECK FEE s O BUILDING _/ A10 J O7 %•- PLUMBING 3v MECHANICAL Z This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFCLL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sldewelks, STATE SURCHARGE 3. s driveways. marquees, etc.) will require se-plar&te permission. Penult Application:180Days F-yh ,b4 by fj�l ENERGY CODE Permit Limit: T Year • Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and successors In interest, egrees to Indemnify, defend and hold W harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, Its officials, t employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of S iwhatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the Issuance of this peril. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PUN CHECK DEPOSIT G modify, waive or roduce any requirement of any city ordinance °s nor limit In any way the Clty's ability to enforce any ordinanco TOTAL AMOUNT DUE/S� J� 9/7� provision." 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the Information given is correct; and that 1 am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized egont of the owner. I agree to Comply with city and state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work. suthoriz• THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application Is not a permit until ad thereby, no person will be employed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE signod Dy the Building Official or hie tate 0: Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa• WORK NOTED Deputy; and tees are paid, and receipt Is e. INSPECTION acknowledged In space provided. NE R 0R A NTI LATE SNlNED CEP"TMENT T OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DATE 4AE CITY OF �� 42.•� IL EDMONDS ON 771.3202 RELEASED BY: DA 76 . 8h2 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE j UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspec r A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD —Assessor ! oq_,o Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: old Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/ 1. Site Address/Location: 2. 3. Property Tax Account Number: W1 Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently.developed? ✓ yes; If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. 5131 02q 001 o0 S Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). L�c2�2 Hilly: 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 less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: N Q ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: _ ; Approx. Depth: _ What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course: 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? O Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: For City Staff Use Only 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? "—'D 2. Site is Zoned? 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? A LPEW e-) o �--) G, O-A ✓ 4- t* D `t' Lov4 ," e 5'Z S % Z S-- 7 0 . "1 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? Suc Fez-.-) 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed by: J, Date: ,�� 1 C2 ln4= Critical Areas Checklist.doc14.22.2003 L� City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily, available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date Received:_ //cflfflley City Receipt #:_b S 3� Critical Areas File #: Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. 'The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to le this application on the alf of the er as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT W-YaCD 9��11 1 ATE Property Owner's Authorization . By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the stW of the City of Ed nds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection ancj pgsting atlendAnt tg this app on. SIGNATURE OF OWNER Owner/Applicant: Name ' — 5 TH PL Street Address ,s 980 City State-7/lt Zip Telephone: -i �/S- 7 J � / u e I DATE (J L Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City State Zip Telephone: Email address (optional): Critical Areas Checklist.doc/4.22.2003 Email Address (optional): City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Gilbert & Janet Thiry Determination #: CA-04-16 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 15810 75`h Pl. W. Property Tax Acct M 00-513102900100 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection of the property reveals a lot developed with a single family residence. The eastern portion of the lot is gently sloping while the western portion of the property slopes down steeply to the railroad bed. The steep bank on this part of the property appears to slope downward at a rate grater than 40% with a elevation difference of over 20-feet. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there may be a steep slope critical area on the site. In this case, a Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the top and toe of the slope, document the inclination of that slope and determine the buffers and setbacks for this Steep Slope Area. For a Steep Slope Critical Area, which is defined as any area with a slope over 40% and a vertical rise of over 20 feet, the required Critical Areas Study must be topographic survey completed by a licensed surveyor. The survey must locate the top and the toe of the slope. A 50 foot buffer is required from the top of the slope and a 15 foot building setback from that buffer. The 50 foot buffer can be reduced down to a minimum of 10 feet upon the review of a Geotechnical engineer who will certify that no additional potential for soil movement will occur with a reduction of the 50 foot buffer. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or i uffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. � A/- 1.7 Steve Bullock April 5.2004 — Name S i'!'j Date SUMMARY OF MEETING WITH BUILDING OFFICIAL PROPOSED GIL THIRY RESIDENCE EDMOND, WASgINGTON Geolingineers Incorporated • (206) 746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 December 30, 1986 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manor Market 3609 - 164th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: Summary of Meeting with Building Official Proposed Gil Thiry Residence Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists This letter summarizes discussions in a meeting between Mr. Harold Reeves, Building Official for the City of Edmonds, Mr. Jack Whitely of WJA & Associates, engineers for the City of Edmonds, and the undersigned. The meeting was held December 19, 1986, at the City of Edmonds to discuss questions raised by the City of Edmonds relative to the application for a building permit for the proposed Gil Thiry residence. The meeting was held with the permission of Mr. Thiry and at the suggestion of Mr. Whitely to enable more detailed discussion of certain site characteristics than would be appropriate for a public hearing or conventional permit application. The issues referenced herein are discussed in varying detail in reports and letters submitted to you by GeoEngineers over the last two years; additional reference is made to a report entitled "Landslide Hazards Investi- gation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, for the City of Edmonds", 1979, prepared by Roger Lowe & Associates, Inc. (RLAI). Mr. Gil Thirty December 30, 1986 Page 2 Discussions at this meeting were confined to two subjects. These include: 1. The "factor of safety" related to slope stability at the proposed residence site. 2. The influence of ground water recharge in the upland area on the overall stability of the Meadowdale landslide complex. FACTOR OF SAFETY - SLOPE STABILITY A "factor of safety" applied to slope stability considerations is a numerical method of comparing relative slope stability. The factor of safety (f/s) number is a ratio defining the forces which tend to prevent slope failure (called resisting forces) compared to those forces which tend to cause a slide to occur (called driving forces). When resisting and driving forces are in equilibrium an f/s ratio of 1.0 exists. A condition of incipient unstability occurs when driving forces exceed resisting forces (f/s = <1.0). Conversely, an f/s greater than 1.0 means the resisting forces exceed driving forces by some amount. For example, an f/s of 1.1 means resisting forces are 1.1 times greater (10 percent larger) than driving forces. An f/s of 1.5 means resisting forces are 50 percent greater than driving forces and it implies that no reasonable chance of failure exists. An f/s of about 1.2 is generally considered a satisfactory margin of stability when considering natural or constructed slopes where minor to moderately severe consequences are likely to result in the event of a slope failure. A f/s of 1.5 is a "target value" commonly applied by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to the design of earth or rock fill dam embankments. These embankment slopes are analyzed based on a "full reservoir" condition; the consequences of a failure of an earth dam when the reservoir is full are obvious. The calculated f/s of a slope is influenced by numerous factors --some "natural" and some "man -induced". Two common "natural" factors include seismic influence or a rapid rise in water table as might be caused by severe storms. Seismic shaking typically reduces a calculated f/s; the GeoEngineers Incorporated • • Mr. Gil Thirty December 30, 1986 Page 3 degree of reduction depends on the intensity and duration of ground shaking together with ground conditions at the considered site. A rapid rise in water table elevation, as measured in several feet of change over a period of hours or days, can also have an adverse affect under certain conditions. "Man -induced" factors include such action as adding driving force by placing fill in the wrong places or reduction of resistance by cutting away the toe of a slope. Adverse ground water conditions can also be man -caused by improper disposal of storm or sanitary sewage affluent which can result in erosion or oversaturation of near -surface soils. At the Gil Thiry property in Meadowdale, it is our opinion that there is a potential for both natural and man -caused slope failaures. Details of our evaluation of slide risk potential and of our recommendations for mitigation of that risk are presented in our previous reports and communi- cations. Our assessment of these risks is summarized below. Shallow Debris Flow: This refers to the potential -for movement of a relatively thin zone of loose weathered native soil on the steep slope immediately above the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. The loose "topsoil" zone ranges from about 2 to S feet in thickness perpendicular to the slope face. This type of superficial slope failure is very common along most of the eastern shoreline of Puget Sound between Seattle and Everett. The existing factor of safety against reoccurrence of this type of failure at the Thiry property is about 1.1. The proposed construction plans will help to increase that factor of safety by interception of both surface and subsurface water. No fill will be placed at the top of, or on, the slope and none of the existing vegetation will be removed. The west wall is designed to remain intact if lateral support is removed, and the foundation will be deep enough such that it is very unlikely to be influenced by such a slope failure. The integrity of the house structure is essentially not at risk from this type of slope failure. GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thirty December 30, 1986 Page 4 Construction Slope Failure: This relates to the potential for caving of the existing slope west of 75th Place West along the eastern margin of the proposed house. Excavation for construction of a perimeter deep inter- ceptor drain is proposed in this area along with some excavation for the house foundations and crawl space. The risk at this location is to the integrity of 75th Place West and the buried utilities therein during the construction period for the drain and garage wall. No specific f/s analysis is customarily accomplished for this type of work. However, our recommen- dations for the drain design and construction schedule and for the garage foundation/retaining wall are specifically directed to protect against causing unstable slope conditions during construction and to a significant improvement to the long-term stability of the road shoulder slope. Additional long-term benefits to slope stability are described below. Deep -Seated Landslide: This refers to a landslide where the slip plane is a significant distance below the existing ground surface. It is repre- sented by the type of slope failure which occurred at this site in 1955 and, in fact, which is responsible for the overall configuration of the Meadowdale landslide complex. This type of slide is the objective of the analysis described in the 1979 RLAI report and in the report by GeoEngineers, Inc. to the City of Edmonds dated February 28, 1985. Based on engineering analyses of soil and ground water data obtained specifically for slope stability studies, the 1979 RLAI report concluded that a f/s of 1.17 was applicable at that time to the northern portion of the Meadowdale landslide complex, including the area of the Gil Thiry property. Our 1985 reevaluation increased that calculated f/s to 1.27, based on a modest decline in the area water table. We estimated in 1985 that the average increase in f/s of 8 percent represents approximately a 5-fold decrease in the annual probability of a major landslide occurrence. The potential for debris flows adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad tracks is not as significantly affected by the declining area water table; therefore, the calculated f/s does not show as significant an increase. We GeoEngineers Incorporated 1� Mr. Gil Thirty December 30, 1986 Page 5 also concluded that further declines in water table are expected with time and that corresponding increase in the overall slope stability f/s will result. The effect of the construction of the Thiry residence as planned will serve to increase the calculated f/s above that estimated in 1985 for deep- seated failures. The magnitude of that increase cannot be estimated based on present data and should not be compared directly to the 1979 or 1985 estimates since those estimates relate to a relatively large area and not to a single building site. The trend of the factor of safety adjustment is the important issue. The excavation for the foundations and crawl space of the Thiry residence will result in removal from the site of about 60 cubic yards of soil. The house structure and contents will restore a portion of that weight, but certainly the net result will be a reduction of the net site loading. The permanent subdrain system will dewater the immediate area to the depth of the drains and will also have some dewatering influence beyond the actual drain pattern. This will increase soil strength and increase relative slope stability within the entire dewatered area which will include the Thiry property; some benefits also will be experienced outside of the Thiry property lines. The surface water collection and disposal system will similarly have a positive effect on the overall site stability by reducing on -site infiltration and recharge to the local ground water system. Seismic vibration can have the effect of reducing soil strength and corresponding stability. The type of soils observed on and near the Thirty property are dense and are not the type which liquify during earthquakes. Dewatering will reinforce the non -liquefiable character of these materials. There is no known correlation between historical earthquakes and any previous landslide activity on the Meadowdale landslide complex; the dates of major earthquakes do not correspond to the documented significant landslide GeoEngineem Incorporated Mr. Gil Thirty December 30, 1986 Page 6 activities. Based on the lack of earthquake/landslide correlation, it is our opinion that earthquake -induced strength reductions effectively do not reduce the "factor of safety" to a critical level. REGIONAL GROUND WATER RECHARGE The 1979 RLAI report indicates that full development of the upland east of the Meadowdale landslide complex could result in increased ground water recharge, thus having an adverse affect on stability of the area within the known landslide complex. This assessment is based on a "worst -case" scenario in which the upland area would be developed to its fullest potential and that all of the stormwater runoff plus all sanitary sewage effluent would be recharged to the ground water system. It was the opinion of the undersigned in 1979, and is now, that the hypothetical "worst -case" scenario is extremely unlikely to occur. It is a fact that development of the upland area is now subject to much more stringent controls than in the past. Stormwater disposal is better integrated with system designs including such features as lined detention ponds or chambers, efficient ditching and culverts, etc. These features combine to significantly decrease ground water recharge. Also, on -site sewage disposal systems (septic tanks) are virtually eliminated from new high -density developments, a factor of which further reduces ground water recharge. We trust this summary adequately explains the details of the discussions at the meeting referenced above. If you have any further questions concerning our conclusions or the basis for our analysis, please call. Yours very truly, Ge ngineers, Inc. i J/on W. Koloski Principal JWK: wd Two copies submitted GeoEngineers Incorporated • r AAA 16, Geo Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manor Market 3609 - 164th Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: May 2, 1986 Revised Report Geotechnical Services Residential Site 15800 Block, 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 INTRODUCTION Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations relative to development of a residential site in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The property is located on the west side of 75th Place West in the 15800 Block. Our services for this project are provided in general accordance with our agreement dated February 3, 1986; authorization to proceed was received on February 9, 1986. With your concurrence we departed from our original scope of services because very soft ground conditions at the time of our field studies required extensive site improvements to provide access for the drilling machine to the boring sites. To minimize the extra charges, we reduced the number of our borings from three to two. This report is revised from our earlier version dated March 10, 1986. The revision is to clarify our description of slope stability risk, and certain of the engineering recommendations. GeoEngineets, Inc. 2405140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746-5200 Fax. (206) 746-5068 GeoA-hngineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 2 We understand that you are planning to construct a single-family residence on the site. The residence will be of wood frame construction and will be located as far toward the northeast portion of the lot as is practi- cal. The lowest floor elevation will be about 5 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface at the potential northeast building corner which you have staked in the field. The purpose of our services is to provide a general feasibility evalua- tion together with the geotechnical criteria for design of the house. Specifically, our work includes: 1. Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling two borings. 2. Review of documentation pertaining to past landslides which may influence the feasibility of development plans for this site. 3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and drainage to minimize the impact on site stability. - 4. Provide recommendations for design of foundations and retaining walls. The subject site is located on the west side of 75th Place West, immediately south of an extension of 158th Avenue West. There are no buildings or other improvements on the lot at this time. The site slopes downward to the south and west from the northeast property corner. Adjacent to 75th Place West the ground surface slopes down relatively steeply for a distance of about 5 to 15 feet; the higher slope is at the north slope of the lot. West of the steep slope the ground surface slopes downward gradually to the west over a distance of about 150 feet from the east property line. The west property line is located along the crest of a very steep slope which is about 30 to 40 feet in height and which marks the edge of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Elevations across the site range from a high of about 95 feet above sea level in the northeast corner to approximately Elevation 60 feet along the east margin of the railroad easement. HISTORY The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide complex, an area in which numerous large and small earth movements, have occurred within the Geo,,;Engineers � Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 3 last 30 years. This area is the subject of a landslide hazards investigation by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, dated October 16, 1979), of which the undersigned was the principal author. The site which is the subject of this consultation is located in an area classified the 1979 RLAI report as "4A90" This designation identifies a landslide hazard due to failure from previously failed material, that the failure would likely include a considerable depth of material, and that there was a 90 percent probability that such a failure may occur during a 25-year period. A large landslide which occurred in 1955 resulted in a ground failure and displacement of 5 to 10 feet vertically on a line which appears to traverse the site. A house which formerly occupied this location has, been removed and some site regrading has been accomplished. We showed you newspaper photographs and discussed the 1955 landslide with you in conjunction with our field studies. That 1979 landslide hazards map was developed on the basis of conditions prior to construction of the Meadowdale sewer and storm drainage project. The relative landslide hazard was reevaluated in 1985 by our firm and we concluded that the conditions which exist today are less hazardous, due primarily to a declining water table; however, even if no further site development occurs risk still exists. We concluded that the 1985 risk is on the order of 30 percent probability in 25 years. We also concluded in 1979 and 1985 that with time and continued drainage improvements the relative risk of large landslides will diminish. The implementation of grading and drainage measures as described below for the proposed Thiry residence are specifically beneficial to reducing the long- term risk, but that reduction cannot be quantified at this time. The recommendations in this report are directed toward avoiding localized slope stability problems and to minimize damage to the proposed Thiry residence should significant movements occur. Geo�Englneers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 4 SITE CONDITIONS Within the defined property lines the site is presently bare of vegeta- tion except for very sparse grass. This condition is the result of grading following removal of the former building(s). The western steeply sloping portion of the site is heavily vegetated with blackberry vines, brush and small deciduous trees. At the time of our field studies the ground surface was very soft due to surface and shallow subsurface water. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings extending to depths of 28 and 34 feet. The borings were drilled with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig. A representative from our firm maintained continuous logs of the explorations, and obtained samples of the soils encountered. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Classification System as described in Figure 1. The samples were returned to our laboratory for further examination. i._ Subsurface conditions at the site consist of sand deposits overlying glacially consolidated silt. Boring 1, located west of the proposed house encountered a surficial layer of sandy silt overlying massive silt. The silt was soft and saturated to a depth of about 5 feet. Below 5 feet, the silt became stiffer, becoming hard at a depth of about 9.5 feet. Boring 2, located in the eastern portion of the lot, within the proposed building site, encountered 17-1/2 feet of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand. The sand was saturated at a depth of about 7.5 feet. Stiff to hard silt was encountered below the sand to the depth explored. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOZ OMMONS GENERAL The material which underlies the site has previously failed in at least one large-scale landslide. The risk of reoccurrence of such a landslide has been reduced due to a declining _water table in the area. This water table decline has been caused, at least in part, by implementation of a storm and sanitary sewer system. The improvements proposed below will further reduce that risk by removing the weight of excavated soil and by additional subsur- face water collection and disposal. The risk reduction will remain effective Geolp&&eers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page S as long as the overall storm and sanitary drainage system is operational. The magnitude of total risk reduction is significant but cannot be accurately quantified at this time. As mentioned previously, our recommendations in this report are directed toward prevention of small localized slope movements and to minimize damage to the structure should movements occur. Special care must be taken to maintain the stability of the slope and street uphill from the house both during and following construction. In our opinion, with adequate care and practice in the design and construction of drainage, earthwork and the structure foundations, the site can be developed for a residence. You must be aware that the measures recommended below will make this site significantly more expensive to develop than would be normal for a similar house on a lot without the type and.history of earth movement as occur at this site. Removal of the former building and recent grading activity has obscured evidence of the former ground movement and has also resulted in the existing ground surface being locally very soft. We understand that the house will likely be placed such that an approxi- mately 6-foot cut will be required at the northeast building corner. The success of excavation and prevention of small slope failures will be dependent on proper excavation and drainage measures. This includes collection and removal of existing subsurface seepage prior to and during earthwork opera- tions. As stabilization measure, permanent drains should be included in the design of the house. DRAINAGE Prior to excavation, drainage measures must be provided upslope of the planned cut areas. Construction drainage measures should include a permanent French drain upslope of the cut area and a pipeline system to carry the water to an area where the water will not affect construction activities or have a negative effect on site stability. The French drain constructed prior to excavation should be excavated to at least one foot below the planned bottom of the deepest portion of the basement foundation excavation. This drain should include a perforated GeoQEngineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 6 collector pipe 6 inches in diameter and composed of corrugated metal or heavy --duty rigid plastic (PVC). The common light weight corrugated flexible plastic pipe is not acceptable. The pipe should be enclosed in at least 6 inches of 7/8-inch washed gravel and the balance of the trench should be backfilled with washed pea gravel. A trench box or other shoring should be utilized to support the trench walls until backfill is placed. No more than 10 feet of unsupported trench should be open at one time. Based on the existing ground configuration and on the observed subsurface conditions, this drain should be at least 12 to 15 feet deep at the proposed northeast building corner. Construction of the drain should begin at the downstream end and progress upstream relative to the flow direction in the pipe. As the foundation is constructed, an additional permanent drain system should be installed around the perimeter of the house and at any location where water is observed or might collect against the subsurface wall. We recommend that this French drain have a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 1 foot below the bottom of the footing. This French drain should be constructed as outlined above and backfilled with clean, well - graded sand and gravel or washed pea gravel. Four -inch perforated pipe should be bedded in the backfill approximately 4 to 5 inches above the bottom of the trench. The water from all of the French drains should be tightlined down the slope to the ditch adjacent to the railroad tracks. Roof drains and all runoff collected from pavements should be connected to a tightline collection and disposal system which is separate from the French drain lines. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that the hog fuel placed during exploration be removed from the site. Soil excavated from the basement or drain trenches also should be removed from the site since it will likely be wet and generally unusable as fill except as noted below. No fill should be placed within 20 feet of the western steeply sloping portion of the site. We strongly recommend that the design of site work avoid the requirement for any fill embankments more than 2 feet in height. t� Geo�JEngineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 7 To minimize the risk of slope movements during construction, particularly along the east wall and eastern portion of the north wall, we recommend that the excavation and retaining wall construction proceed in a series of segments or "slot cuts". We recommend that each segment or slot be no more than 15 feet in length. Each segment of retaining wall and permanent wall drain should be constructed and completely backfilled prior to excavating the next slot cut. Temporary cut slopes of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be feasible within the slots. It should be expected that the face of the excavation may experience some sloughing and raveling. The cut slope should be covered with heavy plastic sheeting when necessary to minimize erosion and sloughing resulting from exposure to rainfall. Where there is not room enough for temporary slopes .of 1 to 1 or flatter, we recommend that shoring be provided. Because of the large variety of shoring systems, it is customary for the contractor to design the shoring. We should be retained to review the shoring design. Prior to placing any fill, all vegetation and topsoil should be removed. The exposed surface should then be compacted to a firm, nonyielding condi- tion. Where fill is placed on an existing slope, the fill should be keyed in by cutting level benches so that the contact between the fill and existing ground is horizontal. Any fill placed on the site should be properly conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with the ASTM D-1557 method, unless otherwise specified below. All structural fill material should be free of debris and organic contaminants. The suitability of material for use as fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. We recommend that structural fill consist of free -draining sand and gravel containing no more than about 5 percent fines for placement in wet weather. During wet weather, material l,V' GeoEngineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 8 with more fines may be used. Sand and gravel below the upper 2 to 3 feet in the eastern portion of the house may be usable for fill during dry weather. The silt and clayey silt visible on the existing ground surface will not be suitable for use as compacted fill. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the house be supported on spread footings founded directly on the medium dense native sand or the stiff to hard native silt. The minimum depth of embedment for all footings should be 18 inches below the lowest adjacent external grade. It is likely that soft soils might be encountered during footing excavations. If soft soils are present at footing grades, we recommend that the soil be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet and replaced with structural fill. The zone of structural fill should extend a distance equal to one-half the footing width on each side of the footing; the fill should be compacted as specified above. We recommend minimum widths of 16 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. For foundations designed and constructed as recommended, an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used. For retaining walls, an average bearing of value 2000 psf may be used and maximum edge pressures should be below 3000 psf. This value applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads exclusive of the weight of the footings and any overlying backfill. - We estimate that footing settlements will be less than 1/2 inch, total and differential. It is imperative that the footings be founded on undisturbed native soils or on properly placed structural fill, as the recommended bearing pressure and settlement estimates are based on this condition. We recommend that GeoEngineers, Inc. be retained to observe all footing excavations to evaluate that suitable bearing soils have been exposed. Any loose, softened or disturbed soil present in footing excavations should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill. We recommend that the foundation design consider the possibility that future ground movement may occur. The movement could consist of an irregular subsidence of the ground and/or differential strain downslope. Geoo,Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 9 Protection of the house against potential future damage by ground movement can be accomplished in two basic ways. First, the entire house retaining wall and foundation system could be designed as a "rigid box." This mechanism would permit rotation or deflection of the entire structure without sustaining structural damage. This technique would require substan- tial bracing and stiffening of the structure and, in our opinion, is not very practical or cost-effective. The second method, and one which we recommend, includes the superstruc- ture of the house being supported on, but not structurally attached to, the foundation. With this procedure, the house frame could be releveled indepen- dently of the foundation elements. The foundation can be integral with, or separate from, the retaining walls along the north and east property margins. Your structural engineer and architect will be able to develop the means for achieving the recommended design options. We would be pleased to discuss 4- that issue with him. Generally, the floor slabs should also be very rigid and should be structurally tied to the foundation walls so that the slab acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the structure against rotational torque. Also, the foundation and stem walls should be designed to resist bending or shear in the event that unpredictable differential settlement should develop in the future. RETAINING WALLS For design of retaining walls, we recommend an active lateral soil pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) assuming level backfill compacted and drained as outlined below. If the backfill surface slopes upward from behind the wall, the lateral soil pressure value should be increased to account for the imposed surcharge. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction on the base of the footings and passive resistance on the face of the footings. Frictional resistance can be determined using 0.5 for the coefficient of friction. Passive resistance may be determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf, providing the backfill surface is level and the footings are poured neat against native soil. If the ground surface slopes downward from the footings, Geo,, .Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 10 we should be consulted. The above values are based on a factor of safety of 1. We recommend that a factor of safety of at least 1.3 for sliding and overturning be used for design. The above active and passive lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with clean, free -draining sand or sand and gravel con- taining less than 5 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 2 feet thick horizontally. Backfill placed behind the wall and not supporting structural elements should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within 5 feet of a retaining wall. Hand - operated equipment should be used in this zone. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be implemented around the base of the retaining walls. If possible, the wall backfill should be hydraulically connected to the permanent French drain system around the house. If this is not practical, wall subdrains should consist of rigid 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe bedded in pea gravel. The pea gravel should extend a minimum of 6 inches below and 1 foot above the pipe. The drainpipe should discharge into tightlines leading to appropriate collection and disposal systems. Roof drains or other surface water should not discharge into the perforated drain. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT As discussed previously, we recommend that all concrete floor slabs be structurally tied to the foundation walls. We recommend the floor be stepped to assure adequate and uniform ground support. Alternatively, a crawl space can be left under the slab to minimize the amount of new fill placed on .the site. If the slab is to be on grade, the slab should be supported on the native soils which must be properly moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted as described above for structural fill. STABILITY As discussed in the History section, this site is within the existing Meadowdale landslide complex. If the recommended measures are not followed during excavation and construction, there is a high risk that the excavation GeO,o.'Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 11 would trigger a localized landslide. The recommended measures considerably reduce the short-term risk and also reduce the long-term risk. As with any project involving significant cuts or fills the measures planned do not eliminate the risk all together. We strongly recommend that this report be referenced somehow on the property ownership deed. This process will aid in disclosure to future owners, the details of risk assessment included herein. In addition, that reference will aid the owner in documentation of the effort expended to improve the property. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Gil Thiry and by his architects and/or design consultants for use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and { interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to con- struction safety precautions and our recommendations are -not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. - 0 0 o - • • Geoff;Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 12 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. -��HEIV6,'-i, �O h � 12979 NLT:GWH:JWK:wd �— Attachments Four copies submitted Yours very truly, G/eoEngineers , Inc. e d"'I", Gary W. Henderson Principal Jon W. Koloski Principal FIMIRF 1 0 0 n u n u J ING LOG AND SAMPLE DATA DRIVEN SAMPIFS qw BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT OR INDICATED PENETRATION USING POUND HAMMER MOISTURE FALLING INCHES CONTENT "P" INDICATES SAMPLER PUSHED WITH WEIGHT OF HAMMER 28 11.2% 111 INDICATES LOCATION OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE ® INDICATES LOCATION OF DISTURBED SAMPLE DRY DENSITY IN PCF ❑ INDICATES LOCATION OF SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO RECOVERY OTHER TYPES GRAPHIC LOG OF SAMPLES SM LETTER SYMBOL SOIL TYPE INDICATES LOCATION OF THIN WALL, DISTINCT CONTACT PITCHER, OR OTHER TYPES OF BETWEEN SOIL STRATA SAMPLES (SEE TEXT) GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA BOTTOM OF BORING UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOL GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL-GRADND WELL -GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SA MIXTURES. LITRE OR NO FINES COARSE GRAVELLY (LITRE OR NO FINES) GRAINED SOILS GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR ND FILES SOILS MORE THAN sox GRAVELS GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SAND -SILT ON �- WITH FINES MIXTURES TI GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SANO-SILT ON NO. a SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES( MIXTURES SAND CLEAN SANDS S W NDS WELL CAAOED SA. GRAVELLY SANDS. AND LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINEST MORE THAN box S P POORLY-G AOEO SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS. OF MATERIAL IS LITTLE OR NO FINES LARGER THAN NO. 2DO SIEVE SIZE O�F COARSE FRAC- SANDS SM SILTY SANDS. SIUO-SILT MIXTURES PASSING 4D. SIEVEWITH "O. 4 SIEVE FINES SC - -' CLAYEY SANDS. SArO{LAY MIXTURES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FIIES) ML INORGANIC SILTS. NO VERY FINE SANDS. FINE SILTS NE SMos OR CLAYEY SALTS VM SLIGHT AND LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITYGRAINED LESS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEOILM SOILS CLAYS THAN 50 PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS . OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY SILTS MH OIATO- INORGANIC MACE(S FINEE'SAND OR S SILTY SOILS MORE TMN+SaAc LIQUID LIMIT CH INORGANIC YS OF NIGH PLASTICITY OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN N AND ER 2W SIEVE SIZE CLAYS THANGREATSO FAT �� OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HEOIUR TO HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT. HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WIT" HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE, DUAL SYM6pLS INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATION GeoEn ineers Inc. 9 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND KEY TO SAMPLE DATA r FIGURE 2 BORING 1 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 62.FEET *GRAPHIC 0 NEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION 50-Jy ORANGE -BROWN FINE TO -MEDIUM SAND WITH ML SILT (LOOSE, WET) (FILL?) 4 GRAY SILT WITH ROOTS AND WOOD DEBRIS (SOFT, WET) (FILL?) 5 4 ML MOTTLED LIGHT AND DARK GRAY SILT (MEDIUM. STIFF, MOIST) 4 w 23 w 10 GRADES TO HARD z 1-4 F, 47 a III A 15 30 20 70 SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) 25 50 SILT SEAM AT 27 FEET 311 BORING COMPLETED AT 28 FEET ON 2/20/86 30 J PIEZOMETER INSTALLED TO 28 FEET PIEZOMETER DRY ON 2/20/86 .*SEE KEY FOR EXPLANATION OF SYr4BOLS GeoEngineers Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATION FIGUR n 5 15 20 25 30 35 BORING 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 81 FEET *GRAPHIC *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION SW ORANGE -BROWN GRAVELLY'FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 7 III SM BECOMES SILTY 13 SATURATED AT 7.5 FEET 10 13 SW- GRAY GRAVELLY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH SILT SM (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) SP- GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL SM (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) 19 Fm_L I GRAY SILT (STIFF, MOIST) 18 86 42 L I GRAY SILT (HARD, MOIST) BORING COMPLETED AT 34.0 FEET ON 2/20186 GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 13.5 FEET ON 2/20/86 *SEE KEY FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS Geolingineers Inc. I LOG OF EXPLORATION • • 15Pt4' - 75M /4L k) REPORT GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RESIDENTIAL SITE 15800 BLOCK, 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR MR. GIL THIRY GeoEngineers Incorporated 0 5 °0 Poo, (206) 746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manor Market 3609 - 164th Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: LJ March 10, 1986 Report Geotechnical Services Residential Site 15800 Block, 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations relative to development of a residential site in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The property is located on the west side of 75th Place West in the 15800 Block. Our services for this project are provided in general accordance with our agreement dated February 3, 1986; authorization to proceed was received on February 9, 1986. With your concurrence we departed from our original scope of services in that 1. very soft ground conditions at the time of our field studies required extensive site improvements to provide access for the drilling machine to the boring sites. To minimize the extra charges, we reduced the number of our borings from three to two. We understand that you are planning to construct a single-family residence on the site. The residence will be of wood frame construction and will be located as far toward the northeast portion of the lot as is practi- cal. The lowest floor elevation will be about 5 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface at the -potential northeast building corner which you have staked in the field. ices is to provide a general feasibility evalua- The purpose of our sery tion together with the geotechnical criteria for design of the house. I Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 2 Specifically, our work includes: 1. Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling two borings. 2. Review of documentation pertaining to past landslides which may influence the feasibility of development plans for this site. 3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and drainage to minimize the impact on site stability. 4. Provide recommendations for design of foundations and retaining walls. The subject site is located on the west side of 75th Place West, immediately south of an extension of 158th Avenue West. There are no buildings or other improvements on the lot at this time. The site slopes downward to the south and west from the northeast property corner. Adjacent to 75th Place West the ground surface slopes down relatively steeply for a distance of about 5 to 15 feet; the higher slope is at the north slope of the lot. West of the steep slope the ground surface slopes downward gradually to the west over a distance of about 150 feet from the east property line. IThe west property line is located along the crest of a very steep slope which is about 30 to 40 feet in height and which marks the edge of the { Burlington Northern right-of-way. Elevations across the site range from a 1 high of about 95 feet above sea level in the northeast corner to approximately Elevation 60 feet along the east margin of the railroad easement. HISTORY ' The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide complex, an area in which numerous large and small earth movements, have occurred within the ' last 30 years. This area is the subject of a landslide hazards investigation by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, dated October 16, 1979). The site which is the subject of this consultation is located in an area classified the 1979 RLAI report as "4A90" This designation identifies a landslide Ihazard due to failure from previously failed material, that the failure would likely include a considerable depth of material, and that there was a 90 percent probability that such a failure may occur during a 25-year I GeoEngineers Incorporated • • Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 3 period. That 1979 landslide hazards map was developed on the basis of conditions prior to construction of the Meadowdale sewer and storm drainage project. The relative landslide hazard was reevaluated in 1985 by our firm and we concluded that the conditions which exist today are less hazardous, but significant risk still exists. We concluded that the 1985 risk is on the order of 30 percent probability in 25 years. We also concluded that with time and continued drainage improvements the relative risk of large landslides will diminish. Regardless of site development it is quite possible that the subject site and adjacent areas may be involved in a large-scale slope failure some time during the next several decades, and there is nothing economically practicable that can be done on the site to prevent such an occurrence. A large landslide which occurred in 1955 resulted in a _ground failure and displacement of 5 to 10 feet vertically on a line which appears to traverse the site A house which formerly occupied this location has been removed and some site regrading has been accomplished. We showed you newspaper photographs and discussed the 1955 landslide with you in conjunction with our field studies. The recommendations in this report are directed toward prevention of small, on -site movements rather than such large-scale failures and to minimize damage to the structure should significant movements occur. SITE CONDITIONS ' Within the defined property lines the site is presently bare of vegeta- tion except for very sparse grass. This condition is the result of grading ' following removal of the former building(s). The western steeply sloping portion of the site is heavily vegetated with blackberry vines, brush and small deciduous trees. At the time of our field studies the ground surface was very soft due to surface and shallow subsurface water. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings extending to depths of 28 and 34 feet. The borings were drilled with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig. A representative from our firm Imaintained continuous logs of the explorations, and obtained samples of the GeoEngineers Incorporated 'i Mr. Gil Thiry ' March 10, 1986 Page 4 ' soils encountered. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Classification System as described in Figure 1. The samples ' were returned to our laboratory for further examination. Subsurface conditions at the site consist of sand deposits overlying glacially consolidated silt. Boring 1, located west of the proposed, house encountered a surficial layer of sandy silt overlying massive silt. The silt was soft and saturated to a depth of about 5 feet. Below 5 feet, the silt became stiffer, becoming hard at a depth of about 9.5 feet. Boring 2, located in the eastern portion of the lot, within the proposed building site, encountered 17-1/2 feet of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand. The sand was saturated at a depth of about 7.5 feet. Stiff to hard silt was encountered below the sand to the depth explored. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The material which underlies the site has previously failed in at least one large-scale landslide and is prone to failure again if it is stressed. As mentioned previously, the following recommendations are directed towar prevention of small on -site movements rather than such large-scale fai�� and to minimize damage to the structure should movements occur. Special care must be taken to maintain the stability of the slope and street uphill from the house both during and following construction. In our opinion, with adequate care and practice in the design and:' construction of drainage, earthwork and the structure foundations, the site can e- developed for a residence. You must be aware that the measures recommended below will make this site significantly more expensive to develop than would be normal for a similar house on a lot without the type and history of earth movement as occur at this site. Removal of the former building and recent grading activity has obscured evidence of the former ground movement and has also resulted in the existing ground surface being locally very soft. ■ GeoEngineers ■ Incorporated • i Mr. Gil Thiry i March 10, 1986 Page 5 iWe understand that the house will likely be placed such that an approxi- mately 6-foot cut will be required at the northeast building corner. The isuccess of excavation and prevention of small slope failures will be dependent on proper excavation and drainage measures. This includes collection and ' removal of existing subsurface seepage prior to and during earthwork opera- tions. As stabilization measure, permanent drains should be included in the design of the house. DRAIKAGE Prior to excavation, drainage measures must be provided upslope of the iplanned cut areas. Construction drainage measures should include a permanent French drain upslope of the cut area and a pipeline system to carry the iwater to an area where the water will not affect construction activities or have a negative effect on site stability. iThe French drain constructed prior to excavation should be excavated to at least one foot below the planned bottom of the deepest portion of the ibasement foundation excavation. This drain should include a perforated collector pipe 6 inches in diameter and composed of corrugated metal or heavy-duty rigid plastic (PVC). The common light weight corrugated flexible iplastic pipe is not acceptable. The pipe should be enclosed in at least 6 inches of 7/8-inch washed gravel and the balance of the trench should be ibackfilled with washed pea gravel. A trench box or other shoring should be utilized to support the trench walls until backfill is placed. No more than i10 feet of unsupported trench should be open at one time. Based on the existing ground configuration and on the observed subsurface conditions, ithis drain should be at least 12 to 15 feet deep at the proposed northeast building corner. Construction of the drain should begin at the downstream end and progress upstream relative to the flow direction in the pipe. As the foundation is constructed, an additional permanent drain system should be installed around the perimeter of the house and at any location ' where water is observed or might collect against the subsurface wall. We recommend that this French drain have a minimum width of 12 inches and a iminimum depth of 1 foot below the bottom of the footing. This French drain i GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 6 should be constructed as outlined above and backfilled with clean, well - graded sand and gravel or washed pea gravel. Four -inch perforated pipe should be bedded in the backfill approximately 4 to 5 inches above the bottom of the trench. The water from all of the French drains should be tightlined down the slope to the ditch adjacent to the railroad tracks. Roof drains and all runoff collected from pavements should be connected to a tightline collection and disposal system which is separate from the French drain lines. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that the hog fuel placed during exploration be removed from the site. Soil excavated from the basement or drain trenches also should be removed from the site since it will likely be wet and generally unusable as fill except as noted below. No fill should be placed within 20 feet of the western steeply sloping portion of the site. We strongly recommend that the design of site work avoid the requirement for any fill embankments more than 2 feet in height. To minimize the risk of slope movements during construction, particularly along the east wall and eastern portion of the north wall, we recommend that the excavation and retaining wall construction proceed in a series of segments or "slot cuts". We recommend that each segment or slot be no more than 15 feet in length. Each segment of retaining wall and permanent wall drain should be constructed and completely backfilled prior to excavating Ithe next slot cut. Temporary cut slopes of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be feasible within the slots. It should be expected that the face of the excavation may experience some sloughing and raveling. The cut slope should be covered with heavy plastic sheeting when necessary to minimize erosion and sloughing resulting from exposure to rainfall. Where there is not room enough for temporary slopes of 1 to 1 or flatter, we recommend that shoring be provided. Because of the large variety of shoring systems, it is customary for the contractor to design the shoring. We should be retained to review the shoring design. GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 7 Any fill placed on the site should be'properly conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with the ASTM D-1557 method. Prior to placing any fill, all vegetation and topsoil should be removed. The exposed surface should then be compacted to a firm, nonyielding condition. Where fill is placed on an existing slope, the fill should be keyed in by cutting level benches so that the contact between the fill and existing ground is horizontal. All structural fill material should be free of debris and organic contaminants. The suitability of material for use as fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. We recommend that structural fill consist of free -draining sand and gravel containing no more than about 5 percent fines for placement in wet weather. During wet weather, material with more fines may be used. Sand and gravel below the upper 2 to 3 feet in the eastern portion of the house may be usable for fill during dry weather. The silt and clayey silt visible on the existing ground surface will not be suitable for use as compacted fill. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the house be supported on spread footings founded on the medium dense native sand, the stiff to hard native silt, or on structural fill placed as described above. The minimum depth of embedment for all footings should be 18 inches below the lowest external grade. It is likely that soft soils might be encountered during footing excavations. If soft soils are present at footing grades, we recommend that the soil be over - excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet and replaced with structural fill. The zone of structural fill should extend a distance equal to one-half the footing width on each side of the footing. We recommend minimum widths of 16 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. For foundations designed and constructed as recommended, an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per GeoEngineers incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 8 square foot may be used. For retaining walls, an average bearing of value 2000 psf may be used and maximum edge pressures should be below 3000 psf. This value applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads exclusive of the weight of the footings and any overlying backfill. We estimate that footing settlements will be less than 1/2 inch, total and differential. It is imperative that the footings be founded on undisturbed native soils or on properly placed structural fill, as the recommended bearing pressure and settlement estimates are based on this condition. We recommend that GeoEngineers, Inc. be retained to observe all footing excavations to evaluate that suitable bearing soils have been exposed. Any loose, softened or disturbed soil present in footing excavations should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill. We recommend that the foundation design consider the possibility that future ground movement may occur. The movement could consist of an irregular subsidence of the ground and/or differential strain downslope. Generally, the floor slab should be very rigid and should be structurally tied to the foundation wall so that it acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the structure against rotational torque. Also, the foundation and stem walls should be designed to resist cracking and shear in the event that 6 or more inches of differential settlement should develop during future landslide. RETAINING WALLS For design of retaining walls, we recommend an active lateral soil pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) assuming level backfill compacted and drained as outlined below. If the backfill surface behind the wall is sloped, we should be consulted to revise the lateral soil pressure. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction on the base of the footings and passive resistance on the face of the footings. Frictional resistance can be determined using 0.5 for the coefficient of friction. Passive resistance may be determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf, providing the backfill surface is level and the footings are poured neat against native soil. If the ground surface slopes downward from the footings, GeoEngineers Incorporated • .7 Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 9 we should be consulted. The above values are based on a factor of safety ;. of 1. We recommend that a factor of safety of at least 1.3 for sliding and overturning be used for design. The above active and passive lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with suitable backfill material. We recommend that wall backfill consist of clean, free -draining sand or sand and gravel containing less than S percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 2 feet thick, as measured horizontally. Backfill placed behind the wall not supporting structural elements should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within S feet of a retaining wall. Hand -operated equipment should be used in this zone. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be implemented around the base of the retaining walls. If possible, the wall backfill should be hydraulically connected to the permanent French drain system around the house. If this is not practical, wall subdrains should consist of rigid 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe bedded in pea gravel. The pea gravel should extend a minimum of 6 inches below and 1 foot above the pipe. The drainpipe should discharge into tightlines leading to appropriate collection and disposal systems. Roof drains or other surface water should not discharge into the perforated drain. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT As discussed previously, we recommend that all concrete floor slabs be structurally tied to the foundation walls. We recommend the floor be stepped to assure adequate and uniform ground support. Alternatively, a crawl space can be left under the slab to minimize the amount of new fill placed on the site. If the slab is to be on grade, the slab should be supported on the native soils which must be properly moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted as described above for structural fill. GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 10 STABILITY As discussed in the History section, this site is within the existing Meadowdale landslide complex. It should be realized that there is both a short-term and long-term risk of experiencing ground failure on this site. If the recommended measures are not followed during excavation and construc- tion, there is a high risk that the excavation would trigger a localized landslide. The recommended measures considerably reduce this short-term risk, but do not eliminate the risk all together. The recommended permanent measures (French drains, rigid foundation) can significantly reduce the risk of future landslides. However, it is quite possible that the subject site may be involved in a large-scale slope failure in the future, and the recommendations in this report are not adequate to prevent such an occurrence. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for your use and use by your architects and/or design consultants for use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpreta- tions should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to con- struction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. - 0 0 o - GeoEngineers Incorporated E Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 11 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied' in their entirety. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. NLT:JWK:wd Two copies submitted Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. 7� Gr Nancy L. Tochko Staff Engineer Jon W. Koloski Principal GeoEngineers Incorporated . FIGURE i B RING LOG AND SAMPLE DATA Kror DRIVEN SAMPLES BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT OR INDICATED PENETRATION USING POUND HAMMER MOISTURE FALLING INCHES CONTENT "P" INDICATES SAMPLER PUSHED WITH WEIGHT OF HAMMER 28 11.2% 111 INDICATES LOCATION OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE ® INDICATES LOCATION OF DISTURBED SAMPLE DRY DENSITY IN PCF ❑ INDICATES LOCATION OF SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO RECOVERY GRAPHIC LOG OTHER TYPES OF SAMPLES SM LETTER SYMBOL SOIL TYPE DISTINCT CONTACT INDICATES LOCATION OF THIN WALL, BETWEEN SOIL STRATA PITCHER, OR OTHER TYPES OF SAMPLES (SEE TEXT) GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA BOTTOM OF BORING UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LETTER MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SMO MI XTRE S. LITTLE OR ND FINES COARSE AND GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GP GRAVEL- RooRSL" MIY GRAINED SOILS SOILS " NO FINES URESS.VLITTTLE SOILS MORE TNLMN aDY GRAVELS GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -WO -SILT CF COARSE FiAC- WITH FINES MIXTURES TION RE7AIIIED ON NO. a SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAMO-SILT OF FINES) MIXTURES SAND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL GRACED SS. GRAVELLY SANDS. AND LITTLE OR NO FINES AND S F POORLY -GRADED SANDS GRAVELLY SANDS. SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) MORE THAN 50% LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS SANDS SM SILTY SMDS. SAND -SILT MIXTURES I AFIGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRAC_ Tla PASSING WITH FINES b. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AIOUWT OF FINES) SC CLAYEY SANDS. WO -CLAY MIYTLRES ML INORGAMIC SILTS. AND VERY FINE SVDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE FINE SILTS SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY GRAINED AND LESS SOILS CLAYS THAN 50 INDRGMIC CLAYS OF LOW M MEDIUM CL PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MH INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR OIAro- MACEOUS FINE S AND OR SILTY SOILS MDAE Tww eo'+L SILTS LIQUID LIMIT OF MATERIAL IS AND GREATER CH IRGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY NO 200 ES%IALLER �zro MO CLAYS THAN 50 FAT cuts OH ORCANIC CLAYS OF WO:U" ro MIGM PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT. N i fS. SAMsSOILS WITH HIGH ORGANNOTE, DUAL SYNBDLS INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATION GeoEn ineers Inc.NIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 9 AND KEY TO SAMPLE DATA FIGURE C 5 15 20 25 30 35 BORING 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 81 FEET *GRAPHIC *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION SW ORANGE -BROWN GRAVELLY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 7 III 11 SW- BECOMES SILTY ■ SM 13 SATURATED AT 7.5 FEET 10 13 SW- GRAY GRAVELLY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH SILT SM (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) SP- GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL SM (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) 19 ML GRAY SILT (STIFF, MOIST) 86 42 L I GRAY SILT (HARD, MOIST) BORING COMPLETED AT 34.0 FEET ON 2/20/86 GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 13.5 FEET ON 2/20/86 GeoEngineers Inc. *SEE KEY FOR EXPLANATION OF SYt49n1,S LOG OF EXPLORATION r �! L GeoEngineers Incorporated (206) 746-5200 Consulting Geotechnical 2405 - 140th Ave. N. E Engineers and Geologists Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manner Market 3609 - 164th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: July 14, 1986 Review of Storm Drainage Plan Proposed Thiry Residence Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 At your request, we have reviewed the drawings and narrative regarding a storm drainage plan for your proposed residence in Edmonds. The narrative report and drawings you supplied were prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc. and are dated June 11, 1986 (plans) and July 7, 1986 (narrative). Our review of the narrative indicates that the author, Mr. Earl J. Bone, P.E., clearly understands the intent of the recommendations presented in our May 2, 1986 report to you. The design drawings for the storm drainage plan also accurately reflect our intentions and recommendations. We trust this letter will satisfy your present requirements. If you or your representatives have any questions, please call. . Yours "erg truly , GeoEngineers, Inc. o7Z Jon W. Koloski. Principal JWK:wd Two copies submitted r ,._] Wes ern 1 3322 Highway 99 South • Everett, Washington 98204 rveyors 745-1594 355-2776 ' ;Inca hid 74 Tisi�2l/. �� /�B�o�='k 75 r� i•YOZY 67 4" ._/60 T,rE. 74 s- I—T6 71,/�� • �%, ; so 70 �'dr • LAND USE CONSULTANTS CIVIL'ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS rART, ]ENT OF THE INTERIOR GE.CLOGICAL SURVEY 5 y4S a9 1579 IV "JE R _ gyp. .� SSt (,Hu.crc rFD1 C 3M 12.3 •rlf: (�!; .' q •� �__ ` r\3�L'_ _ V. -�; _ , 44`; ,•'ti•-,,,may i+;• `��'� ' :-. ,� ;f?� 000 . � + '> mil'== rCL' •-='7, � ja'`•� ' , •tl �' .� / : I::: r' � :•.; I, a NOTTTIB Beach V - ` ye �:�,�1 � } : i�'�"••-Cam' 07'-,r' / `.�/'' �~ 7 • �•E 3.' c�_. _ 1 Meadowdale !71 �:f �' • , y °xax l'. ` `,� �; \ �::\ • — All ,•Y�, / '1 '• --'�••'-'=-'r-- .-d' �• � 'ate_ _ ;i �/ � .a• � tt S 13 • C AJT GC.�V��••�,••�,�,� v ll. 5.. �� -•�, �r i ! I .. '> i .}/., �.,( �. 1 t . _ftSEii76ATItJ_� r . / • Y I Browns Bud 4 _r. �• �' r /.;, - — - Rocks ..;i>--�"A�e4 i4- _ � Yf1.. - �` •t s`.r , ��i»•.} lfp'ii-'• ��`/ ) q &, rk' �9i -i �i•'`^,. JJ - ,7 ��-��. tom= � � � � _,,._ yam---- ••�='�-=r--=--� • --_'__4 � - =- A. ,+ :i, { F/•_' _ ,,mob;' � IV:°'' �� ' �I , / '� '1 •, r__ _ , - „_. ��i'Tllil v;,tt� •..`� t�' =� 'ti: / % 1' t l ! _ _ , : - • .' if I, j 7', •f t: I r,: ,� ( �r'co. ,ew Nt., it i ,f{ �; j Am ich �,/ /��"'' �' e' '�yL�.],�f ti'�(i)j/r/; _„ �1� 1 'a 1__1. -`� ,.,��::, ,_J;�. - - la: R�,,.�,,pf� �; ,L'c• I� _.-� — ,. - - �''` f / - HIgh J/r•�ki `1F\',+ /J •li 3�6��_cL�•as�\i ' r • ."i i i "i �1.. "z„ 1 �'i ��; r_` [ •�'•� 't �'.- :' Seh ^� . !rr_•'', .,.-��.'z- 1_�', •i�� :t.. • r �y a2a, .• / �:fA� \'`J'''"=^I�� - , . _. a n�(-w� •�.i.• • a.� .� � _: • •_rs,. ZO �' • bO is- 4~i•! la g6`, It j•t °? ` t I'f J $''3y{ Q 6' / ^' +tr• c .. .tiPfa4 � 'mod , ti � 3'F � � 7R��.�`�!^ �3 ,YYd' yjc; I y _ ' �' :••� � •�, -� 1 y etrso�t i1569L5" , , `\t 1t�¢ `{ tt4 a.� , •; .''rr : j _ •c !, 3' /,' -: - '.� t '. ' e`er • ;x '� , i� - a `';'+`� ! ,� . �:��'� ,'+�,, t - ''Z40 i�, t \ t � �`��fElMf` ~�et'd��` P-t •j - r ` �t � � .• f ;}- - r ,% 4 `' �'Z�". H1*,� fin. � J }` • ' v ' �n C � 1 '''Y� ,� y,tk1, Gel S4: 1 • r„ • �. . Olt p . •�. too 0 Al 24 ol OF Ay AV if 4 44 s`�r Y ♦ : � • :•�"r rpg _..l � t t l.t•�'` �"ir �? ,�d � � $t ♦ ' •r' i � �'�. f - 14 J i V Nw x� • � � � � �'."C�wr rJi � I' �yyw! it 4�Mr � J]�'X )��a- •� ��' ;�',�.�'S� A I 'i Vex f . �� .t r .:�-1 v� •t '�y�'.t�yt� ' 7.f.-?!'`fx7, y..y�0€'0''.�.a� "�i-ii rr T #"• it �,♦ J % ,:. �.a . � � s � 'i'! tU :.��.t•'i:{a"F :��Y1� .�� t �1.�.`.: w K. Y, t ,« � 'J-�1{�' _ w •S. "+„'.', r�'°kae � 'A I- y+� .—+c. •' - �``.-1ST - 7 rr `^",: jA ;nti xG f tK`., } 'ar �' �', ''J�isik'S,i'IC3 C a i ''' .4 • ; t` � ,, k ' .�,�'�� Via. E,��{,^.�•�7.5�.._,9., �► :-.••'aS..€• � �,-�i„� .=. Lt K.4 .x �� fl1"• `� +rr� ��} IE iy ��j•'l� �`^t.�'. ``'RR..wt} r L' �-+«r.'�!�'+' 1' � - + /" . � , ' pat �•• •-• -/ � ,•• � '�• - � . i� .- � .. 'i; • �' •� � to • At ,1 1� , - 1�4 � .• �•i '�� ' - �� •gip. 1` ` '' (f Q"r• ' .. 1 � 1 Ems_ �''. ` � �� • •�• <.•. F { � (r �~ ± �•O Feq� ' �� \ 'i � GTE .. •r i_:. W � .. „' `, } i - /tot . / . ' • . f Z �tiaads�td,, 4• Pc�►Sj{� 1- End 8 — Off`_ i kA po'i �'A •�` Gpl4M�LLT EJ /�}`� CvirV e1Qs ' ; ''�-• � ►'♦ ,ss'tti t9 frMi of Dulk�•tad ' � ^ " � ' / � r t 9 e'IR 14, .t r as- 1 l 6. j • ✓1 1 i -� p rju6 6 - r ;�. .�` � 1.1 "•' �+' ; APPLICATION FOR FILE N0: 07/18:4872 Edmonds PIPISLINE PERMIT BUR N NO To.dURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY 1. At what City or Village is permit desired? EDMoNOS (.t! f;~S f/ 2. Full name and address of Applicant G /L Th1-/R PHONE: (2-0(o Vq3. 29g4 . 94S-1qr t <D.�Wo.i Date -71/L !8G t 67z4 -/607# 3. If Applicant is a corporation, in what state incorporated? )y�,4 If an individual, under what firm name is business conducted? If partnership, give name of all partners N,A. 4. Product to. be handled in pipe line__ s7'oersf &I,¢7C viStNa,26E ' 'To Equ17'/,t6 ICgje o�40 CUt,yEe 5. Pipe Data: CARRIER PIPE CASING PIPE a. Outside diameter b. Inside diameter CoAIL?Et£ C. Pipe material d. Specifications and grade e. Wall thickness CARRIER PIPE CASING PIPE f. Actual work ing pressure g. Type of joint h. Coating i. Method of installation ;g, 4, j. Will cathodic protection be provided? 6. a. Depth of pipe under track (top of tie to TOP of casing) -- -- b.-Angle of crossing .--EP571^t4- 6uL%/+Eer 6/2oSSES +7- ----c.In -city -street? 13-YES ® NO - - -- -- 7. If pipe is to be placed longitudinally with track, give a. location of pipe in relation to centerline of nearest track N,,4 • b. depth of coverage (ground line to top of pipe) B. If installation.is to be by jacking or boring method give location of jacking and receiving pits and submit plans. a. Depth b. Distance facing wall of pit to centerline of nearest track (measured normal) 9. Reference plans (to be forwarded with original application) a. DrawingNumber. 66 -/o Z b. Prepared by -WESTERN su2�/E�UKt Zrc. 10-Submit jacking pit plans if applicable. Applicant agrees that if installation requires any or all of the following work,• removal and replacement of track, bridging, protection of track or other railway facilities by work or flagging, engineering and/or supervision; such work is to be performed by railway employes and the cost borne by Applicant. If in the opinion of the Railway Company sufficient hazard is involved the Applicant will be required to furnish liability and property damage insurance in form and amounts satisfactory to Burlington Northern. By (Applicant) (Title) RECOMMENDATIONS: (If additional space is required attach supplemental sheet) Date 19 APPLICATION APPROVED: (General Manager Leases) FORM 16002 1•73 (Superintendent), (Asst. Vice President —Operations) (Regional Manager Engineering) ' Printed in U.S.A. �4 AK `�t _ PTII f • 1�/ ! �`� • VgGAN7 � I , I SEE A TTi4Cg°E� SO/G g �('Or� T j°E�z Foe/r9ED B y �7�0 6V6 iNEE� �NGb2�ck*ATF_ D Dr¢TED /�'/.Qji Z /986 //LE /(%• E>1/57/.i/6 1,10U5E E1,-S7ED ON r/,'5 S/TE �3v T Gv�t �EirlaVE.o SoryE V"I < f60 T•s`� Poi2 7/0 �/ oA 7&4E S1 Tom. To DE Pe VC� 0 Oe D • ��RL ETEc j/ CG Ef!•2 �D /�v T�-E f'�4S 7 � �Nb .vo �v /5 /r�o-i Tcr 4We-C, 42auN® 1.Y,17y SPA2SE vE-E,e7iPT/oN �w�EaS> . was 7. •¢o - 50 6ORO E/zi^/4 STBEPES7 �cy2 T,/o.v ,;fiivD /3 Co vrKEr� 4/try 71- 1ck V, 6E7- RE.srRlk ) .. /¢NA/LRocJ' Dll�> P�.TH /S GLEA/LED . To Tft� ,CylLRO�D 7h/tCkS.- /ylEi4DowD�E ��GH - fjL.oN(� et/!7,-/, V,-KA-7Cp 75 �-�' 1¢V£.. G✓... ,f09Fi9,-,E A-,47t jjF-AorZ,eX-f Tis��S S�7G • _ . /T /LEE/V4r5 %ZVA( 0FF teo"f �. /vob� OF A2EA A,letGPC,/.. ,elo27,// I I • fe-#E 1* 47/ C � -zo s f 44,f iC.#LD Ifoe 49-9 64 /¢OJ A cE„v7 To r//r-. s"i TE . 7,*r- o.¢vC� 3vKP � of 75 nl fe AAC D 7-° 7//E E A5 T.. F,,zp M T,i/E /ftGG 5, oe • i _._ T�d�?'-GiNE �ySTElAI /N... TiS�� E/P57 SIDE OF 7s��` TEE ., k.✓NoFF .. st.vo....,O�r2EC_TS _.. /T ._ To .71'E SovTh'..y. EVEN TvgLGy . To" ___ fl :. Z4��..Go�c�• eucve�21'.. _ vN0ER TftE AA(c/2oA0. Teefe-9T Soo', -T/t�E_ SITE. _ %eu/ioee _ ;ejeom ._._.Tim sr?�r_ _ .15 ro . rHe__ Soup A<vv _40E57 I, /�cGoOli�C6' .-Tv..-Ti�+E- Sa/GS _./�'P.o2T SiTEPr�9+eENT� y s�iPPGd To. 7WC Sov.TY v,,EST-.,- PieoPEKTlcs TM -5,76 , :- .!�IC��s,o��e:�rsGy 6�E� TtV,¢A,. - T, /s s, rJr /�i4alE.. Gb�dfiC_, ST�,EPFK" _ . BA•iYKs To- . Ti;'E ..�AtLIZo/9•�_./3EGoc�J- T� _ ,edfLRo.� ; fh�S � �A•!G -Pfc E . i¢ND_. T/Mig�R ,�vt-Kh�R� ��o�F ri5� jou ZN iY,F oi. Tiy�E SATE___ r6EziEvE T/i B�ckHE�a _w�1S ._.. _. �o v571ZuC, r G _ . Ov21NG. T<-,.Ie . -CZ EjW -vP of T.f Scip� _ 7,Y& O"oettC P o•frA oti �2a�c2o,4� PG 5 s�Y S �S6 :.. 14& l8,'Ca.ue. GULYC62? Afo w.7W d ,&- - 7-#'6 _ s. (V,.. Goliwcle 7"Mf- _ S/ TE ,} C�J,�Fitj7LY..,/ .T /�E. 11V4E7- T.o 7N-e /s, �C*Afe- GD�lSlS7f I of . R. /7�oG�, (f+-PP2oK• ..?.� P<��+••.� /,c< Tff� F�•4G1 A3 7 Sh�UG DC:2 �T T/fF�.. P*fT T. N6CT �— < C �-- mn Mo�E soOND��_ TiyEE �iPE iS . /vo.T. V<fIBGe AT 7&e- ouTLET .. ENO WIpriCk.e veley L�4/t6i E �aGk / Bo v4 O• A-S , Fo2rr► ,¢ '64-4w+C.4 *7 T,q e 14�R, y . r4 y �� •� sEo T,V< s 1PIZo P ER ry, _ BuT sfE H�5 wAcrc�O TAG i�AG(CS /INo a15-5 eV EO i,qc -r1rc T ..... - '.._ v€o-y _ oC7Eiv.. �v�,iv6. A/c. 61eoOAIp U A- T, EX 3EEM6E ... rto ^u T/Y•E e,"x /s Coisvnr I /�E ffAs „NEVER. a€des(.,. . vlvoF/=�' E(vT,ER -MIS /lGv�{/ • I T Es E Toe o f 7/y Of oeF TNT /v_... .. .teY egu�I�l1FE�4n . �iio /vo2Te� oA-..r/fE cvCV&ZT, _ 15 . /13' ZPWER T/fAN.. Tom.. ?.OV- �tST Sur36/?� ro .7/I G(JLvex T� SiM/c�2cY� -To - rfFE. -,Sou iN / .... RR�GieoAv �e TGN pR-*I vs- SO(/Ti'P�2L5/ 7owi4RDs _ T/5i9_. COwL. G(/LV 2T 3e0 • . SovTN of Tile S/Te ...0 leg) • T /g i.vT ,4Avp: GvJZ�2�E�l7L/ GNreR/ES G/TTCF o/a, NO �v2FAGE. Rvillo�F.,- /$-_Zo e3E OU147- OW Tllc C�vD_ SG/. D � �_ ..Fo/Z__ _..<tY-€.. S1T@., _ As�tO . G�N>�ie�G '.�{'!�iM:C'ry.. XT _ _._ . •.- ; �� c„Zi � �S If TAT. _ _ SveeCft-cE ._:.Kv�u FF . i¢iv o Sv3 S.v�e�R-c � c �'/.�r ,�•c � (c50 A1140[.✓!f IE2�1 : �AvE RED�cE D /� REc4wT I ro . t .Gu E _ �ivS T2Uc T� s7.: .. //fE . /Sepae7 SAYS. i I /ylR-Y : gE.. fvITNI-K Sr y$ /S ZQ lL.En24 V,E ..T.%-4-.. _6RQQAlpw,4<C 6.A/7-&IC> :vVii4c _ • 13a pvOf- D fiS . 4-r-F-5(XT, �.:��r»oV//tt�.._. %�� _. f�o�✓�t�R7l��/, TiSfi. St TCR_ E5`Ti/t7 7co ZLa �../ 7e i3 Kriftolrf�o _ flu. � ::C-�cvsx'�ucrro�.. /°��,crs .Gf}1c � � . ��.Y�s�f�r�- . . •... ; P4 7V ni�.. I lei E�vGH pk rW k<t� G 1j /NS i' ECG d rrP,'t/ Z Fed 0*1 Yo . Ti THE -,.. e�o/�iH . ,/+k43 �" S�Et 4f TsSR�E fa+fa c! SE .7 i!- r�.:_::;:.. ,�/�.�fE�l' ��iii�'.1�. / �r�l�aSr,T�' • i`�� ,t/,!€. �co�e�l� �►/� f/f� �►+��, To L EO %. G V l6 7,00 ,�r�►�r )� . i 2Efoe T eSiT//yltt7ED . /Z �'/3 �.� /�i 94ev.. /6 8 . ova . Tf%E lt,e . ApolE PE- -7 OE4ocv TWE C- ic /S 2��ole-t..._.- I 7-6 . _P/ -D vt.PE Goivc�, . TE�/Ll 62ouAlp ev l Te-ee • /T tl v6 .m, /• . o _... - :: 67,y..-PVC. Pee6venl7,_ TD VelVT r�/+s�/� iN/itl6 _ •F. T/f F Dow /��z st.o� _ oF.. z�� r�c�n/cty AtA�T&c? _ /vP :.P.Re�E/�T S &/SS E.. I TNRo✓6r`/ j.f . iiSf _ .TRf�/cN- ►: _ %.. S�oPE _ Fv2 ?IVE. o/G SGo NCe�2 Ale T �N�9 T�� _ R MO`I� D I CRo A? -- ?!�� S f 7"E To . w2 MAer<._ S_Tf/f3 is /�E_ / T . lo9 0....' ; Goc c E�C T.E P /►+ .. 7.Af E Tip.. /¢Wf¢ F om S./T,E• _Gon9PG�r,��. �r /T...�4�/-rrc./Pr4 7�D 76, S/T,E , -wlce- ... .�E A09-FeR,� GC5_S_,. .4s .A X&S5 0,'G 7 40 pc%tEC.oPA►�eNT / sd t T _ SVV0f- . ; _3E PEE R 4446j,;;;; .� ¢. , vff#eyonl4 ivy To/fr. p�45r S • i� i 86 -- 7' T;,�y , g '/ D/z/vEl,�i9 PO A� T 6 €c/y Vim. (- (AllA7- Exls7E y-y0WAS._._ 1, U5r- _ON_ TEE _.51.T4E. _.... _ __... iA1#i¢Z.{,WLGL ._ 3ir-___.i9-e/4e3c� DIF,t,EREAIT : 15. TAKE 7,16ffr4l.,IC R-S*C-174EDw . T #O D€ D 4or-41•-7-. Gv,5C&/�-77 %v ,, // 4e '.TCrc Wr t o v .. A' -row _ tit!Nvr T C5 T� _ 4�7- Gocu ,A( _7.a . 7,#-e - riz o��5.. ^ovo Zb-Ti.�i°E: �6o.!/NO .18-� dlsCuS��D €�42L<."- --- %<S_-.�vGV�2T/5 . v/R.T�AGtJy 6K(13D, .AF.T.._.. .. . fee?,zEG % cypfnc/TV /lFE o cD To. ffw�>& 4 - T��. ,. 91/10Ve/C�F. Ei Tls`�',, S� o Ii9�S H . �Ov NT y 3Ta2rrr , GIvte* 7110,E /�/TCNS/'-T 8 ci2S T l0 U ,y&9 S ;EFriv r�/9ct /5 4 /a0P0sC0 VeV TtYiS;. / p,�R4i%e�'s igll q- F �S� /zviV oFF Co1EFFeerety T.� 0, a C b / pe- T4. 5,. 15 -_ _ /4•�r /�$ _" .co.vc. PipE. - Ft'u' S �l/GL . tv/ 7,K _ 8 GS �' . O• So % i S, I . . _..: . _ ..._. ;� ..... ,.' •� �Givo�F. �ls�. 'T.�1f5 _-_Tl�>f/TG/ivE fiY/LG r3�.� 7i�� _o�G. j/ �. Gv_�•.TeR _ _._. _ , _ ,. i DLT�ff_ 1_ o,1-7A, off.-. T � W/LL:_ Ait/y o W- _ S v e Pt Or ... .._ iro_ .AeCX�':.;ZQ.._ •/Aovc-D& o.v-f 7-4 D4-`2'7'4EiV7Y0n/ -19 ✓��r� A� _�"/�u/' _ 1 /0 Vc... 47 TWC;-, 71,We,. _ Cplk f,%et�4�'»1 �Qeti A -AC _ -. TiS�E _..�ieGrt/G� PRAl�t/'�, : 'f�t ¢4.. 4314•S11 V_.. TNT, 40cu . 6-via r : Ftv0) of - Ttf`sc ' • _ .. � LO p�. .,.... y!A.+2D-..... /7`_ . _ 5 '.'WPG 4F- o%., - S�.P�i2/g ?Q/Z .. �Nf� _.SG',�•£N } v� Q«. !��n,_.. �� ots✓ec rs... _< ./g �o,e/o�C .:� ... .: -_ _ RiS G/!_ ��t�i � . _ _ >�,eo iu_. TiS��.. 'C •-8 . ._ /�.. .. (p`,� _- �`E�r_l�lE /'/�E. ./S_ _ _ , � . _:. �. -rAze- 4/,fMe 5e-oPE .foe-e-Awm, 6._ 7e9'+� : 6e� ND _ ; .¢ o iv6 ... Tf/iE. EK <S T/.Y6 �/¢ T/i %*5 . c✓ EGG_ 3 . _ _ /KS,��tG b! 6 ; ' ArtlO. Ta pycovt'DE l BY�Kk��gD �.. S��,cKR� �E7ftroDS CouLv. 1`3�...USED _ 6..`e -20 "RE '. 76 TW61 /�h�D Go ,EFFE4,fI.vEnCGS.S. .t 7-h`rf F�GG OGuc,ryEy l 5,.ol?oSO_� ow. q E3�e�� .Tit � 6 _. fTR.�•! .r*f. � roP 2 rMfsfUi9- lC.%fF20v_6fl • � \ ter. r , 13,£Tev��tN_Z ..T1rHe5 . � 1 PlP� _ ... fI-NC�f pk IMP T o �fF bF TKCu kttF-Av, .To PfZOP P&�Z.ecJ hov.TO .Tei• d;,- lkGA . _. bl-oc .. �__ _ _..h?�T_T@'/�.;_�'..Q[�_:_/�-- Gov _c .. • wtel 1//SL eNS-P.EC .) u._ _ _ T^C. 11-o.G E 7e •r' T "i Osc. 0 oe#•9- �r 4E - . 7`,,-ee: �I : ... 7r1V4�/7--?<E w,0 U 71--_/ r - l?fiQ % - �.O�v �i c_T G✓/.:.Z�Sf Tt4�E _ /fG�7A-7. --1 /GG_ T.�.(Zi(!_ ' � G�tr'i�'cti - ! I �S'tatl'. � _ .Ti��N'.'-%zV�---•-v�D.�R 624�N'P :�o�� TiS!��' - ' TN_._:..1_'.:.C_o_K R�. .: j°P/L K.I?�1 3..$. ..T�_ •.Z~ff_-E. .._/� �..l�C..�T_...�eL£... _ �,.T��: �.cS.�.��Ko2. �_ .,_... D/FF../C.o.0 7 •'-c1. Z.�_CavC-.D �!'S� _ DotV4Ff3�i r - emp - . W 41/ ; T ;; . .- � • • '� - �, it �-_ - ,-/�°�E�UCG j/ � C/,C ... 7iG9`4k_.iNS�"Ec7o�S.. ,'ff�2+L�• '/;f�tEV.�E_ _ /fi5 _ /B_._.-_l"r�'.� _O_o_�S._._ ikb:7"` At'n�f cL�+ ' � - � ; fi'iy..g-C , :.R- �1.; 3.: f.:.. %''. . PIPE,; •. � � ,.•i Ile i •. ` ao. wr, .I %_,E o.-�'o_!Yci�/�%ATio,ci �h.� f�-r ccG . , ., .. .. • � A.'� .. _� ._�. .B v�G D_. _To: �_ ;.P.�'ftk�_.y .Tffl, , . 4?sYDI�/tG C�/�-fib:. 4•"D J!E�-r/tf�!lf�.- , r .. 7' o �evrvo,F. r� , r , i4 cuc 7 'o ;q-Ny Poi�rT. - ... �o.ccnw S .A... Siiri�c_.¢R..:..'r. 19-r r f f J rlv{=c5- foR Ait ' % I ; TISfE,.0 , /tbR eRn►rPGE._/; Ti�iC �.. of ,,_ ar�reE,et TiC�t y/off. / 5 ?ff . L 6 _ T n'* U u(t4fC:V" T �. ,�� /r �•�u/.v� .� � i ns' _ �K - rsro _ x,U'Voec�=. F4od* .rN Q $,/TWr'4c._4GeSEFT.r/S/ON I t r %L 2d�F b) J�i�of E✓L . ?'o _7AtZ C644£e i 7�?r E:' New IS�riil�fi :'/5 1-yor�/Er ..moo "1 d6 j''�E �LQ.�ES:T /frrP✓rViOr/5 Sv/ZF�tt pRRl4pkfi.._ G�LVGC /�•ai�V. 1 T %`EGGS a v- 17,44E IfOU I .O?AC- : , D2tV £ tvo4 y _L/n0/�l GVG vjElt. T /i�! ; ✓ t!S T �_ �lA.7 T R of /r!/Nt!- eye 674 F - r jL✓ko, 711W-7' • C✓ouE;p Pl.eAtIV . To f GvcV.� 4,614 e,' Tit, ' ° � T/YIC ' fe VooLiOFF _ �/EGOcITy i i, x _... 3 L✓Ey ,fir; l ',,Tif�G.,� EsY2o v.�/p '%y/LO v j, jb �ilNd pia r— : l-- 4v o.o-a5. ' vq D£vf'� p pe r ... , / T. s df rE.v. DEs��eCAW _.t ?0 4r°._.rvrctor�lt _onr _.?�€ BoTYon�-gZoS._T... jA� ou4H. .�'if� G(/LV��T /irJA7�Dtg7EL �i�l�ou7_ . les'15 rat_ f ) : , So . 7 &i9-7 . %.'fE .. PEI¢•k- , SUN �1,..T..ti'-If ?:. , . ' . I !Q�eT o� � ThhE._ � B►�A-siN /s �A-s A THR-v �3 ..i2�sLr._ 744-C - - . .1dB -Re"; 06 . IAlE 76 r#4- . &,15/N A: eoA* 7"o6 �FZWI-e 1 J oio ho'o T Do ,q 9*flAv l -ru vy Foie T,�,f/s �a •" _ Gl1cvE2��" �.r j3c_•Bus _ oul� .. !�/eEL/./�j//u/9Ry �._Toleo6A:ffph�y, i 17el, 71! ,,,oXy , /.i o..uc p ....... - -- J. Tr . _.. 404VOE/2 r syouGo _.Mov pow, To 71 _ I �fiLp7L/NEAP • 410 v4,D elz. 0010 de- " REAk I •I .y y _ ... ; �.�cvs/ /T, /s'. ovR dP�wioN .:. '74,f7' 'oV/M6 W/t7eZ "4 ./..7.. roIE 7YIAy PROPE,27y AW -.OV/Z SUb4E.S.TED /ylRN.D,Q N[at✓`LQ. :r . oli4y Ca57" eF/C cZcv foR Tom`. - T///�2ys WDUt-L> LrAw rgCo? 44y B�/�/EFiCtAG To T�f e°1vRGlNCi.ToN /ilo2T?f,� !SI , I , _ R,,f/4.Ro e LD +.'__ 7Ar-:_�� ° .aF,. _T.S�E.`;%/t��y:/°'�oP��Q%/- By dRr I1f00 L�Sy 4?OO _r: By TflE /�IST.f4e HTl4N...�pF. .T.'ff- FRF..rwGH i I /Z Tp ` 7,,4t i xY ucV.e4r .;_ �,4 �-?<RGE" .. - �t,. i _ ...... ....... :....RETURN ADDRESS: Git,y .of Edmonds, City Clerk .121.5-t� Avenue North E#0nds,..W..A--98.020 200407140507 5 PGS ��llllll�� 07-14-2004 01:46pm $23.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION ANWME�KCATIONMOLD HARMLESS Reference Grantor(s): (1) -..(2)_7W9V �1+1 A — Additional on pg. ......... . " i.. ". Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbrei;1kje:d):- Se;- .Twn_21 Rn Qtr OR -Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1j... (2)_ Assessofr's TaxfarcVl EN not yet assigned CITY 00 APPROVED FOR RjkC0R]5iNG:: FB Y.: DATE: ............ Under the review procedures established pursuant t0:..tie...S6iP,--R!dlding Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by. the City.. Qf' tdmoi3Lds;--., and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the conitfgVtfon..of- a re$idential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: R RE . ..... APP VEJFO : WIN !!E DATE BY DATE OF PAGE OF Dekkyifion of Subiect Property. This covenant of notification and inde;inilricitioW%elit-ii-4rmicss relates to a tract of land at the street address of TH PL 0657 _(insert street E . dmb i Suobomdsh County, Washington and legally described as: L I\ 4 N A--i P&r U R i V tin 4 IN - t-, I 2. Notification and Covenant of Notificatift. ..`.The.. above referenced site ............. (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area whickhas,bee. n'identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidenice,or"19u0slide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have"'bei6ju,'. evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a -pafi of 44e.. process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of-A-6coftsuitsdit's reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are , Oeqntainiin Ibuilding permit file numberxAA0f—AITff (insert number) on file with-" tbe` City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or Mhi6iti6ns oii.. development may have been imposed in accordance with the recomme.h.:d4Mods`of.-' APPROVED FOR RECO r. BY DATE PAGOF the,.cdnsuftih&' bi the%course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or proh6itiong,mwy rigidirejongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may re4uifi ModificAtions to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order ... . ......... to address'-fjitdr:e`o'r anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, arch ral engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents o(tho-file'.as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, . . ..... ...... .... lessee, lender or any other.perac' quirink. or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice dfthe.ttistOnceofthe content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The *- fili maybe reviewed%during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Department, �itfpf Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020..-, 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The, undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated ivfth'. development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks*`assoejated with. development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish a'y and 'all. c?Uses of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees-ahsJug frpzfi and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of the* mselvesj`theii successors in b6 interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnTy and'. I'd hArmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any,t6ss'-dalih, HAbility or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property eithm-.P`* ..or' * tbji site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arisi froln'Pir-6fif -of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or o.icur.riiRg.! or, . -- PEA PPR VE OR RECORDING BY DATE % I AAG OF _ arising- out-`e€::any•'false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS,-tlieiremplgyees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of ,. the builiding'permit. 4. Insurance'Reduir�emeut Jn addition to any bonding which may be required during,the.,:•cotUne of "development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) speeifi4ilk•required the maintenance of an insurance policy ,. for public liability coverage,.ip the amount -and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial, resp:otisibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement,above:•"• 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern tlie Land:* .This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touclties and'' :concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or•innring 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 a0peQ1r,•-T6,.provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to inde*gify.the City.except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain tbelamiran'e.above required. .. I APP PR IRGWED F OR -ECOV BYDATE OF DOM,.-til S' d ay of OWNER(S) By: ........ By: V Val) Z4f BY, STATE OF WASHINGTON S§:. COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfaetory.Q'en'm. that ohm Y#/p sigiied,..this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary actlo-f '-dii purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of SION NOTAq., 1z Pusm, 1-6-2006 OP L-NTEMPkBUILDFNG\iMEADOW\COVENANT NOTARY PUBLIC* My commission expires;- W a cc 2 i I I I I I i I I WU¢--i _ ,erzonr o", ` 1 o, 3„L 1,ROOM —u- O v Z )- WCL 1 O Oti�� N O Z O �OX¢ x—�OL O N CO CO 0 d � �^ I .o .J Cv v o Sb'cl g194 **.601v U, 00' N a .L:�'�•f �� 3 I ^to QNc I U t A W vj tn rN 1� !� I )1 IC14fp N a(� CO co CZ1 �z CaL- In Cc IZ o� co bit �l Q I / / CuLa 4 O —1 —I 9'6f — — —. U � i cis Cs V) IVCJ7 °( I -1 0 , i 6a- i� O EO-•N Z I N/ I L _ _ m ►a Z � � �N '" I ram- �Sgl° L Ihc.1Scly March 8, 2005, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Gil and Janet Thiry 15810 751h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Request to Waive Sidewalk Requirements — Short Plat S-04-108 at 15810 75th Place West Dear Mr. and Ms. Thiry: I have reviewed your letter dated February 11, 2005, requesting reconsideration of the sidewalk requirement under the subject short plat. Based on your meeting with staff February 9, 2005 and on further discussion with Lyle Chrisman and Steve Bullock, it is my understanding the existing house encroaches onto your other lot, and in order to be able to construct a house on the empty lot, the Planning Division required you to submit for a short plat so modifications could be made to the existing property lines. When the City designed and constructed the walkway along 75'h Place West (from 157"' Street SW to North Meadowdale Road), that portion of the walkway along your property frontage was not constructed because the steep roadway and side slope would have required a specially constructed walkway. The cost to construct such a walkway was well beyond the budget for the project, and since there were other areas between your property and Meadowdale Beach Road that required specially designed and constructed walkways, the decision was made not to include the walkway along your frontage. Since your application is really for a modified lot line adjustment, and the City did not construct a walkway along your frontage due to the expense of constructing an elevated walkway, the requirement to construct a walkway along your property frontage is hereby waived as being economically infeasible to construct, per Chapter 18.90.030B of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Attached is a copy of the revised Engineering Requirements for the subject short plat. If you have any questions, please contact Lyle Chrisman at 425-771-0220 Ext. 1324. A EBERT, P.E. City Engineer DKG/ALC/cmc Enclosure c: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Steve Bullock, Senior Planner M:\dvrw\sp\04-108 thiry ltr.doc Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 9 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS Name: Thiry File No.: S-04-108 Approved by: 3— 7—w Vicinity:15810 75t" PL W rinp-Program Mana¢er date Req'd Req'd w/bldg. Bondposted Complete prior to Permit recording 1. Rights -of -way for public streets: X 2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities): Provide all easements as needed. X Lot 2 shall share the private access driveway with lot 1 X 3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter): None re uired X 4. Street turnaround: Provide on -site turn around to City Stds. X 5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:. None required x 6. Street lights: N/A 7. Planting strip: N/A 8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, pump stations, telemeterin D.SM.S., etc.): Provide service to each lot. X Connect to public water system. X 9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump Stations telemeterin , health district etc.:OVWSD Provide new service to each lot X Connect to public sewer system X 10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump Stations, DOE, fisheries, etc.): Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots. X Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Connect to Public Storms stem X 11. On -site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013): Connect all new impervious surfaces to detentions stem. X 12. Underground wiring (per Ord.1387): Required for all new services X 13. Excavation and grading (per UBC Chapter 70 : Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X 14. Si na a(per City Engineer): All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen N/A signs will be permitted Provide "Private Access Ends" N/A Provide fire and aid address signage X V:\dvrw\sp\04-108 thiry pit.doc Req'd Req'd w/bldg. Bond Complete prior to Permit posted recording 15. Surveymanumentation r Ord.; Section 12.10.120 : N/A 16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer): Required for all utility construction. X 17. Other requirements: a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot corners (by professional engineer) X d) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster e Maintenance agreements 18. Engineering fees: a) Storm drainage connection charge per lot ($428) X b) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full. X c) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs $ X d) Plan review fee: $860 $ 860. X e Traffic mitigation: $200 per pm peak trip $ X Gw_&ela� 3 -7 ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded Authorized for recording by: Date: V:\dvrw\sp\04-108 thiry plt.doc • C Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM March 8, 2005 File — 15810 75"' Place West Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager Reconsideration of Sidewalk Requirement at 15810 751h Place West Mr.Gil Thiry, owner of the subject property, met with Duane Bowman, Steve Bullock and me on February 9, 2005 to discuss the requirement to install a walkway along his property frontage as a condition of his short plat. He asked why he had to install a walkway when the City did not install one under the 1997 walkway project along 756 Place West During the meeting, Steve Bullock stated that although Mr. Thiry's property was already divided into two tax lots, the existing house encroaches onto the empty lot and, in order to make modifications to the property lines, Mr. Thiry had to apply for a short plat. Because Mr. Thiry's short plat application is only to modify the lot lines (lot line adjustment) between his existing tax lots, frontage improvements are not required. In addition, when the City designed and constructed the walkway along 75"' Place West, from 157"' Street SW to North Meadowdale Road, the walkway was omitted along the Mr. Thiry's property because of the steep roadway and steep side slope. In addition, it would have required a specially constructed walkway, and the cost to construct such a walkway was well beyond the budget for the project. For the reasons stated above, it has been determined to be economically infeasible to construct a walkway along the frontage of the subject property, per Chapter 18.90.030B of the Edmonds Community Development Code. DETERMINATION: 1. Construction of sidewalks will not be required. Appro d Approved: avid K. Gebert, PE, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds SAENGR\PRIVATE DEVELOMENT PROJECTS\CORRESPONDENCE\Sidewalk Detertninations\15810 75th PL W-thiry sidewalk memo.DOC RECEI VE® FEB 14 2005 ENGINEERING DIVISIO February 11, 2005 D�� ' �S Mr, I�ayiji..C:ohgrt Mr. Gebert the purpose of this letter is to request a waiver from the requirement that I install sidewalk's along our property on 75th PI W. in order to get the approval for our two lot short plat. This requirement was inciuded in the engineering requirement's for plat's and subdivisions form. I received this from the city on February 4th from Steve Bullock, file # S-04- 108. A little of the history of our property is as follow's - we bought our property in 1986, it has alway's been listed as two lots and we have alway's received two tax statement's. We built our house in 1 QRQ Wa hi jilt nn tha nnrth In hi it nlnnn thin cni ith ciria of tho north Int At that times wa were in a RS-20 zone, about two years ago with the full cooperation and encouragement of the planning department we were able to have the zoning changed to RS-12. Western engineers heiped us and we were abie to show the city that we could get a building lot on lot 2 of over 9000 sq. ft. which is greater than the four lot's directly to the north of ours. Three of these lot's have homes on them. Because we were creating a non -conforming lot Steve said we would have to go through the short plat process. Mr. Bullock nor Mr. Bowman feel that we should be required to install sidewalks. About 6 yaarc,.ann.lha city ioctallari .rj.jrh:c_and cidavrallrc.j..jn..tn m jr, lntc ❑accord anyar our nrnnarty than. continued the sidewalk north. The city employee told my wife when they were installing the sidewalk's that they had not figured out how to engineer our portion of the walkway. They also thought the cost would be greater then the budget would allow. He said maybe it would be in the next years budget and installed then, whioh it never was. Mr. Bowman suggested a meeting with Mr. Chrisman, Mr. Bullock, Mr. Bowman and me. This meeting was held on Wed Feb 9, 2005. At that meeting Mr. Bullock and Mr. Bowman explained to Mr. Chrisman that this property had alway's been two lot's and that except for a provision in the building code we could have done a simple lot line adjustment. Mr. Chrisman suggested I apply for a waiver from item # 5 and item #18 and that they would all endorse that request based on extreme cost and engineering difficulties and the fact that was two lot's to begin with. I have included with this letter a copy of the two tax statement's showing the property as two-iots. Aiso inciuded is a copy of the short piat snowing our existing house and how the second lot would be. I have included some photo's I took of the sidewalk along our street up to our lots and then continuing north. One photo shows the steep slope and another shows that lot 2 which will have a shared driveway with lot 1. Lot 2 is already covered 3/4 way with ashpalt driveway and would have no place to put a sidewalk. Ur rahart thanlr ynj j fnr.ynj jr timo. anri ��ro iwm idri.annrariato a .fnvnrnhla daricinn nn thic 10- _ 1 1 _rr. __. _ " ._ _ __ _ waiver request. Do not hesitate to call us with any questions. Sincerely, Gil and Janet Thiry 15810 75th PI. West Edmonds, 1A/m QRf17R (425) 745-1461 s 1 •l « �+ IV bo / ♦ l� ._ .. V� •� ` 1 OW oZ ji � �Tf rIr • � �) Yi Jis � m !I sir-'��"�;� .. � �t•� .�� }•�� A�wl - VW- % I T.M Message Page 1 of 1 Graf, Jeannine From: Graf, Jeannine Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:10 PM AYhEET FILE To: 'Jon W. Koloski' Subject: RE: Thiry residence 1-5-g1e ?-57i41/—h✓ Dear Mr. Koloski, In preparing this response I confirmed with the City Engineer and the City Planning Manager that if all work is within Burlington Northern right of way, no City review, permits and/or approvals would be required for this work. Sincerely, Jeannine Graf -----Original Message ----- From: Jon W. Koloski [mailto:jkoloski@geoengineers.com] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 11:48 AM To: Jeannine Graf Subject: Thiry residence Good morning, Jeannine. This message pertains to the Thiry residence on 75th PI W. in the Meadowdale area, but it has nothing (directly ) to do with our on -going CAO discussions. As you are aware, Mr. Thiry is dealing with the City of Edmonds regarding some lot line adjustments and some modifications to his residence, but again, this message does not pertain to those matters. Some years ago, March 1999 to be exact, there was a small landslide on the BNSFRR right of way directly below the Thiry residence. Because of our previous consultations for the Thirys, Mr. Thiry called me to step into that picture for advice as to how to arrest the slide that was threatening to encroach into the Thiry property. The slide was caused by some BN maintenance activities and they clearly recognize that matter. I have been involved with the engineer for BN more or less continuously since the landslide onset and have concurred with the I/s remedy — namely construction of a trench drain system. The drain scheme will be integrated with existing RR drains in the subject area. The scheme for repair consists of two to three trench drains oriented perpendicular to the tracks and extending from the existing RR ditch alignment upslope to approximately the Thiry/BN common property line. The excavated material will be loaded to rail cars for export, and the drains will be backfilled with appropriate permanent drainage material. The actual construction will require about 2 — 4 days and will be overseen by the BN geotechnical engineer and confirmed by a representative of GeoEngineers; GEI will work on behalf of the Thirys. Over about 5 years of negotiating with BN (nothing happens quickly with that monster until service is halted by some catastrophe...) BN has now agreed to move ahead with the construction of drainage measures within their right-of-way to arrest the slide. The actual construction and the construction access will be entirely within the right-of-way so far as I can tell. I understand from discussion with various BN folks that they do not have to deal with "conventional permitting" for stuff like this, but I have expressed a need to at least keep the City in the loop. Therefore, I would like confirmation from you about the permitting issue and any other commentary that you can offer. I would have contacted you sooner, but the history of this event, the fact that I learned only last week that BN now wants to get this job accomplished before the fall rains start, and the history of our discussions as noted above, have lead to this contact. I look fwd to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Jon Koloski 8/31 /2004 'Icf t94 0 0 0'Ll, bb.60N --+— 311,90ZON' _ "00'oel PDX cV ,s! 0 Q 0 0 0 O � N N O O N u1 (O O O W O O co Q N C O O -O N M v) O n O -0 Q 0 z z J J m cc X 0. H CC 4 O w o U 0 E % (n O O C :L O U > ~ a cCrn G � >j- J Qj- N W w Q Q Z O o D W t4>Qc a o Q W W W O m� CC c.1 rn ~ L}QZN O Y W F- cr a m Q Z�cr.M W a f.. Q L) W ULL W s o I w O m N Y CD .J 2 c moc a o 0 ~ M OO a T 00 aCl$J Y.1 (DM KI F a 0 N F- cli U — LLI Q N — rn w a mF-�_ C) LO O O — =�o f- w = � 0 Lo Lo 00( N M F• v 0 0 ul)N 04 V� 0 0 (R to ^ N N N (O (O O z Iz a J J 0 m N °C `= E d w LL W O N J N F" X Q w uj cco CCoa�o>> Q > U ( a)i ~ n a F' ZF- cc: W oW� JEJJ C� 0 > o �Z (o • -_o 1* o)t(] M 01 (O a0 C 01 m(Dcotoo0n N N lo O N Q1 N ' (N.� D w `W 0 1, Z ,n =O W �I W p O Z- < o 7S-• w n m = 4 U O z o g o U Z O >w> o 0 J w U ` O O W W UIn(A((nn O V LO Cm qk OD L Q LU W LU Q cr Q — LW � Qm or- ~> pr, ZOJ QJ UW LL O fny moo Ono v mU)� O � n J Z a �n m =- T 1 (� 0 M N M M y � 0 } w O U Q U G N F- w 0 d F-- J � O O (L o p Q o U) N O ti a U o am�� Cl) W U o J w Nn O m w ¢ o Z 30 0 0 U) 0 m o M 4f n it M w D 0 Z `O r a Cl) a W W Y MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 2005 To: File — 15810 75`h Place West From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager Subject: Reconsideration of Sidewalk Requirement at 15810 75"' Place West Mr.Gil Thiry, owner of the subject property, met with Duane Bowman, Steve Bullock and me on February 9, 2005 to discuss the requirement to install a walkway along his property frontage as a condition of his short plat. He asked why he had to install a walkway when the City did not install one under the 1997 walkway project along 75`h Place West During the meeting, Steve Bullock stated that although Mr. Thiry's property was already divided into two tax lots, the existing house encroaches onto the empty lot and, in order to make modifications to the property lines, Mr. Thiry had to apply for a short plat. Because Mr. Thiry's short plat application is only to modify the lot lines (lot line adjustment) between his existing tax lots, frontage improvements are not required. In addition, when the City designed and constructed the walkway along 75 h Place West, from 15701 Street SW to North Meadowdale Road, the walkway was omitted along the Mr. Thiry's property because of the steep roadway and steep side slope. In addition, it would have required a specially constructed walkway, and the cost to construct such a walkway was well beyond the budget for the project. For the reasons stated above, it has been determined to be economically infeasible to construct a walkway along the frontage of the subject property, per Chapter 18.90.030B of the Edmonds Community Development Code. DETERMINATION: 1. Construction of sidewalks will not be required. Appro d Approved: avid K'. Gebert, PE, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds SAENGR\PRIVATE DEVELOMENP PROJECTS\CORRESPONDENCE\Sidewalk Detemtinations\15810 75th PL W-thiry sidewalk trcmo.DOC the 18 () v March 8, 2005, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Gil and Janet Thiry 15810 75"i Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Request to Waive Sidewalk Requirements — Short Plat S-04-108 at 15810 751h Place West Dear Mr. and Ms. Thiry: I have reviewed your letter dated February 11, 2005, requesting reconsideration of the sidewalk requirement under the subject short plat. Based on your meeting with staff February 9, 2005 and on further discussion with Lyle Chrisman and Steve Bullock, it is my understanding the existing house encroaches onto your other lot, and in order to be able to construct a house on the empty lot, the Planning Division required you to submit for a short plat so modifications could be made to the existing property lines. When the City designed and constructed the walkway along 75"' Place West (from 157th Street SW to North Meadowdale Road), that portion of the walkway along your property frontage was not constructed because the steep roadway and side slope would have required a specially constructed walkway. The cost to construct such a walkway was well beyond the budget for the project, and since there were other areas between your property and Meadowdale Beach Road that required specially designed and constructed walkways, the decision was made not to include the walkway along your frontage. Since your application is really for a modified lot line adjustment, and the City did not construct a walkway along your frontage due to the expense of constructing an elevated walkway, the requirement to construct a walkway along your property frontage is hereby waived as being economically infeasible to construct, per Chapter 18.90.030B of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Attached is a copy of the revised Engineering Requirements for the subject short plat. If you have any questions, please contact Lyle Chrisman at 425-771-0220 Ext. 1324. Sincerel AVID K. GEBERT, P.E. City Engineer DKG/ALC/cmc Enclosure c: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Steve Bullock, Senior Planner M:\dvrw\sp\04-108 thiry ltr.doc • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS Name: Thiry File No.: S-04-108 Approved by: Vicinity:15810 75te PL W Engineering Program Manager date Req'd Req'd w/bldg. Bond posted Complete prior to Permit recording 1. Rights -of -way for public streets: X 2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities): Provide all easements as needed. X Lot 2 shall share the private access driveway with lot 1 X 3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter): None required X 4. Street turnaround: Provide on -site turn around to City Stds. X 5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:. None required X 6. Street lights: N/A 7. Planting strip: N/A 8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, pump stations, telemeterin , D.S.H.S., etc.): Provide service to each lot. X Connect to public water system X 9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump Stations telemeterin , health district etc.:OVWSD Provide new service to each lot X Connect to public sewer system X 10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump Stations, DOE, fisheries, etc.): Provide storm sewer service to all proposed lots. X Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for proposed single family dwellings and access improvements in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Connect to Public Storms stem X 11. On -site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013): Connect all new impervious surfaces to detentions stem. X 12. Underground wiring (per Ord.1387): Required for all new services X 13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70 : Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X 14. Si na a(per City Engineer): All signs shall be vinyl letters and to City Stds. No silk screen N/A signs will be permitted Provide "Private Access Ends" N/A Provide fire and aid address signage X V:\dvrn\sp\04-108 thiry plt.doc Req'd Req'd w/bldg. Bond Complete prior to Permit posted recording 15. Survey monumentation(per Ord., Section 12.10.120 : N/A 16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer): Required for all utility construction. X 17. Other requirements: a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot comers (by professional engineer) X d) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster e Maintenance agreements 18. Engineering fees: a) Storm drainage connection charge per lot ($428) X b) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full. X c) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs $ X d) Plan review fee: $860 $ 860. X e Traffic mitigation: $200 per pm peak trip $ X ENGINEERING PROGRAM • MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded. Authorized for recording by: Date: V:\dvrw\sp\04-108 thiry plt.doc February 11, 2005 Mr. Davirr._r,ebert, RECEIVED FEB 141005 ENGINEERING DIVISIO �p1�tr.P� / S 1?4 Mr. Gebert the purpose of this letter is to request a waiver from the requirement that install sidewalk's along our property on 75th PI W. in order to get the approval for our two lot short plat. This requirement was included in the engineering requirement's for plat's and subdivisions form. I received this from the city on February 4th from Steve Bullock, file # S-04- 108. A little of the history of our property is as follow's - we bought our property in 1986, it has alway's been listed as two lots and we have alway's received two tax statement's. We built our house in 1989. We built on the north lot but along the eni iith cirlo of tho north lot. At that timo we were in a RS-20 zone, about two years ago with the full cooperation and encouragement of the planning department we were able to have the zoning changed to RS-12. Western engineers neiped us and we were abie to show the city that we could get a ouiiding lot on lot Z oT over yuuu sq. ft. which is greater than the four lot's directly to the north of ours. Three of these lot's have homes on them. Because we were creating a non -conforming lot Steve said we would have to go through the short plat process. Mr. Bullock nor Mr. Bowman feel that we should be required to install sidewalks. About 6 �ieare, o'o..tho rit� inetallod.ri_rh!c_anrl cidcwalLc.i_n_tn ni�ir,lntc nocced. rwar.nw.nrnrnorty then r___ - r. _ ., continued the sidewalk north. The city employee told my wife when they were installing the sidewalk's that they had not figured out how to engineer our portion of the walkway. They also thought the cost would be greater then the budget would allow. He said maybe it would be in the next years budget and installed than, which it never was. Mt. Bowman suggested a ineetin j with Mr. Chrisman, Mr. Bullock, Mr. Bowman and me. This meeting was held on Wed Feb 9, 2005. At that meetin-q Mr. Bullock and Mr. Bowman explained to Mr. Chrisman that this property had alway's been two lot's and that except for a provision in the building code we could have done a simple lot line adjustment. Mr. Chrisman suggested I apply for a waiver from item # 5 and item #18 and that they would all endorse that request based on extreme cost and engineering difficulties, and the fact that was two lot's to begin with. I have included with this letter a copy of the two tax statement's showing the property as iwo-iois. Aiso inciuded is a copy of the short piai showing our existing house and how the second lot would be. I have included some photo's I took of the sidewalk along our street up to our lots and then continuing north. One photo shows the steep slope and another shows that lot 2 which will have a shared driveway with lot 1. Lot 2 is already covered 3/4 way with ashpalt driveway and would have no place to put a sidewalk. Mr rrohorf thank viol, for.�ni it timo,onri ..wa ��rn�_dri.annror•iafo �.faainrahlo riaricinn on #1 -rr waiver request. Do not hesitate to call us with any questions. Sincerely, Gil and Janet Thiry 15810 75th PI. West Fdm_, nnric. We 98/176 (425) 745-1461 N \ L l R*ZON i O z W UNZ 3� ZOp� Z ¢a LLj Ln V) V W �ct *t-60N N & � CL � aZaU �� r-� W►- ca \ \ sbxi —. QQJ3vJ�� a.�7'- W3 OZz Cie c� M I 1 III 1 1 . II �j 1I \+ 3„„L1,9P.tON' ,s1 v rCL� 41) QNc 3 o o oo•os �+ IU�nv� __ N tip• Z \ C � •� W W .sir I NIca Cq c w i � 1 i 0 o f OW I III -� /�/ 2� G Z I Q N C / / / ¢CSCt CL T J p a. X Y WI W Y I4 o / m K IL I/ � (ozz V-1 ------ I 0 CS I J I I j 6g7t ' ` st---T—=------_ o �. —�� tis-----1� T ZI / / — I ? CO O s, iI ON .,�. ' • � =-x -a.g'' '-Fi nee -� �' f � .. IDS 2A " F. �r , icy x Ap •x kr -tC, T C v N 0 moo z0 -� rn r- N 9 44 17-E 1 2 9_ . • � D � ri T •..7 15• a �A 11 15' t 120- z 13.45' T n o o NO2'48' 17 E- O 75th SWIET FILE 0�-XZ_ /-1/ RECEIVED APR 2 81999 April 22,1999 DEVELOPMENT CTR. OF EDMONDS Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds Building Department Dear Ms Graf I received your letter dated the 15th of April,and yes we are very much aware of the earth movement below our house. We have been in contact with the Burlinton Northern Railroad, I hope you sent them the same letter that you sent us,as it is our belief that the cause of the slide originated at the toe of the hill which is on the railroads property.As you may know ,the railroads set back runs 50 feet east and west from the center of the two tracks. When the railroad put the retaining walls in ,many,many years ago ,for some reason,they did not install it in front of our house.I have ask them ,some years back,why they did not include us, their response was that they did not consider this property a risk area. The railroad sent out a geo/tech from Sannon and Wilson, an outside firm that does a lot of work for them, the fellow they sent out did not seem to be to concerned that day,he said that the railroad probably would not do anything until the slide got to the railroad.He did check the toe of the hill and commented that it was some what bulged out at the bottem of the hill. I was a little more concerned than they seemed to be, I purchased a large number of plastic tarps and covered as much of the hill as I could.On March 30th there was a lot more movement,) called the railroad again and left another message and I called Dex McCulloch from Shannon and Wilson .He said he would get ahold of someone from the railroad and get somebody out here.He also talked about french drains,being installed from the railroad side across the railroad property and ours.Up until this point in time I have not had any contact from any one from the railroad then on the night of the 30th ,at about 6:0013M a train crew and dump car showed up,they worked until after 9:00Pm cleaning slide material out of their ditch.) talked to them at some length and expressed my views about the lack of a retaining wall along the toe of the hit[ ,they said if it had been there that there was a good chance that the slide would not be happening,they had no idea why it had not been installed.On Wednesday , March the 31st,employees from the railroad and Shannon and Wilson arrived at our house to inspect the stide.Here again -,they made the comment that it was to bast that the retaining wall was not in place.One of the suggestions that was made was to use steel panels as it would be faster to instail.They talked about many ideas but did not seem to come to any conclusions. On thursday, April 1 st , I called Dex McCullah again , at Shannon and Wilson .He said it looked like the railroad was going to start work on Monday the 5th.While talking to him I got a call from a Todd Hudak from the Pharos Corp.they are a firm that the railroad uses for out side "land and regulatory solutions". Mr Hudak wanted to meet with my wife an I the next day.They had an agreement they wanted us to sign before the railroad would start doing the work.The main content of the agreement we were to sign stated that we would be responsible for 70% of any cost and all they were going to do was dig three trenches about 10 feet deep running down the hill to the toe of the hill.The cost to us was to be capped at 25,000 dollars,unless it cost more?Thats the way it is written,also they would not be responsible if the trench idea did not work.) told there contact person that I could not see how this would work ,if they did not install the retaining wall at the same time. Mr Hudak said he would take my comment to the railroad people. He called me later and said the answer was no!All they would do was the trench.) ask him to suggest to them that I would be willing to help pay the cost of the retaining wall ,if that would make any difference.This was on a Thursday3the railroad people took Good Friday off,on Monday ,l got a call from Mr Hudak saying that the railroad had decided not to do anything,he did not have a reason for the change of heart.) have had no other contact from the railroad or their representatives. It was about this time that I called the geoftech that I had used 10 years ago,a man I'm sure your familiar with, Mr Jon Koloski , the founder of Geo- Engineers ,he was kind enough to come out to my house and inspect the earth movement. He took pictures and measurements .Here again, made the comment that ,it was to bad the railroad had not installed the barrier along the toe of the hill. He expressed his suprise that the railroad would not take me up on my offer of helping to pay a good portion of the cost involved.He also stated the the railroad is very much responsible for a good portion of any damages that could arise from this earth movement.At this point Mr Koloski has entered into contact with the Shannon and Wilson firm and also is proceeding with contacts with the Burlington Northern railroad.As much as I dislike having to do it,l am also retaining an attorney ,recommended by Mr Koloski ,who specializes in land problems. Thats about where we stand as of now.I continue to follow Mr Koloski's suggestions .I have kept the tarps off during the good weather and cover when it rains,I also have been doing some trenching by hand ,to try to control any water seepage and continue to moniter and keep records of any earth movement. Thank you -Mr and Mrs Gilbert Thiry 15810-75th Place west Edmonds, Wash.98026 In $ono • CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 15, 1999 Mr. Gilbert Thiry 15810 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Dear Mr. Thiry; Recej ,z® APR 15 1999 � �k0�e Y. BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR Yesterday, April 14, 1999 City Officials observed slide damage on property you own at 15810 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Since you may be unaware of this condition the City recommends that you visit the site with a professional Geotechnical Engineer to ascertain the damage and prepare a plan for restoration. The engineer should prepare a report and plan for temporary and permanent slope protection and slope mitigation. Any work deemed "emergency" by the geotechnical engineer within such a report should be immediately installed (provided no City permits or discretionary approvals are necessary). If the geotechnical engineer requires substantial improvements on site it is highly likely that permits from the City would be required since all work must comply to City Ordinance #2661 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Please keep the City informed on the action you are taking regarding this slide. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. Cc: Ray Miller, Development Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Inc.18o�0 r] CITY OF EDMONDS 4Affi 1, _ 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 15, 1999 Mr. Gilbert Thiry 15810 75t" Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Dear Mr. Thiry; BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR Yesterday, April 14, 1999 City Officials observed slide damage on property you own at 15810 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. Since you may be unaware of this condition the City recommends that you visit the site with a professional Geotechnical Engineer to ascertain the damage and prepare a plan for restoration. The engineer should prepare a report and plan for temporary and permanent slope protection and slope mitigation. Any work deemed "emergency" by the geotechnical engineer within such a report should be immediately installed (provided no City permits or discretionary approvals are necessary). If the geotechnical engineer requires substantial improvements on site it is highly likely that permits from the City would be required since all work must comply to City Ordinance #2661 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Please keep the City informed on the action you are taking regarding this slide. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. Cc: Ray Miller, Development Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan ncC.189v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Mr. Gilbert Thiry 15810 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development BAF BARA FAHEY MAYOR As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, 6�'AW;Ii-A16 Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan .r- �J • fnc.1890 • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering June, 16 1997 Mr. Gil Thiry 15810 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Re: Home Owners Insurance Policy BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR As you may recall, the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Area Ordinance requires homeowners to post and maintain a policy of general public liability insurance. This insurance is required for a period of not more than 10 years from the date of final approval (occupancy was granted on 7/31/89). According to City records, your certificate of insurance expired on 7/31/99. At your earliest convenience please inform your insurance company that a current copy be provided to the City. As a reminder, the policy must be for general public liability insurance naming the City as additional named insured against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from, or out of, the City's involvement in the permitting process for the project in the amount of one million dollars. The policy shall also state that the City will be notified 30 days in advance of policy cancellation. Note, this requirement of insurance is transferable to any and all owners within the 10 year period. If you have recently sold your property, please notify the City in writing of the name of the new owners. Please contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement. Thank you, Walt Lara Knaak Permit Coordinator cc: National American Insurance Company Building Official,.'�,,' 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan --F STREET ADDRESS FILE CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 7116-210TH ST.S.W. • EDMONDS, WA 98026 • (206) 771-0235 • FAX (206) 744-6057 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION FS t Aprril 30, 1996 Mr. G. Thiry 15810 - 75th Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Resident: Phone: 745-1461 This letter is being sent to you with two purposes; the first being we would like you to check your name, address, and phone number so we may assure our records are correct. If they are not. correct, please call or send a notice showing your corrected information. The second is to remind you that you are served by a city maintained grinder pump system. This system pumps your sanitary waste to city gravity sewer lines as your house was too low to obtain gravity flow when city sewer mains were installed. I hope to inform you of the basics of how these pumps function., who to call should you experience alarms, and what precautions should be taken to prevent damage to your home. 1. The grinder pump was originally installed by the homeowner, but the hardware was purchased by the city of Edmonds' Lid Bond that paid for the sewer project in your area in 1985. These pumps are float activated to cycle the one pump to take your sewage up to where gravity flow can be obtained. 2. The following precautions must be adhered to prevent damage to your home: A) Do not dump any nonbiodegradable products down into the pump tank. VIA your drains to your house. B) Minimize the amount of grease disposed down your drain. This may cause problems with the float operations. Q 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 0 3. The city of Edmonds Sewer Section will maintain the pumps every three (3) months to ensure the proper operations. We will also clean, operate, and check all components tc ensure proper working status. A separate log is kept to your pump that will reflect any maintenance done. We can track reliability and the need for upgrade or repairs when a chain of failures start to occur. Crews will require the use of your water so the tank can be washed down and we will always try to notify you of their presence when they arrive on the site. 4. Should you experience any problems with the pump, there are two alarms that will indicate failure. One alarm is located within your home and has a black push button to reset to silence. There is also a visual alarm located on the electrical box outside your home. When this occurs, please call us at 771-0235 immediately to investigate any problems. Our office hours are 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday through Friday. Should an alarm occur after hours, weekends, or holidays, contact 911. There is a 24-hour call person on duty to be dispatched. We do carry parts for all of these systems and should be able to correct most problems within a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Everett Akau or myself at 771-0235, extension 349. Sincerely, O.&W Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Everett Akau wordata\sewerlgrinder , 890.19') CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering June 1, 1993 G. Thipy 15810 - 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 1-1 • 0 3. The city of Edmonds Sewer Section will maintain the pumps .every three (3) months to ensure the proper operations. We will also clean, operate and check all components to ensure proper working status. A separate log is kept to your pump that will reflect any maintenance done. We can track reliability and the need for upgrade or repairs when a chain of failures start to occur. Crews will require the use of your water so the tank can be washed down and we will always try to notify you of their presence when they arrive on the site. 4. Should you experience any problems with the pump, there are two alarms that will indicate failure. One alarm is located within your home and has a black push-button to reset to silence. There is also a visual alarm located on the electrical box outside your home. When this occurs, please call us at 771-0235 immediately to investigate any problems. Our office hours are 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday. Should an alarm occur after hours, weekends, or holiday, contact 911. There is a 24-hour call person on duty to be dispatched. We do carry parts for all of these systems and should be able to correct most problems within a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Everett Akau or myself at 771-0235, extension 349. Sincerely, Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Everett Akau RH/lk GRIND/LT/TXTSFWER ko • • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 • 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering f 89p.199 CERTIFIED MAIL August 8, 1989 Mr. Gil Thiry 15810-75th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: S/F Permit #880575 Bonding & Public Liability Insurance Dear Mr. Thiry: CARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYC= PETER E. HAHN DIRECTO= As you are aware, Item #10(a) of the Meadowdale Landslide Ordinance on bonding requires that the cash bond, posted August 17, 1988 with National American Insurance Company, be held for a period of one year after the final completion date. of the residence which is July 31, 1989. The City will inform you in writing when this bond may be released; suspense date, July 25, 1990. Also, Item #10(c) of the ordinance requires that you maintain a policy of general public liability insurance, naming the City as an additional insured party against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss from earth movement for a period of 10 years from the date of final approval. A certificate evidencing such insurance shall be filed continuously with the Building Department. Please be advised, the ordinance requires 30 days advanced notice to the City on policy cancellation and if a policy is cancelled and not replaced, the occupancy of the residence may be revoked. The general public liability insurance will expire July 31, 1999. If you have any questions, contact the Building Department at 771-3202. Sincerely, Jeannine Graf Permit Coordinator cc: National American Insurance Co. Surety Insurance Service • Incorporated August 11. 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 89o-19y CITY OF EDMONDS - 250 - 5th AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • 1206) 7 71-3 202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering February 21, 1989 Mr. Gil Thiry 6724 160th Street Southwest Edmonds, Washington 98020 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR This letter is to notify you that the stop work order on permit #880575 at 15810 75th Place West is now lifted based on approval of the amended plans. Per our telephone conversation this date the following items need to be provided to the building division: 1. A letter from your structural engineer stating that all framing and foundation work is in conformance with the approved plans. 2. Engineering information to verify that trusses are adequate to carry the imposed loads of the concrete roof tiles which was a change from the approved plans. 3. Revised elevations for sheet #6 of the plans showing the as -built conditions. 4. For professional services for structural plan check review on the revisions please remit $105.00 at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions contact the building division at 771-3202. Thank you, cj4aQ-- (aj-'`— Hal Reeves Building Official 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 4- • Western 13322 Highway 99 South • Everett, Washington 98204 l rinc, rveyors 742-5500 November 7th, 1988 Job No. 86-107-A Gil Thiry 6724 160th Street S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Property at 158th Street S.W. and 75th Place West. The following elevations were taken on November 3, 1988: Northeast building corner 175.6 Southeast building corner 175.6 Southwest building corner 160.8 Northwest building corner 162.9 674.3 674.3 = 168.58 4 + 25.00 Roofline = 193.58 355-2776 The benchmark used was the north rim sanitary sewer manhole at the intersection of 158th Street Southwest and 75th Place W., (elevation 200.00 feet). If you should have additional questions, please feel to contact me at your convenience. Sincere Ienneth L. Long, P.L.S. cc: City of Edmonds cor778 81J1LONG 1'\V 7 LAND USE CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS ENGINEERING CORPORATION • 0 SWENSON MINN ME 0 SAVEME M ■ M M■ MEMMEME RMEME MEN MOM M M MWE 0 MEN MEN ME M, M■M 0 M mom NEK EMMEMM■ 0 MIN 0 ME ME SEEM M ■ WEEMEM m MEM! 11 . NONSENSE Ammmmm MOMEM No AMMEMEME■M BEEN MIN MEN SEEM. WASEMEMOMME IME MEMNON ME■MEN MEMMOM RUMMOMMEN t1k 00 00 LQ 07 J.i EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 778-0907 June 8, 1988 Mr. Peter Hahn City of Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Geotechnical Consultation Gil and Jan Thiry Residence Dear Mr. Hahn: The City of Edmonds (City) has. requested Landau Associates, Inc. to provide geotechnical consultation regarding review .of building permit applications in response to Ordinance No. 2661. A scope of services is currently being developed for a Basic Agreement between Landau Associates and the City. However, we understand that an immediate review of the Gil and Jan Thiry residence application is needed; therefore, this letter is an interim agreement related to that application. The purpose of Landau Associates' services will be to review the geotechnical engineer's reports and other data with the Thiry application and to provide our opinion to the City regarding the "standard of practice" used by the geotechnical engineer in evaluation of the property. Landau Associates is not to provide independent analyses or investigation. A comprehensive written report is not anticipated; however, our opinion resulting from the review will be confirmed by letter. As we agreed, our services will be on a time and expense basis. Billing for our services will be based on the attached schedule of charges. A budget of $800 is appropriate for this application review. Of course, we will bill for only the time and expense actually incurred and will advise you if the budget amount needs modification. Some information regarding the Thiry property has been forwarded to us. We expect to accomplish the review and meet with your representatives within a week following receipt of the application information and written authorization. The City acknowledges that Landau Associates, Inc. is acting in an advisory capacity only. Accordingly, the City agrees to fully indemnify and hold harmless Landau Associates,. -•Inc -.' and- its employees from and against any claim, suit, action, or iia-bility "' ` arising- from' ,the. issuance, or','+deh,ial of a';. building;j� permit, and ;.arising: from bodily.injury (includ'ing: ideath) or: property t.aamage resultin from instabilit of -pro ; ro ert This--indemnit �As not applicable :to'9 en'eral liab'ilit .:,;for 'bodilY in.].urY' _ ,.andr-'�;;.,,;.!,•• property damage due to employee 'accidents or due.to.negligent;.o r: tortious acts of Landau Associates -or its,employees. We 'appreciate the opportunity to• .provide._ service. to the " - City. Please return to. us one -copy of this letter signed. in the space provided below. Please contact Mr..Bill Evans or me if you have any questions. Yours very truly, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Robert G. Fulton, P.E. Vice President AUTHORIZATION The scope of services and contractual conditions as described in this letter are accepted and Landau Associates, Inc., is authorized to proceed. By L.S. NAUGHTEN s g t u r printed For the City of Edmonds Z ate A LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. COMPENSATION SCHEDULE - 1988 Personnel Hourly Rate Principal Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $77 Associate Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $68 Senior Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $62 Senior Environmental Planner $52 Project Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $52 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Hydrogeologist $45 Technician $34 Technical Illustrator/Librarian $33 Word Processing (including equipment) $32 Support Staff $24 Expert testimony in court, arbitration, $125 or public hearings Equipment Field, laboratory, and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request. Transportation Use of vehicle for field work - $12.50/per half day. Mileage - Thirty cents ($.30) per mile. Subcontractor Services and other Expenses Term Actual subcontractor billing and all other expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized services are charged at cost plus fifteen percent (15%). The charge for high risk field operations will be negotiated on an individual project basis. A new Compensation Schedule is issued at the beginning of each year. Unless other arrangements are made, charges for all work, including continuing projects initiated in the previous year, will be based on the late.st.Compensation Schedule. G-1/8 8 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGY P.O. BOX 694 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206)778-0907 July 18, 1988 City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Mr. Peter E. Hahn CONSULTATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR GIL AND JANET THIRY MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Hahn: This letter summarizes the results of our review of the geotechnical report, building plans, and associated correspon- dence concerning the above noted project. The information provided by the City of Edmonds for our review is listed on the attached reference page. In our opinion, the geotechnical inves- tigations and reports by GeoEngineers, Inc. have been accom- plished in accordance with acceptable standards of practice and appropriately address site -specific concerns. Most of the information for the Thiry residence was developed before the Meadowdale Permit Submittal Requirements, May 1988, were implemented. During our review, we noted a few items for which clarification is appropriate. Our comments are: 1. The May 2, 1986 GeoEngineers geotechnical report recommends excavating both the north and east foundation walls and french drain in segments. Unless prominently noted on the BUILDING JUL 19 M8 • % construction drawings, it is possible that the foundation contractor will overlook this requirement. This requirement should be noted on the final approved plans. 2. In its present configuration, the french drain which is to be constructed along the north and east sides of the residence will extend to within 1 to 2 feet of the top of a silt horizon noted in Boring 2. It would be desirable to extend the drain to the top of this silt layer. 3. The Geotechnical Report Guidelines contained within the Meadowdale Evaluation Checklist require the geotechnical engineer to complete various tasks. Of the specified tasks, the May 2, 1986 Geotechnical Report does., not include the following: a. A description of the proposed structure, together with all existing and proposed utilities, floor grades, and excavation levels. This information is available in other documents. b. A map showing the property boundaries, location of the .test borings and existing contour lines relative to the proposed structure. A map showing the test boring locations relative to the proposed structure should be prepared. C. Details concerning the proposed utilities and a discus- sion regarding the need for flexible connections. d. A discussion on maintaining or replanting vegetation. The June 15, 1988 letter from Kimberly A. McDonald, Attorney, addresses this item. • 0 Of the specific comments noted above, items 1, 2, 3b, and 3c require action by the geotechnical engineer. Also, it is recom- mended that the design engineers of record provide onsite moni- toring during construction to document encountered conditions and provide additional consultation, if required. Please call if additional review services are required for this project. S. FU(T y WA94,�c : ✓,� 1 o: 131 98�* AL RGF/WDE:ss No. 74-03 6 copies submitted Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Robert G. Fulton, P.E. Principal and i�'_ fi Z'_C-� William D. Evans, CPG Senior Geologist Edmonds, City of, Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist, May 20, 1988. Environmental Checklist, submitted by Gil Thiry on August 4, 1986. GeoEngineers, Inc. (1986a), Report, Geotechnical Services, March 10, 1986. GeoEngineers (1986b), Revised Report, Geotechnical Services, May 2, 1986. GeoEngineers (1986c), Response to Review Comments. Revised Report of Geotechnical Services, May 29, 1986. GeoEngineers (1986d), Summary of Meeting with Building Official, December 30, 1986. GeoEngineers (1988e), Meadowdale Submittal Checklist. Geotech- nical Declaration, June 15, 1988. McDonald, Kimberly A., 1988, letter regarding Thiry versus City of Edmonds, et al., June 15, 1988. Ogden, Ogden, Murphy, and Wallace, 1988, letter to Landau Asso- ciates, June 17, 1988. Structural Design Associates, Inc.,, 1988, letter regarding proposed residence for Gil and Janet Thiry, June 7, 1988. Western Surveyors, Inc., 1986, Storm Drainage Data, July 1, 1986. Whiteley Jacobsen & Associates (1986a), Proposed Residence for Gil Thiry, May 22, 1986. Whiteley Jacobsen & Associates (1986b), Resubmittal for Proposed Residence for Gil Thiry, August 13, 1986. One set (6 sheets) of building plans stamped by Cornelis D. Vanden Ende of Structural Design Associates, Inc. Resub- mittal date August 4, 1986. One set (3 sheets) of building plans stamped by Earl J. Bone of Western Surveyors, Inc., July 2, 1986. Miscellaneous legal instruments relating to the project. I-Alo r CITY OF EDhfON PROJECT NA(I .� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED The information on this form will -be used to determine the effect of your action upon the environment of the City of Edmonds. Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible. 1. LAND Area SAND CLAY, GRAVEL 2?_.800 SQ. FT. Soils Type Limitations Description of topography (", slope) BUILDING SITE 10 TO 1 5% NOTE: If grading or filling will Grading: Estimated cubic yards 2 50 0,Po 12, T" exceed 500 cubic yards a grading and filling plan must be sub - Filling: Estimated cubic yards 100 mitted with the application. Estimated area to be paved (including buildings) BLD 2400 SQ. FT. PAVING 1600 SQ. Estimated area in open space (pervious surface) 18,800 SQ.FT. 2. VATER StreaT - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) NONE Will stream be altered? NA If yes, to what degree? NA Other water bodies? Impact on storm drainage Method of handling runoff TIGHT LINE TO GATT, ROAD DITCH THROUGH COLVERT TO SOUND Adjacent to shorelines zone? [� Within 200 feet of MHH1.0 ? 3. VEGETATI0% Type and approximate number of trees SMALL MAPEL, WILLOW AND ALDER FT. Minimum diameter of trees to remain 4-6 INCHES ��% trees to be removed ONE ONLY Ground cover MATNT,y WEEDS, TREES ONLY ON WEST°% to be removed WEST 40 FT. TO BE LEF', Proposed landscaping, if any LOW MAINTENANCE. SHRUBS, BARK,DRAIN ROCK AS IS ANTI '; AT,T, TRFFS 4. EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN 300 FEET RADIUS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Single MU1ti- Vacant Family Family Commercial Other North ABANDONED HOUSE AND EASMENT South VACANT East STREET West TRAIN TRACKS AND SOUND 5. CIRCULATION Estimated increase in auto trips daily 4 -6 Availability of public transportation NONE 6. AREA OF IMPACT Neighborhood City-wide Regional 7. EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY NONE S. CHANGES IN NOISE GENERATION NONE "-701 MEMO TO: File DATE: August 22, 1988 FROM: Hal Reeves, Building Official }tZ RE: Issuance of Permit #880575 On this twenty-second day of August, 1988 I have,approved issuance of a permit, number #880575, for property described in thAt application. In issuing the permit, I have relied upon the representations of the owner, his agents and professionals, including the reports of his geo-technical engineer. I have also relied upon review of those representations and the documents contained in this file by the City's consultant Landau & Associates. The issuance of this permit should not be interpreted as a determination by me regarding the habitability of the structure or the ultimate safety of the lot. This permit has been issued upon technical compliance with the provisions of the City of Edmonds, specifically those contained in Chapter 19.10. Any person with questions regarding the safety of the lot or the habitability of the structure are referred to the reports of the professionals contained in this file. ' All reports should be thoroughly reviewed and all recommendations regarding construction and maintenance closely followed. No opinion is expressed regarding habitability or safety by the building officer other than that the permit has achieved technical compliance with the terms of the ordinance. The text for this memo was prepared by Scott Snyder, City Attorney, on August 19, 1988. WRUCTURAL DESIGN AS IATES, INC. Q0 CONSULTING ENGINEER 5630- 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX6366 LYNNWOOD.WA98046 PHONE: (206) 775-7434 May 2, 1989 Mr. Gil Thiry 6724-160th Street S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 subject: Inspection of Residence at 15310-75th Place West, Edmonds, Wash. Our Ref.: #84-478/IR1 To Whom This may concern: At the request of Mr. Gil Thiry, this office inspected the subject structure on May 19, 1989. The below signed engineer, certifies that the subject structure has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. If there are any questions, please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. by: Rase Vanden Ende, P.E. president KVE/RJB/jme STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION: June 21, 1988 Building Official City of Edmonds 505 Bell Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed please find our application for a building permit for a residential structure. By our investigation, and the representations of our professional consultants, we understand and acknowledge that the proposed structure would be built in an area of the Active Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard. We accept any and all risks of building a residential structure in any area of potential unstable soil and voluntarily submit with my application a Covenant to Notify any future purchaser of the property or residential lessees of the structures or portions of the structure on the side of the slide potential for the area. We have also voluntarily supplied an Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement to the City of Edmonds in order that no other person or entity will be subjected to legal liability because of our personal decision to construct a residence upon this site. Very truly yours, Gilbert and JanetqThiyv Enclosure BUILDAC JUL 19 1988 r� TO: FROM: 0 -�,c *, -, - -, ' - , _-J — y �U;- i HLE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES City Council Peter E. Hahn M E M O R A N D U M October 17, 1986 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR 0 C T 171986. Eamnnrtc CRY Clerk SUBJECT: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON THIRY RESIDENCE The Community Services Department of the City of Edmonds hereby appeals the October 8, 1986 decision of Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Diane L. Vanderbeek in the matter of the Appeal of Gil Thiry of a Building Permit Denial. The staff is appealing this decision because of the belief that it was erroneously made and would set an inappropriate precedent. Staff believes this decision is erroneous for the following reasons: 1. The Hearing Examiner ignored the staff obligation as outlined in ECDC Section 19.00.020.(I) which states: "Building, grading and excavation permits for construction on land which the Director of Public Works finds to be unsuitable for improvement due to flooding, inadequate drainage, excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability or topography for the plan submitted, shall be denied. In making this determination the Director shall consider not only the land which is the subject of the application but in additon, the surrounding areas which would be adversely affected if the permit were granted." 2. The Hearing Examiner demonstrated a misunderstanding of the role of a covenant and hold harmless agreement in this case. Under the present code, Mr. Thiry cannot assume the risk of a large-scale, area -wide landslide and hold the City harmless for his damage alone (see finding #11). As indicated in #1 above, the City must consider the impact on surrounding areas as well. To state it in a different way, a covenant and hold harmless agreement cannot substitute for well engineered mitigation measures which reduce slide risk to a minimum. PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING • Page 2 -- Appeal of Thiry Decision 3. The Hearing Examiner, in this decision, demons,irates a lack of understanding of both the role of the plan checker (Mr. Jack Whiteley) and of the technical comments made by him at the hearing. The role of the plan checker is to limit his review to certain technical aspects of the building design. This is but one input into the Building Official's decision on the permit issuance. The fact that he did not recommend denial of the permit is not relevant, and is not the normal procedure for plan checks. Furthermore, we believe that the Hearing Examiner misinterpreted the technical comments made by the Plan Checker during his testimony. A letter is attached, from Mr. Whiteley to Harold Reeves, reiterating that a slide hazard exists. While a distinction is being made between site specific and areawide slides in the technical testimony, nothing in the Code allows the Building Official to make that distinction. A 30% probability of a slide in the next 25 years is inarguably significant. Enclosed is a memo from Harold Reeves, Building Official, providing his point of view on this appeal. i MEMO TO: Mayor Naughen VIA: Peter Hahn, Community Services Director FROM: Harold Reeves, Building Official kTZ DATE: October 17th, 1986 RE: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON THIRY RESIDENCE The Hearing Examiner's decision would grant Gil Thiry a permit to build a home on the Meadowdale Landslide area complex utilizing a conventional foundation system. The Geotechnical report for the Thiry site states; "A large landslide which occurred in 1955 resulted in a ground failure and displacement of 5 to 10 feet vertically on a line which appears to traverse the site. Regardless of site development, it is quite possible that the subject site and adjacent areas may be involved in a large-scale slope failure some time during the next several decades, and there is nothing economically practicable that can be done on the site to prevent such an occurrence." After making these comments, Mr. Thiry's engineer proceeded to give design recommendations based apparently on Mr. Thiry's budget, rather that recommending such stabilization measures and structural design criteria on which the design team cound base a definite prediction of a safety factor for the project. This is not acceptable because City Code Section 19.00.010 prohibits issuance of permits where the site is unsuitable for the plan submitted. There are errors in the Hearing Examiner's findings, noteably that "Mr. Whiteley indicated no objection to the appellant's site specific plans." The attached letter from Jack Whiteley clarifies his position. The Hearing Examiner considered the technical arguements of the project engineers and the City's plans check engineer and arrived at erroneous conclusions in favor of the application. She concluded and stated as fact, that "provided the release and hold harmless is signed, the City of Edmonds is properly protected." This is not fact —it is her own opinion. If the City allows homes with conventional spread footing foundations and minimum site stabilization measures to be built on the Meadowdale Landslide complex because it is not economically practical for the applicant to do otherwise, then the City is making what independent experts consider to be a big mistake. The technology exists to engineer both site and structure in such a manner that the instability is mimimized and the designers can confidently state a specific factor of safety which all parties can rely upon. The City should accept nothing less. f Kimberlee A. McDonald ATTORNEY AT LAW RECEIVED AUG 21 1986 r_�n1 r-7 SUITE 405 MUTUAL LIFE BUILDING 605 FIRST AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 622-7322 BUILDING August 20, 19J8WM1I1IT1'ERVICES DIR. AUG 21 1996 City of Edmonds Ca mznity Services Division 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Building Permit Application for 15810 75th Place West Edmonds, WA To Whom It May Concern: NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL You are hereby notified that the decision by Mr. Harold Reeves on August 15, 1986, denying the issuance of a building permit for the above -referenced property to the applicant, Mr. Gil Thiry, is hereby appealed. Mr. Reeves stated in his August 15, 1986 letter (attached hereto and incorporated by this reference) that his decision is a final staff decision and therefore able to be appealled under Chapter 20.105. Pursuant to Chapter 20.105.020, the appellant states the following: 1. (a) Decision being appealed: Denial of building permit as stated in August 15, 1986 letter from Mr. Harold Reeves. (b) Project Applicant: Gil Thiry. (c) Date of Decision: August 15, 1986. 2. Mr. Gil Thiry, c/o Kimberlee A. McDonald, Attorney at Law, Suite 405 Mutual Life Building, 605 1st Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. IF City of Edmonds August 20, 1986 Page Two 3. Reason why person appealling believes decision to be wrong: The decision in the August 15, 1986 letter is, among other things, arbitrary and capricious, and is based upon an inccnplete review of all materials presented by the applicant for the building permit. Among other things, the engineer has stated in all reports that he believes the site can be stabilized and it is in fact stabilized by the design presented by the applicant. 4. Persons to be notified: Since the appellant has applied only for a building permit, the applicant is unaware of any requirements by the City of Edmonds code requiring a public hearing with regard to a building permit. There was no need for an -Environmental Impact Statement nor any need for a Designation of Nonsignificance by the City. Please notify the undersigned of the hearing date, time, and place. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly, Kimberlee A. McDonald KAM:jb cc: Director of Community Development Harold Reeves Gil Thiry r MAY 3 0 REc*o ^ :` GeoEngineers Incorporated (206) 746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N. E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manner Market 3609 - 164th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists May 29, 1986 Response to Review Comments Revised Report of Geotechnical Services Proposed Thiry Residential Site 15800 Block, 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 In response to your request, we have reviewed the technical review comments prepared in response to our report dated May 2, 1986. The response and comments are presented in a letter dated May 22, 1986, prepared by Whiteley, Jacobson & Associates (WJA) who performed a review of the soils report and project drawings regarding the proposed Gil Thiry residence. This letter pertains to Item 9 and the concluding paragraph of the WJA letter dated May 22, 1986. The specific issue referenced is the expected magnitude of a potential future slide. Our May 2, 1986 report references a slide which occurred in 1955 (incorrectly identified as 1959 in the WJA letter). The 1955 landslide scarp appears to traverse the proposed Thiry residential site and experienced ground displacement of 5 to 10 feet maximum. In our opinion, the drainage improvements to the Meadowdale landslide area reduce both the probability of occurrence of a large future landslide and very likely reduce the magnitude of that potential future occurrence. Mr. Gil Thiry May 29, 1986 Page Two It is our opinion that potential future ground movement could be under the entire residence or could occur under a portion of the future residence. The more severe case from the standpoint of structural design would include consideration of ground movement under only a portion of the building. Based on our assessment of the ground conditions at the proposed residence site, the continued improvement (increased stability) of the area as a result of storm and sanitary sewer installations, and the added drainage facilities recommended for the Thiry residence, it is our opinion that the magnitude of future landslide movement in this area is likely to be substan- tially less than that experienced in the past. We recommend that the design basis consider 6 inches to 1 foot of differential movement across the dimensions of the proposed residence. We trust this explanation will be satisfactory for your needs at this time. If you have further questions or if we can be of further service, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Jon W. Koloski Principal JWK:wd Two copies submitted GeoEngineers Incorporated • WJA, P.S. WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / PLANNERS 306 Seattle Tower Third and University Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 623-0331 BUILDING 14 October 1986 OCT 10 1986 Mr. Hal Reeves Edmonds Building Department Edmonds Civic Center 250 Fifth North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Meadowdale Slide Area Dear Hal: In our review of the Peck and Thiry residences in Meadowdale, we had asked the soils engineer for the impact forces to be applied to a residence where there was large localized settlement at a specific site. The response letter by the soils engineer indicated that this was not something that needed to be a consideration for a localized specific site. At the Hearing Examiner's presentation for the Peck and Thiry residences, I illustrated on the blackboard that a sliding wedge of earth, while not being an areawide slide, could encompass an area the size of a house. If this occurred, the entire residence could be displaced both vertically and laterally in excess of several feet. A localized slide of this magnitude would cause severe damage and possible destruction of a residence. While the probabilities of this would appear slight, per the soil consultant's analysis, it is nevertheless possible. It is my opinion that a residence on conventional spread footings is subject to this type of massive, localized failure which might be preventable utilizing a different foundation system. I suggest that future residences submitted for a building permit in the Meadowdale Slide Areas should consider the use of auger cast piles for a foundation system to support the house. These piles could be extended to firm, sound bearing thereby preventing vertical or lateral displacement of the residence in the event that the earth slid away from below the house. Auger cast piles are suggested because they cause minimum vibration to the surrounding soil when being placed as V timber or steel displacement pile. Mr. Hal Reeves 14 October 1986 Page Two I hope the above is helpful to you in consideration of future requirements for permits in the slide area. If you have any questions on my comments above, please call me. Very truly yours, WJA, P.S. /Architects, Enn er , Planners Jack H. Whiteley, .E. z"President MEMO TO: Mayor Naughten Council Members FROM: Harold Reeves, Building Official DATE: October 16th, 1986 RE: MEADOWDALE LANDSLIDE AREA As you are aware, the City is faced with an ongoing dilemma in the matter of issuing building permits and approving construction on the Meadowdale Landslide. In the past two years I have spent much time and effort in researching the situation. I have had discussions with code administrators and design professionals from Washington, Oregon and California. I have learned that California is advanced in the areas of design, design review, and construction techniques. I have been advised that since Edmonds is being asked to issue permits and approve construction on an active landslide, the City should provide for permit review by a qualified geologist as well as our structural engineering plans checker. Further, we should establish a technical advisory board comprised of local qualified geologists, soils engineers, and structural engineers to review appeals of the City's plans examiners' decisions. Compared to the potential for litigation both against the City and its elected officials and staff, I feel that the time, effort and expense to set up such a program is a small price to pay for future security for the City. a MEMO TO: Mayor Naughen City Council VIA: Peter Hahn, Community Services Director FROM: Harold Reeves, Building Official DATE: October 16th, 1986 RE: STAFF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON THIRY RESIDENCE The staff is appealing the Hearing Examiner decision to grant Gil Thiry a permit to build a home on the Meadowdale Landslide area complex utilizing a conventional foundation system. The Geotechnical report for the Thiry site states, "A large landslide which occurred in 1955 resulted in a ground failure and displacement of 5 to 10 feet vertically on a line which appears to traverse the site. Regardless of site development, it is quite possible that the subject site and adjacent areas may be involved in a large-scale slope failure some time during the next several decades, and there is nothing economically practicable that can be done on the site to prevent such an occurrence." After making these comments, Mr. Thiry's engineer proceeded to give design recommendations based apparently on Mr. Thiry's budget, rather that recommending such stabilization measures and structural design criteria on which the design team cound base a definite prediction of a safety factor for the project. This is not acceptable because City Code Section 19.00.010 prohibits issuance of permits where the site is unsuitable for the plan submitted. ere are errors in the Hearing Examiner's findings, noteably that "Mr. Whiteley indicated no objection to the appellant's site specific plans." The attached letter from Jack Whiteley clarifies his position. The Hearing Examiner considered the technical arguements of the project engineers and the City's plans check engineer and arrived at an erronous conclusion in favor of the application. She further concluded and stated as fact, that "provided the release and hold harmless is signed, the City of Edmonds is properly protected." This is not fact, L.it is her own opinion! If the City allows homes with conventional spread footing foundations and minimum site stabilization measures to be built on the Meadowdale Landslide complex because it is not econmically practical for the applicant to do otherwise, then the City is making what independent experts consider to be a big mistake. The technology exists to engineer both site and structure in such a manner that the instability is mimimized and the designers can confidently state a specific factor of safety which all parties can rely upon. The City should accept nothing less. • CITY OF EOMONOS 250 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS KtL,EiVED OCT 0 9 1986 CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL FILE: AP-12-86 OF GIL THIRY OF A BUILDING PERMIT DENIAL DECISION: The appeal is granted. The City of Edmonds shall forthwith issue the requested building permit. INTRODUCTION Mr. & Mrs. Gil Thiry, whose mailing address is 3609 - 164th Street S.W., Lynnwood, Washington, 98037, have applied for a building permit to construct a single-family residence located at 15810 - 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. On August 15, 1986, the City of Edmonds, acting through Harold Reeves, Building Official, denied the building permit. • On August 20, 1986, Mr. Thiry, acting through his attorney, Kimberlee A. McDonald, appealed Mr. Reeves' decision pursuant to City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), Section 20.95.050(B)(3). Mr. Thiry's appeal was filed within ten working days of the date that the building permit was denied by the City of Edmonds, and accordingly, is timely. A hearing on the appeal was heard before the undersigned Hearing Examiner Pro Tem for the City of Edmonds on September 18, 1986. At the hearing, the following exhibits were submitted and admitted as a part of the record of these proceedings: Exhibit 1 - 08/15/86 Letter Denying Permit " 2 - Appeal Letter 3 - Site Plan " 4 - 5/10/86 Building Permit Application " 5 - 8/4/86 Building Permit Application " 6 - 3/10/86 GeoTechnical Report from Geo- Engineers Inc. 7 - 5/22/86 Letter from Jack Whiteley " 8 - 6/9/86 Letter to Gil Thiry " 9 - 8/13/86 Letter from Jack Whiteley " 10 - Roger Lowe Report dated 10/16/79 11 - 7/10/84 Reid, Middleton & Associates • Report on Beers Building Permit 12 - Revised Report dated 5/2/86 from GeoEngineers, Inc. Findings and Deci .0 of the 10 Hearing Examiner o the City of Edmonds Re: AP-12-86 Page 2 • Exhibit 13 - 5/28/85 GeoEngineers Inc. Report 14 (a-c) Photographs of the View from Thiry site " 15 - Landslide Viewfoil " 15a - Landslide Xerox 16 - Landslide Map " 16a - Xerox of Landslide Map 17 - Diagram prepared by Jack Whiteley 17a - Diagram prepared by Jack Whiteley " 18 - Photographs of slide taken during 1955 or 1956 19 - Environmental Assessment 20 - Brief for Hearing Examiner Prepared by Appellants' Attorney After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appellant; evidence elicited during the public hearing; and, as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding vicinity by the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem on this appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Appellant, Gil Thiry, applied for a building permit to build a single-family residential structure at 15810 - 75th Place • West, Edmonds, Washington. 2. The subject site is located within the Meadowdale slide area which was encompassed in an extensive report prepared by Roger Lowe Associates for the City of Edmonds in October of 1979. 3. The slide area is approximately 3,200 feet in length (paral- leling the Sound) and is 650 feet across. 4. The evidence establishes that the subject lot lies within the Meadowdale slide area and is described as having a 30 percent probability of an area -wide landslide. 5. It should be noted that as a result of recommendations con- tained in the aforementioned report prepared by Roger Lowe Associates, the City passed an LID and installed storm and sanitary sewers. Accordingly, the risk of a major area -wide landslide as a result of the sewer installation has been re- duced from 90 percent at the time of the Lowe report to 30 percent. 6. The Appellant has submitted, pursuant to the ECDC, Section 19.00.020, a soils report and a GeoTechnical report. 7. The evidence establishes that the Appellant applied for a • building permit on two separate occasions. 8. Accompanying the second permit application was a report dated -2- Findings and DeciA*n of the • Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: AP-12-86 Page 3 • May 2, 1986, from GeoEngineers Inc. This report contained numerous recommendations with respect to construction of the proposed home. Further, the report contained some conclusions with respect to the probability of site failure. It should be noted that the aforementioned report was prepared by John W. Koloski, the principal in GeoEngineers Incorporated, who is the same engineer who prepared the Roger Lowe Associates Inc. report for the City.of Edmonds in 1979. 9. At the time of the public hearing, Jack H. Whiteley, an engineer, testified.that he had reviewed the plans at the request of the City of Edmonds. Mr. Whiteley reviewed both building permit applications, and in May of 1986 submitted a letter to Mr. Reeves of the City of Edmonds Building Depart- ment (Exhibit 7) with respect to additional information required in connection with the application. 10. This additional information was provided and is evidenced by Exhibit 9, a letter to Mr. Reeves from Mr. Whiteley indicating that, "the response as submitted based on our previous letters of review comments is complete with regard to site specific issues and structural design considerations." 11. At the time of the public hearing, Mr. Thiry indicated, through counsel, that he would be willing to assume the risk of the • possibility of a large-scale,area-wide landslide and indemnify and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any damage which he may suffer as a result thereof as contemplated in ECDC, Section 19.00.020 (1) (C) . 12. At the time of the public hearing, Harold Reeves, City of Edmonds Building Official, repeatedly emphasized that it was not the City of Edmonds intention to completely deny the Appel- lant the right to use his land7 however, the City felt that the site development was insufficient to preclude significant damage to the structure in the event of a large-scale earth movement. Further, City witnesses expressed concern with respect to high cost repairs which would be necessary, and perhaps not afford- able to subsequent occupants of the structure, in the event of a large-scale, area -wide landslide. 13. Further, City witnesses expressed concern as a result of the inability of the Appellants' engineer, Mr. Koloski, to quantify, in percentage terms, the probability of a large-scale, area -wide landslide. However, Mr. Koloski indicated that his inability to quantify the probability is a result, primarily, of the recent sewer installation and the inability to establish, at least at this point, the amount that the water table has declined. • 14. The engineer who reviewed the plans for the City of Edmonds, Mr. Whiteley, indicated that he did not recommend against the building permit, but expressed concern with respect to the -3- • • : Findings and Deci on of the , Hearing Examiner o= the City of Edmonds Re: AP-12-86 Page 4 possibility of the house being displaced by an area -wide land- slide. Mr. Whiteley indicated no objection to the Appellants' site specific plans. CONCLUSIONS 1. The City of Edmonds has a proper interest in regulating develop- ment upon unstable slopes. 2. The ECDC, Section 19.00.02.0 provides a series.of stringent requirements with respect to development on hazardous slopes. Further, subsequent purchasers of the property are probably protected by the requirement in the ordinance that they be put on notice of the fact that the lot is located in the landslide hazard area by language on the deed. 3. The Appellant, Mr. Thiry, has provided the necessary soils and GeoTechnical information, and is willing to sign a release and hold harmless indemnifying the City from any claim by rea- son of or arising out of the issuance of.the permit, or other development approval by the City for the subject property. Accordingly, provided the release and hold harmless is signed, the City of Edmonds is properly protected. 4. The Appellant has established, by a preponderance of the evi- dence, that the requested building permit should issue. As long as there is property with striking water views, people in the Northwest will attempt to build to gain optimum advantage of said views. The City of Edmonds has protected those who want to build and those citizens who reside in the vicinity by passing an ordinance which justifiably stringently regulates development in the landslide area. When the evidence before the City's own engineers is insufficient for him to recommend that the permit be denied, and all of the, stringent require- ments of the Landslide Hazard Area Building Permit Ordinance have been established, there is no reason why the permit should not issue. DECISION For each of the above reasons, the decision of the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem-on the appeal is that the appeal is granted, and the build- ing permit shall issue_ Dated this o day of October, 1986. I Hearing L, & 664-_-t�_P, VANDERBEEK Examiner Pro Tem -4- isFindings and Dec. i,. of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: AP-12-86 Page 5 • NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL • • This decision of the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem is appealable to the City Council pursuant to ECDC, Section 20.95.060. Unless an appeal of this decision is filed within ten working days of the date hereof, all further appeal rights are irrevocably waived. -5- History and Summalft Statement -- Pg. 2 The attached memorandum develops more fully the appeal basis. But an important point that needs to be underscored, even at the risk of • repetitiveness, is this: The Edmonds Community Development Code, and for that matter the Uniform Building Code, does not distinguish between site specific slides and area wide slides. The ECDC, and the UBC, specifically state that building permits cannot be issued unless slide risks have been adequately mitigated. The Building Official, therefore, cannot legally grant a building permit which in effect grants relief from the requirement of mitigating slide risks, including a high risk for area wide slides. The Department cannot in effect accept on behalf of the City a risk level which the ECDC and professional standards indicate is too high -- this would be clearly a legislative decision. Therefore, should the Council rule in favor of Mr. Thiry, it should also direct the City Attorney to develop a proper legal mechanism for granting a building permit. The file on this project will be placed in the City Council office for review prior to the hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the appeal and deny the issuance of the building permit on the basis of inadequate mitigation of slide risks. • COUNCIL ACTION: 40 MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division SUBJECT: /��/D %✓�' ALE /N, After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: 1) Connection to City water system required. 2) Connection to City sanitary sewer system required. 3) Right-of-way permit required for any work on City property. 4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. 5) Back water valve required if downstairs plumbing is below elevation of upstream manhole. 6) Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum. 7) Builder/owner responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion on site and may not impact neighboring properties in any way. Construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. • I M — N 0 Y b- cn cn R/V 0 72 N r-N f%g Cl) 0 INA �I� 10 (A lu 050 0, m • N w 0 N z ° c 0 M (D LU t > N J z W m > Q W Z o J W uj in 0 z J Q Q N J 0 • w 0 FN N w 0 W N a Q � 0 > z Q W :3 z w 0 0 W z w 0 w U H W Wa La6 z z z - 0 Y 0 W 0 U Q (n w z a W U 3 m o z 0 w W c W Q z 0 m � a Q z X J W W 0 UQ Z Q Q W 0 N W 3 m J 0 N N H E M I L L CONSL*I NG ENGINEERS STET FILL ADDRESSEE : Harold Reeves, Building Official Civic Center Edmonds, Washington 98020 REFERENCE : Helseth property located at 158 St. S.W. and 75 P1. W., Meadowdale SUBJECT Review of John Klosky geotechnical report of Thiry property I am currently conducting a geotechnical investigation on the property located west of the intersection of 158 St. S.W. and 75 P1. W. in Meadowdale. I request permission to review the geotechnical report by John Klosky of the property to the south identified as the Thiry property. Dale C. Hemphill P. E. Registered E gineer No. 14777 State of Washington BUDDING pCi 2 219�� 921 1O9TH AVENUE S. E. • BELLEVUE, WA. 9BOO4 0 453 4760 l CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY cd RUCTION PERMIT Permit No. Issue Date A. •Owner: C V\A >ut3 `2 C4�=- B. • Contractor: 4 c— t em k / ame Mailing Address Mailing Address City State Zip T CttY State Zip SEET FILE 1, t 41, of �lbb1 U �'S S(,S�, �Q l State License Number Telephone Number C. • Address or Vicinity of Con �u i g:� � "C%. 7)?� lam} Type of Work to be Done: D. • Work in Connection With E. • Pavement Cut: ❑ Y ❑ N o' <?j Plat-? ❑ Single Family ❑ City Projects n, Commercial ❑ Multifamily Ylitility F. • Size of Cut: X APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unforseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. Estimated restoration fees will be held until the final street patch is completed by City forces, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant. • A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Engineering: 771-3202 • Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion. • Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. F • Street to be kept clean at all times. • Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations. • All street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I understand thF, above and that this permit must be Signature: Owner or at the job site for inspection purposes at all times. Date:'' This. Mmit Must be Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes Call DIAL -A -DIG Prior to Beginning Work A VA FA //////////f//////////I//////Id//////////I/I//III APPROVED BY: Time Authorized: Void after (-t__days. Restoration Fee: Special Conditions: Receipt No.: — Fund I I I Fee: _ Street Cut Dimensions: x = $ RELEASED BY C_ Date INSPECTED BY Date .NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. March 1989 FIELD INSPECTION I I I - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: FINAL APPROVAL BY: ❑ YES ❑ NO Date: Date: Eng. Div. July 1985 A, a O w CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit No. 2-1 `Issue Date / — I— A. • Owner: B. • Contractor: .t 0� 4 , 1 I /l f1 t C Name Name " ( ti 1, Mailin Address Mailing Address City State Zip City I State Zip STREET FILE �'`� � �� 7 � � �--�� State License Number Telephone Number C. • Address or Vicinity of Construction: Type of Work to be Done: f)) IU, t) D. • Work in Connection With: ❑ Sub or Plat tl Single Family ❑ City Projects ❑ Commercial ❑ Multifamily ❑ Utility E. • Pavement Cut: ❑ Y M N F. • Size of Cut: X APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN V INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unfor`seen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. Estimated restoration fees will be held until the final street patch is completed by City forces, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant. • A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Engineering: 771-3202 • Work• is to be inspected during progress and at completion. • Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. • Street to be kept clean at all times. • Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations. • All street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I understand the above Ltd that this, permit must be available at the job site for inspection purposes at all times. Signature: Owner or Date: ,Z_ 11r _R-1 This Permit Must be Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes Call DIAL -A -DIG Prior to Beginning Work APPROVED BY: Time Authorized: Void after days. Special Conditions: PERMIT FEE: &0 w Restoration Fee: _ Receipt No.: /67� Fund 111 Fee: Street Cut Dimensions: X = $ RELEASED BY: Date INSPECTED BY Date NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. March 1984 _s FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund II I - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: FINAL APPROVAL BY: ❑ YES Date: Date: ❑ NO Eng. Div. July CITY OF EDMONDS ASSET INFORMATION SHEET eNEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ RETIREMENT ASSET NO. ADDITION TO ASSET NO. DESCRIPTION ' SERIAL NO. LOCATION � /�j /, �. DfrPT. NO * * PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST * PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COMPLETION DATE COST��✓•� B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. ESTIMATED LIFE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY **SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY Lvl DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT G.L. ENTRY REFERENCE DATE VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO. b P INITIA ADDRESS: 11�1111�IlllU�lllllnllllll11111111111111111111111 — — City..o� dmonds, City Clerk 200407140507 s PGS 11111111111 " ' i'21.St-1 Avenue North 07 -14 - 2004 01 : 46pm $23.00 Eti.-ds :WA'98020 SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND• "ELVYNIK- CATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference #: � r Grantor(s): (1)0 �T. ' (2)AV Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of Edndonds Legal Description (abbreviated): *'Sec Twn RnL Qtr OR Lot �• Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (I .5 LQ?-9W-:-ZEJ (2) Assessor's Tax rarcgl ID# not yet assigned CITY Ol~ 1JD1V);ONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY: DATE:%/ PAGE- --OR 6 Under the review procedures established pursuant to. -the +Sfate,--Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City..Qftdmogds;•. and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the constrgetionof•a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of -property -.do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: APP VE FOR RECORDING ........ BY DATE PAGE OF 1... of Subiect Property. This covenant of notification and inde;iinificition/hol4.,h4rmiess relates to a tract of land at the street address of TH PL -(insert street address), tilm4di'soobolm—sh County, Washington and legally described as: 2. Notification and Covenant of Notiticaiiatf." ..'Th.e.. above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area w . h . ickhas,bee. n'identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidenice,or"19u0slide hazard. The en risks associated with development of the site have' be - evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a pak of-lhe. process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are'izontainiin, '*building permit file numbergAW—"f (insert number) on file With---'tbe" City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or pr?hibitions—.ofi-., development may have been imposed in accordance with the recomme.h0stio6"of., ..... APPRO ED FOR RECO G BY DATE PAG97 OF the c0*nsu1tahU.:. ii' the' --course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or Pxrohibitions may re ulg gre.bn oin maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or ...A, . may re4uite modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address'•.fptiire•'*or anikipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions Qreposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, archit6ct..autl/or`struetural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of tho•tile as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other :perdu acquiring. or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice 'if the,t t stence.afthe content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file m4ay'be reviewed --.during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Department, !Qity'- ;of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020:•- 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.- The. undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated ivith"deVelopment, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks:assoi�iafed with. development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish a>yy and ali. causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employm..arisjng frgin and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves; •thek successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and. hold barmless 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' oi`f tl}e site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising"from."or-d'tit a the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or oe'cwrjripg.' or' i ••••. APPR VE OR RECORDING I I BY DATE % Q PAG OF arising• out-`o(: a*ny false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS,Aheir.etgpiQyees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building •permit.. .. 4. Insuranc6*ReduirtMMt Jn addition to any bonding which may be required during,the.•_ycourse of "development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) speeifit:ali�•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, respatisibilities`established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement,above:••'' 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Band:' This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmleft--touches and' -,concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating apd/or.inpring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests of,any: Qther : -person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appeal ...-This•.provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indeingW.the City.except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintalu tiie•• ilsurante.above required. I I � i . I ....... ..... ti APPROVED FOR By DATE OF RI . ........... DOINE.-Als''_ day of OWNER(S) By: ......... By: Z4) STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satiifaetov".�"n'die.. that twer Ie .!gked,ihis instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluiitary..BLct,!,oi'ilie'purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of '4-99 ;7 L-NTEMP\BUILDING\MEADOVACOVENANT 4? 0 `V A y 4 43 Y O � a m i a Y I 00 O Al rp N n a L .O« I L4 b \ O m _ p a� f0 ° ��2M I i --�--56 \ s o p m _ m T o rn • -58- O O m a — 1 r- UD o m o o c �' p oN _60— °S C O OD i um3 m 7m -62--s Ctrt R o o_p� XU ��---64---/ // I 0- O% �� m0 -col sn;,'v i� 8q'- µ it H I \ a m I O a p a� � I ° ° gmn33m iq I 0N o 2.00 a oW 12' 54.0 - ° m ° � ✓ - --'/- / �-Irol -39aomoN//-6 at n 3m2 - N as 7o O o� /,�L/ l C m 1 _0 ID fl 3 O' �. 14 CA c0 olip, J� so wa.40�Ih NJ O/ze �' 15' ------------- m m 60.00• I �A „rq ,o � 1 M09'44y7E 1?0 .0 0' - IJ 45' ;AI0248l7-E, --- ` ,o { 1 79, � r 75 th pL MOD Ac m I _ Alm v z o - z z r > m N z r'i I m 3 rn N rn o o * m T n �J REPORT GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RESIDENTIAL SITE 15800 BLOCK, 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR MR. GIL THIRY Ei Incorporated rrr a (2W 746-5200 2405 - 1401h Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manor Market 3609 - 164th Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: 5 o -70 �/EAFI-5 March 10, 1986 Report Geotechnical Services Residential Site 15800 Block, 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 I GeoEngineers incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists INTRODUCTION This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations relative to development of a residential site in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The property is located on the west side of 75th Place West in the 15800 Block. Our services for this project are provided in general ' accordance with our agreement dated February 3, 1986; authorization to proceed was received on February 9, 1986. With your concurrence we departed from our original scope of services in that very soft ground conditions at the time of our field studies required extensive site improvements to provide access for the drilling machine to the boring sites. To minimize the extra charges, we reduced the number of our borings from three to two. We understand that you are planning to construct a single-family residence on the site. The residence will be of wood frame construction and will be located as far toward the northeast portion of the lot as is practi- cal. The lowest floor elevation will be about 5 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface at the potential northeast building corner which you have staked in the field. The purpose of our services is to provide a general feasibility evalua- tion together with the geotechnical criteria for design of the house. 'M r Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 2 Specifically, our work includes: 1. Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling two borings. 2. Review of documentation pertaining to past landslides which may influence the feasibility of development plans for this site. 3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and drainage to minimize the impact on site stability. 4. Provide recommendations for design of foundations and retaining walls. The subject site is located on the west side of 75th Place West, immediately south of an extension of 158th Avenue West. There are no buildings or other improvements on the lot at this time. The site slopes downward to the south and west from the northeast property corner. Adjacent to 75th Place West the ground surface slopes down relatively steeply for a distance of about 5 to 15 feet; the higher slope is at the north slope of 4 the lot. West of the steep slope the ground surface slopes downward gradually to the west over a distance of about 150 feet from the east property line. IThe west property line is located along the crest of a very steep slope which is about '30 to 40 feet in height and which marks the edge of the 1 Burlington Northern right-of-way. Elevations across the site range from a 1 high of about 95 feet above sea level in the northeast corner to approximately Elevation 60 feet along the east margin of the railroad easement. HISTORY The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide complex, an areain which numerous large and small earth movements, have occurred within the last 30 years. This area is the subject of a landslide hazards investigation by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, f Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, dated October 16, 1979). The site i which is the subject of this consultation is located in an area classified the 1979 RLAI report as "4A90" This designation identifies a landslide hazard due to failure from previously failed material, that the failure would likely include a considerable depth of material, and that there was a 90 percent probability that such a failure may occur during a 25-year GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 3 period. That 1979 landslide hazards map was developed on the basis of conditions prior to construction of the Meadowdale sewer and storm drainage project. The relative landslide hazard was reevaluated in 1985 by our firm and we concluded that the conditions which exist today are less hazardous, but significant risk still exists. We concluded that the 1985 risk is on� the order of 30 percent probability in 25 years. We also concluded that ------------ with time and continued drainage improvements the relative risk of large landslides will diminish. Regardless of site s_eelopmentit is quite possible^that the subject_ Isite and adjacent areas may be involved in a large-scale slope failure some time during the next several decades, and there is nothing economically Ipracticable that can be done on the site to prevent such an occurrence. A large landslide which occurred in 1955 resulted_ in a, ground failure and displacement of 5 to 10 feet vertically on a line which appears to traverse the _site, A house which formerly occupied this location has been removed and some site regrading has been accomplished. We showed you newspaper Iphotographs and discussed the 1955 landslide with you in conjunction with our field studies. IThe recommendations in this report are directed toward prevention of small, on -site movements rather than such large-scale failures and to minimize damage to the structure should significant movements occur. SITE CONDITIONS Within the defined property lines the site is presently bare of vegeta- tion except for very sparse grass. This condition is the result of grading following removal of the former building(s). The western steeply sloping portion of the site is heavily vegetated with blackberry vines, brush and small deciduous trees. At the time of our field studies the ground surface i was very soft due to surface and shallow subsurface water. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings extending to depths of 28 and 34 feet. The borings were drilled with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig. A representative from our firm maintained continuous logs of the explorations, and obtained samples of the k GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 4 soils encountered. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Classification System as described in Figure 1. The samples were returned to our laboratory for further examination. Subsurface conditions at the site consist of sand deposits overlying glacially consolidated silt. Boring 1, located west of the proposed house' encountered a surficial layer of sandy silt overlying massive silt. The silt was soft and saturated to a depth of about 5 feet. Below 5 feet, the silt became stiffer, becoming hard at a depth of about 9.5 feet. Boring 2, located in the eastern portion of the lot, within the proposed building site, encountered 17-1/2 feet of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand. The sand was saturated at a depth of about 7.5 feet. Stiff to hard silt was encountered below the sand to the depth explored. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMKENDATIONS The material which underlies the site has previously failed in at least one large-scale landslide and is prone to failure again if it is stressed. ,,As mentioned previously, the following recommendations are directed toward prevention of small on -site movements rather than such large-scale faiLux-es-- and to minimize damage to the structure should movements occur. Special care must be taken to maintain the stability of the slope and street uphill ' from the house both during and following construction. In our opinion, with adequate care and practice in the design and' ' construction of drainage, earthwork and the structure foundations, the site can ie developed for a residence. You must be aware that the measures recommended below will make this site significantly more expensive to ' develop than would be normal for a similar house on a lot without the type and history of earth movement as occur at this site. Removal of the former building and recent grading activity has obscured evidence of the former ground movement and has also resulted in the existing ' ground surface being locally very soft. GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 5 We understand that the house will likely be placed such that an approxi- mately 6-foot cut will be required at the northeast building corner. The success of excavation and prevention of small slope failures will be dependent on proper excavation and drainage measures. This includes collection and removal of existing subsurface seepage prior to and during earthwork opera- tions. As stabilization measure, permanent drains should be included in the design of the house. DRAINAGE Prior to excavation, drainage measures must be provided upslope of the planned cut areas. Construction drainage measures should include a permanent French drain upslope of the cut area and a pipeline system to carry the water to an area where the water will not affect construction activities or have a negative effect on site stability. The French drain constructed prior to excavation should be excavated to at least one foot below the planned bottom of the deepest portion of the basement foundation excavation. This drain should include a perforated collector pipe 6 inches in diameter and composed of corrugated metal or heavy-duty rigid plastic (PVC). The common light weight corrugated flexible plastic pipe is not acceptable. The pipe should be enclosed in at least 6 inches of 7/8=inch washed gravel and the balance of the trench should be ' backfilled with washed pea gravel. A trench box or other shoring should be utilized to support the trench walls until backfill is placed. No more than ' 10 feet of unsupported trench should be open at one time. Based on the existing ground configuration and on the observed subsurface conditions, this drain should be at least 12 to 15 feet deep at the proposed northeast building corner. Construction of the drain should begin at the downstream end and progress upstream relative to the flow direction in the pipe. As the foundation is constructed, an additional permanent drain system should be installed around the perimeter of the house and at any location where water is observed or might collect against the subsurface wall. We recommend that this French drain have a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 1 foot below the bottom of the footing. This French drain GeoEngineers Incorporated I I I Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 6 should be constructed as outlined above and backfilled with clean, well - graded sand and gravel or washed pea gravel. Four -inch perforated pipe should be bedded in the backfill approximately 4 to 5 inches above the bottom of the trench. The water from all of the French drains should be tightlined down the slope to the ditch adjacent to the railroad tracks. Roof drains and all runoff collected from pavements should be connected to a tightline collection and disposal system which is separate from the French drain lines. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that the hog fuel placed during exploration be removed from the site. Soil excavated from the basement or drain trenches also should be removed from the site since it will likely be wet and generally unusable as fill except as noted below. No fill should be placed within 20 feet of the western steeply sloping portion of the site. We strongly recommend that the design of site work avoid the requirement for any fill embankments more than 2 feet in height. To minimize the risk of slope movements during construction, particularly along the east wall and eastern portion of the north wall, we recommend that the excavation and retaining wall construction proceed in a series of segments or "slot cuts". We recommend that each segment or slot be no more than 15 feet in length. Each segment of retaining wall and permanent wall drain should be constructed and completely backfilled prior to excavating the next slot cut. Temporary cut slopes of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be feasible within the slots. It should be expected that the face of the excavation may experience some sloughing and raveling. The cut slope should be covered with heavy plastic sheeting when necessary to minimize erosion and sloughing resulting from exposure to rainfall. Where there is not room enough for temporary slopes of 1 to 1 or flatter, we recommend that shoring be provided. Because of the large variety of shoring systems, it is customary for the contractor to design the shoring. We should be retained to review the shoring design. GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 7 Any fill placed on the site should be properly conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with the ASTM D-1557 method. Prior to placing any fill, all vegetation and topsoil should be removed. The exposed surface should then be compacted to a firm, nonyielding condition. Where fill is placed on an existing slope, the fill should be keyed in by cutting level benches so that the contact between the fill and existing ground is horizontal. All structural fill material should be free of debris and organic contaminants. The suitability of material for use as fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. We recommend that structural fill consist of free -draining sand and gravel containing no more than about 5 percent fines for placement in wet weather. During wet weather, material with more fines may be used. Sand and gravel below the upper 2 to 3 feet in the eastern portion of the house may be usable for fill during dry weather. The silt and clayey silt visible on the existing ground surface will not be suitable for use as compacted fill. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the house be supported on spread footings founded on the medium dense native sand, the stiff to hard native silt, or on structural fill placed as described above. The minimum depth of embedment for all footings should be 18, inches below the lowest external grade. It is likely that soft soils might be encountered during footing excavations. If soft soils are present at footing grades, we recommend that the soil be over - excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet and replaced with structural fill. The zone of structural fill should extend a distance equal to one-half the footing width on each side of the footing. We recommend minimum widths of 16 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. For foundations designed and constructed as recommended, an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per GeoEngineers � N Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 8 ` square foot may be used. For retaining walls, an average bearing of value 4 2000 psf may be used and maximum edge pressures should be below 3000 psf. This value applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads exclusive of the weight of the footings and any overlying backfill. We estimate that footing settlements will be less than 1/2 inch, total and differential. It is imperative that the footings be founded on undisturbed native soils or on properly placed structural fill, as the recommended bearing pressure and settlement estimates are based on this condition. We recommend 11f that GeoEngineers, Inc. be retained to observe all footing excavations to evaluate that suitable bearing soils have been exposed. Any loose, softened or disturbed soil present in footing excavations should be removed and j replaced with lean concrete or structural fill. 11 We recommend that the foundation design consider the possibility that future ground movement may occur. The movement could consist of an irregular subsidence of the ground and/or differential strain downslope. Generally, the floor slab should be very rigid and should be structurally tied to the foundation wall so that it acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the structure against rotational torque. Also, the foundation and stem walls should be designed to resist cracking and shear in the event that 6 or more inches of differential settlement should develop during future landslide. RETAINING WALLS For design of retaining walls, we recommend an active lateral soil pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) assuming level backfill compacted and drained as outlined below. If the backfill surface behind the wall is sloped, we should be consulted to revise the lateral soil pressure. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction on the base of the footings and passive resistance on the face of the footings. Frictional resistance can be determined using 0.5 for the coefficient of friction. Passive resistance may be determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf, providing the backfill surface is level and the footings are poured neat against native soil. If the ground surface slopes•downward from the footings, GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 9 we should be consulted. The above values are based on a factor of safety of 1. We recommend that a factor of safety of at least 1.3 for sliding and overturning be used for design. The above active and passive lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with suitable backfill material. We recommend that wall backfill consist of clean, free -draining sand or sand and gravel containing less than S percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 2 feet thick, as measured horizontally. Backfill placed behind the wall not supporting structural elements should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within S feet of a retaining wall. Hand -operated equipment should be used in this zone. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be implemented around the base of the retaining walls. If possible, the wall backfill should be hydraulically connected to the permanent French drain system around the house. If this is not practical, wall subdrains should consist of rigid 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe bedded in pea gravel. The pea gravel should extend a minimum of 6 inches below and 1 foot above the pipe. The drainpipe should discharge into tightlines leading to appropriate collection and disposal systems. Roof drains or other surface water should not discharge into the perforated drain. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT As discussed previously,. we recommend that all concrete floor slabs be structurally tied to the foundation walls. We recommend the floor be stepped to assure adequate and uniform ground support. Alternatively, a crawl space can be left under the slab to minimize the amount of new fill ' placed on the site. If the slab is to be on grade, the slab should be supported on the native soils which must be properly moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted as described above for structural fill. GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 10 STABILITY As discussed in the History section, this site is within the existing Meadowdale landslide complex. It should be realized that there is both a short-term and long-term risk of experiencing ground failure on this site. If the recommended measures are not followed during excavation and construc- tion, there is a high risk that the excavation would trigger a localized landslide. The recommended measures considerably reduce this short-term risk, but do not eliminate the risk all together. The recommended permanent measures (French drains, rigid foundation) can significantly reduce the risk of future landslides. However, it is quite possible that the subject site may be involved in a large-scale slope failure in the future, and the recommendations in this report are not adequate to prevent such an occurrence. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for your use and use by your architects and/or design consultants for use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpreta- tions should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of 'our services does not include services related to con- struction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. - 0 0 o - GeoEngineers Incorporated Mr. Gil Thiry March 10, 1986 Page 11 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Nancy L. Tochko Staff Engineer Jon W. Koloski Principal NLT:JWK:wd Two copies submitted GeoEngineers Incorporated FIGURE i BORING LOG AND SAMPLE DATA KEY DRIVEN SAMPLES BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT OR INDICATED PENETRATION USING POUND HAMMER MOISTURE FALLING INCHES CONTENT "P" INDICATES SAMPLER PUSHED WITH WEIGHT OF HAMMER 28 11.2%D 111 0 INDICATES LOCATION. OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE INDICATES LOCATION OF DISTURBED SAMPLE DRY DENSITY IN PCF ❑ INDICATES LOCATION OF SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO RECOVERY GRAPHIC LOG OTHER TYPES OF SAMPLES SM LETTER SYMBOL SOIL TYPE DISTINCT CONTACT INDICATES LOCATION OF THIN WALL, BETWEEN SOIL STRATA PITCHER, OR OTHER TYPES OF SAMPLES (SEE TEXT) GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA BOTTOM OF BORING UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOL GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL-GRADED S.�L LITTLE OR O�FINE O COARSE GRAVELLY [LITTLE OR NO FINEST GP POORLY -GRACED GRAVELS. GRAVEL - POOSAO GRAINED SOILS Mjnj%:KS. LITTLE OR NO FINES SOILS Mon THAN ,JOY GRAVELS GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -WO -SILT Or COARSE Fes- WITH FINES MIXTIRES T1ON RETAl(fn GC CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SAND -SILT W NO. 4 SIEVE IPPPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL GRADED SAGS. GRAVELLY 5VOS. LITTLE CAR NO FINES S P POORLY -CARDED SMOS. CAAVEIIv SMOS. SANDY SOILS ,LITHE OR NO FINEST MORE T1MH 90% OF MATERIAL IS LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS SM SILTY SAGS. SAp-SILT MIxnRES LARGER TYAAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRAC- TIO+ PAS5116 WITH FINES `O. 4 SIEVE ;APPRECIABLE ANOItFT OF FInESI SG CLAYEY SANS, SAND -CLAY MIx7LRES ML INORC'WIC SILTS. AO VERY FINE SAOS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY O1 CLAYEY FINE FINE SILTS SA.OS OR CLAYEY SILTS MITM SLIWR GRAINED AND LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY LESS SOILS CLAYS THAN 50 INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW M MEOIVN CL PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS. SaOY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AO OPGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOV PLAST IC ITV SILTS MH INI RGAv IC SILTS, MICACEOUS ON 01ATO' MACEOUS FINE SAO OP SILTY SOILS RE MOTTMN xx LIQUID LIMIT OF MATERIAL is 5 jjR�t� AND GREATER CH INORGANIC CLAYS is Mur PLASTICITY 200 CLAYS THAN 50 FAT CLAYS OH DRGANIC CLAYS OF MLDIVN rO NIGN PLASTICITY, W-AN C SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT �AoMGaN"'cscNRSSAAMP �IIs MITM MIu+ NQTE. OWL SYWOLS INDICATE BCNOERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATION GeoEn ineers Inc. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 9 AND KEY TO SAMPLE DATA 1 u I FIGURF J [I I 7 L I I I D (206) 746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N. E Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Mannor Market 3609-164th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: V v= GeoEngineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists June 25, 1986 Supplemental Response to Review Comments Proposed Thiry Residence Edmonds, Washington 917-01 This letter responds to Item Nine of a letter from the City of Edmonds to Gil Thiry dated June 9, 1986 regarding the proposed Thiry residence. The residence is the subject of our report dated May 2, 1986 and our initial response to review comments dated May 29, 1986. Item 9 in the June 9, 1986 City of Edmonds letter indicates that . the subject of total vertical site displacement, in addition to differential displacement, should be addressed in order for the structural engineer to consider impact forces in his analysis and design." In our May 29 letter we recommended that the design basis consider 6 inches to 1 foot of differential movement across the dimensions of the proposed residence. We did not discuss total vertical displacement, since that dimension is (1) relatively less important than the differential displacement, and (2) total vertical displacement is essentially unpre- dictable. We selected the magnitude of differential displacement based on the practical consideration that large scale landslides typically occur in relatively small incremental steps. This characteristic is repeatedly demonstrated throughout the Meadowdale landslide complex. The magnitude of displacement during the 1955 landslide was, in our opinion, extraordinary. Improvements to the landslide area since 1955, including those proposed in conjunction with the Thiry residence, will work k Mr. Gil Thiry June 25, 1986 Page Two to decrease the frequency and magnitude of future landslide movement. Dewatering of the slide area has been aided by the installation of storm sewers and will be further enhanced by the construction of a specific subsurface drainage system in conjunction with the Thiry residence. In addition, the earth excavated in conjunction with the residence construction will weigh many times more than the added weight of the structure. This net weight reduction will reduce the driving force for any future landslide displacement. We emphasize that the prediction of displacement magnitude is an estimate based on our experience. It does not have a theoretical or analytical basis with respect to this specific site. We trust this explaination will be satisfactory for -your needs at this time. If you have further questions or if we can be of further service please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. �JoW. oloski Principal JWK:el GeoEngineers Incorporated (206) 746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N. E Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manor Market 3609 - 164th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: July 28, 1986 Review of Design Plans Proposed Thiry Residence Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 i pie GeoEngineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists In response to your request we have reviewed the design plans for your proposed residence in Edmonds. The plans you provided consist of six drawing sheets prepared by Structural Design Associates, Inc. These plans are dated April 8, 1986 (except Sheet 4 which is dated May 30, 1986). In addition to the plans, you also provided us copies of the notes related to the structural design basis and the calculations pertaining to the design. We noted that the house position on the lot has been revised slightly since our original consultation. The revised position requires considerably less excavation along the east garage wall and will significantly simplify construction of the east foundation wall and subsurface interceptor drain at that location. In our opinion the relocation is an improvement in the overall site development plan. Our review of the design plans indicates general conformance with the recommendations in our report to you dated May 2, 1986. We did not review the design calculations (since we are not structural engineers) but we concur with the design basis stated in the notes. Mr. Gil Thiry July 28, 1986 Page 2 We trust this letter will be satisfactory; if you have any questions, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineeerss�,+ Inc. Jon W. Koloski Principal JWK:e1 GeoEngineers Incorporated (206)746-5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N. E Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manner Market 3609 - 164th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: July 14, 1986 Review of Storm Drainage Plan Proposed Thiry Residence Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 - LAak MR. GeoEngineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists At your request, we have reviewed the drawings and narrative regarding a storm drainage plan for your proposed residence in Edmonds. The narrative report and drawings you supplied were prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc. and are dated June 11, 1986 (plans) and July 7, 1986 (narrative). Our review of the narrative indicates that the author, Mr. Earl J. Bone, P.E., clearly understands the intent of the recommendations presented in our May 2, 1986 report to you. The design drawings for the storm drainage plan also accurately reflect our intentions and recommendations. We trust this letter will satisfy your present requirements. If you or your representatives have any questions, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, ijo:7Koloski Principal JWK:wd Two copies submitted Inc. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGY P.O. BOX 694 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 96020 (206) 778-0907 Mr. Peter Hahn City of Edmonds Civic Center. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Geotechnical Consultation Gil and Jan Thiry Residence Dear Mr. Hahn: ;OUILDING M AY 1'� }3 May 17, 1988 The City of Edmonds (City) has requested Landau Associates, Inc. to .provide geotechnical consultation regarding review of building permit applications in response to Ordinance No. 2661. A scope of services is currently being developed for a Basic Agreement between Landau Associates and the City of Edmonds. However, we understand that an immediate review of the Gil and Jan Thiry application is needed; therefore, this letter is an interim agreement related to that application. The purpose of Landau Associates' services will be to review the geotechnical engineer's reports and other data with the Thiry application and to provide our opinion to the -City regarding the "standard of practice" used by the geotechnical engineer in evaluation of the property. Landau Associates is not to provide independent analyses or investigation. A written report is not anticipated. As we agreed, our services will be on a time and expense basis. Billing for our services will be based on the attached schedule of charges. A budget of $800.is appropriate. Of course,. we will bill for only the time and . expense actually incurred and.will advise you if the budget amount needs modifica- tion. Application information for the Thiry residence has been forwarded to us.' We expect to accomplish the review and meet with your representatives within a week following written authorization and notice to proceed. The City acknowledges that Landau Associates, Inc. is acting in an advisory capacity only. Accordingly, the City agrees to fully indemnify and hold harmless Landau Associates, Inc. from and against any claim, suit, action, or liability arising from the issuance or denial of a building permit, and arising from bodily injury (including death) or property damage resulting from .instability of the property. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to the City. Please return to us one copy of this letter signed in the space provided below. Please contact Mr. Bill Evans or me if you have any questions. Yours very truly, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Robert G. Fulton, P.E. ! Vice President AUTHORIZATION The scope of services and contractual conditions as described in this -proposal are accepted and Landau Associates, Inc., is authorized to proceed. By signature printed For the City of.Edmonds date RGF:ss attachment G-88 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. COMPENSATION SCHEDULE - 1988 Personnel Hourly Rate Principal Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $77 Associate Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $68 Senior Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $62 Senior Environmental Planner $52 Project Engineer/Geologist/Hydrologist $52 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Hydrogeologist $45 Technician $34 Technical Illustrator/Librarian $33 Word Processing (including equipment) $32 Support Staff $24 Expert testimony in court, arbitration, $125 or public hearings Equipment Field, laboratory, and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request. Transportation Use of vehicle for field work - $12.50/per half day. Mileage - Thirty cents ($.30) per mile. Subcontractor Services and other.Expenses Term Actual subcontractor billing and all other expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized services are charged at cost plus fifteen percent (15%). The charge for high risk field operations will be negotiated on an individual project basis. A new Compensation Schedule is issued at the beginning of each year. Unless other arrangements are made, charges for all work, including continuing projects initiated in the previous year, will be based on the latest Compensation Schedule. G-1/88 / �4+ Geo ,p ngineers June 15, 1988 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Ms. Kimberlee A. McDonald 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza, Suite 3200 Seattle, Washington 98154 Dear Ms. McDonald: Meadowdale Permit Submittal Checklist Geotechnical Declaration Thiry Residence .Edmonds, Washington` (y File No. 0917-01-2 We have reviewed the plan for the Thiry residence in Edmonds by Structural Design Associates dated April 8, 19�. In our judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in our revised geotechnical report titled, "Geotechnical Services, Residential Site, 15800 Block, 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington",. dated May 2, 1986. In our judgment, the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. As noted in the report, the subjective probability of earth movement at the site is 30 percent within a 25-year period. This probability should decrease after the residence has been constructed following the guidelines outlined in the report. Quantification of the decrease in probability is not possible at this time. Design measures recommended to mitigate the slide hazard to the residence include structural stiffening to strengthen the structure against possible ground movement and construction of a permanent inter- ceptor drainage trench upslope of the residence. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746-5200 Fax.(206) 746-5068 '�` , 9�y' �< < r � v � .. q, j J 'r^ � i. "J °='" ;} ;,•t ire :.1- �•,� C , i r^r V � .�^' �4fii� t��. _-9''* '�" }�.t�," .i 5s,��,'^'f.+ �.. „;. -. .. :'-� �.. ..-:. � .��5., 3.� v..f.:.,.�-�. F�..:'�t.,....,:•�«�. ,,..... ... ,, .zyx , �aM,m . • P .�+s*, sx,-�,�,... � �a. _ ,� 2"re . Ms. Kimberlee A. McDonald June 15, 1988 Page 2 We trust this letter is satisfactory. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. 1 Gary W. Henderson Principal GMD:GWH:wd ��'� Geoff Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry c/o Manor Market 3609 - 164th Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Dear Mr. Thiry: May 2, 1986 Revised Report Geotechnical Services Residential Site 15800 Block, 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 917-01 INTRODUCTION Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations relative to development of a residential site in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The property is located on the west side of 75th Place West in the 15800 Block. Our services for this project are provided in general accordance with our agreement dated February 3, 1986; authorization to proceed was received on February 9, 1986. With your concurrence we departed from our original scope of services because very soft ground conditions at the time of our field studies required extensive site improvements to provide access for the drilling machine to the boring sites. To minimize the extra charges, we reduced the number of our borings from three to two. This report is revised from our earlier version dated March 10, 1986. The revision is to clarify our description of slope stability risk, and certain of the engineering recommendations. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746-5200 Fax.(206) 746-5068 r .� � k.Yr M�'�'�-3.��. � � �;,�ra'fi5� S`'�,��5 .� s7�+�`�" , is�.�ru 4 E i � "�,.,rp�, 4-11 r��{ "mow. .�S i';. x> y� ..+C? .nc ... ` .fi = §'['fife', d ti _ V.Ws.,, � •• t•; Geo 1�Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 2 We understand that you are planning to construct a single-family residence on the site. The residence will be of wood frame construction and will be located as far toward the northeast portion of the lot as is practi- cal. The lowest floor elevation will be about 5 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface at the potential northeast building corner which you have staked in the field. The purpose of our services is to provide a general feasibility evalua- tion together with the geotechnical criteria for design of the house. Specifically, our work includes: 1. Exploration of subsurface conditions by drilling two borings. 2. Review of documentation pertaining to past landslides which may influence the feasibility of development plans for this site.. 3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and drainage to minimize the impact on site stability. 4. Provide recommendations for design of foundations and retaining 1 walls. The subject site is located on the west side of 75th Place West, immediately south of an extension of 158th Avenue West. There are no buildings or other improvements on the lot at this time. The site slopes downward to the south and west from the northeast property corner. Adjacent to 75th Place West the ground surface slopes down relatively steeply for a distance of about 5 to 15 feet; the higher slope is at the north slope of the lot. West of the steep slope the ground surface slopes downward gradually to the west over a distance of about 150 feet from the east property line. The west property line is located along the crest of a very steep slope which is about 30 to 40 feet in height and which marks the edge of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Elevations across the site range from a high of about 95 feet above sea level in the northeast corner to approximately Elevation 60 feet along the east margin of the railroad easement. HISTORY The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide complex, an area in which numerous large and small earth movements, have occurred within the 2 Geo, ,i En neers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 3 last 30 years. This area is the subject of a landslide hazards investigation by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, dated October 16, 1979), of which the undersigned was the principal author. The site which is the subject of this consultation is located in an area classified the 1979 RLAI report as "4A90" This designation identifies a landslide hazard due to failure from previously failed material, that the failure would likely include a considerable depth of material, and that there was a 90 percent probability that such a failure may occur during a 25—year period. A large landslide which occurred in 1955 resulted in a ground failure and displacement of 5 to 10 feet vertically on a line which appears to traverse the site. A house which formerly occupied this location has. been removed and some site regrading has been accomplished. We showed you newspaper photographs and discussed the 1955 landslide with you in conjunction with our field studies. That 1979 landslide hazards map was developed on the basis of conditions prior to construction of the Meadowdale sewer and storm drainage project. The relative landslide hazard was reevaluated in 1985 by our firm and we concluded that the conditions which exist today are less hazardous, due primarily to a declining water table; however, even if no further site development occurs risk still exists. We concluded that the 1985 risk is on the order of 30 percent probability in 25 years. We also concluded in 1979 and 1985 that with time and continued drainage improvements the relative risk of large landslides will diminish. The implementation of grading and drainage measures as described below for the proposed Thiry residence are specifically beneficial to reducing the long— term risk, but that reduction cannot be quantified at this time. The recommendations in this report are directed toward avoiding localized slope stability problems and to minimize damage to the proposed Thiry residence should significant movements occur. Geo ��Enoeers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 4 SITE CONDITIONS Within the defined property lines the site is presently bare of vegeta- tion except for very sparse grass. This condition is the result of grading following removal of the former building(s). The western steeply sloping portion of the site is heavily vegetated with blackberry vines, brush and small deciduous trees. At the time of our field studies the ground surface was very soft due to surface and shallow subsurface water. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings extending to depths of 28 and 34 feet. The borings were drilled with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig. A representative from our firm maintained continuous. logs of the explorations, and obtained samples of the soils encountered. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Classification System as described in Figure 1. The samples were returned to our laboratory for further examination. Subsurface conditions at the site consist of sand deposits overlying glacially consolidated silt. Boring 1, located west of the proposed house encountered a surficial layer of sandy silt overlying massive silt. The silt was soft and saturated to a depth of about 5 feet. Below 5 feet, the silt became stiffer, becoming hard at a depth of about 9.5 feet. Boring 2, located in the eastern portion of the lot, within the proposed building site, encountered 17-1/2 feet of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand. The sand was saturated at a depth of about 7.5 feet. Stiff to hard silt was encountered below the sand to the depth explored. CONCLUSIONS AND BECOMENDATIONS GENE=RAT. The material which underlies the site has previously failed in at least one large-scale landslide. The risk of reoccurrence of such a landslide has been reduced due to a declining .water table in the area. This water table decline has been caused, at least in part, by implementation of a storm and sanitary sewer system. The improvements proposed below will further reduce that risk by removing the weight of excavated soil and by additional subsur- face water collection and disposal. The risk reduction will remain effective l� Geo Enoeers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 5 as long as the overall storm and sanitary drainage system is operational. The magnitude of total risk reduction is significant but cannot be accurately quantified at this time. As mentioned previously, our recommendations in this report are directed toward prevention of small localized slope movements and to minimize damage to the structure should movements occur. Special care must be taken to maintain the stability of the slope and street uphill from the house both during and following construction. In our opinion, with adequate care and practice in the design and construction of drainage, earthwork and the structure foundations, the site can be developed for a residence. You must be aware that the measures recommended below will make this site significantly more expensive to develop than would be normal for a similar house on a lot without the type and.history of earth movement as occur at this site. Removal of the former building and recent grading activity has obscured 4_ evidence of the former ground movement and has also resulted in the existing ground surface being locally very soft. We understand that the house will likely be placed such that an approxi- mately 6-foot cut will be required at the northeast building corner. The success of excavation and prevention of small slope failures will be dependent on proper excavation and drainage measures. This includes collection and removal of existing subsurface seepage prior to and during earthwork opera- tions. As stabilization measure, permanent drains should be included in the design of the house. DRAINAGE Prior to excavation, drainage measures must be provided upslope of the planned cut areas. Construction drainage measures should include a permanent French drain upslope of the cut area and a pipeline system to carry the water to an area where the water will not affect construction activities or have a negative effect on site stability. The French drain constructed prior to excavation should be excavated to at least one foot below the planned bottom of the deepest portion of the basement foundation excavation. This drain should include a perforated Geo 1. ®En - eers �� Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 6 collector pipe 6 inches in diameter and composed of corrugated metal or heavy—duty rigid plastic (PVC). The common light weight corrugated flexible plastic pipe is not acceptable. The pipe should be enclosed in at least 6 inches of 7/8—inch washed gravel and the balance of the trench should be backfilled with washed pea gravel. A trench box or other shoring should be utilized to support the trench walls until backfill is placed. No more than 10 feet of unsupported trench should be open at one time. Based on the existing ground configuration and on the observed subsurface conditions, this drain should be at least 12 to 15 feet deep at the proposed northeast building corner. Construction of the drain should begin at the downstream end and progress upstream relative to the flow direction in the pipe. As the foundation is constructed, an additional permanent drain system should be installed around the perimeter of the house and at any location where water is observed or might collect against the subsurface wall. We recommend that this French drain have a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 1 foot below the bottom of the footing. This French drain should be constructed as outlined above and backfilled with clean, well — graded sand and gravel or washed pea gravel. Four —inch perforated pipe should be bedded in the backfill approximately 4 to 5 inches above the bottom of the trench. The water from all of the French drains should be tightlined down the slope to the ditch adjacent to the railroad tracks. Roof drains and all runoff collected from pavements should be connected to a tightline collection and disposal system which is separate from the French drain lines. SITS PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that the hog fuel placed during exploration be removed from the site. Soil excavated from the basement or drain trenches also should be removed from the site since it will likely be wet and generally unusable as fill except as noted below. No fill should be placed within 20 feet of the western steeply sloping portion of the site. We strongly recommend that the design of site work avoid the requirement for any fill embankments more than 2 feet in height. Geo FEnoeers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 7 To minimize the risk of slope movements during construction, particularly along the east wall and eastern portion of the north wall, we recommend that the excavation and retaining wall construction proceed in a series of segments or "slot cuts". We recommend that each segment or slot be no more than 15 feet in length. Each segment of retaining wall and permanent wall drain should be constructed and completely backfilled prior to excavating the next slot cut. Temporary cut slopes of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be feasible within the slots. It should be expected that the face of the excavation may experience some sloughing and raveling. The cut slope should be covered with heavy plastic sheeting when necessary to minimize erosion and sloughing resulting from exposure to rainfall. , Where there is not room enough for temporary slopes .of 1 to 1 or flatter, we recommend that shoring be provided. Because of the large variety of shoring systems, it is customary for the contractor to design the shoring. We should be retained to review the shoring design. Prior to placing any fill, all vegetation and topsoil should be removed. The exposed surface should then be compacted to a firm, nonyielding condi- tion. Where fill is placed on an existing slope, the fill should be keyed in by cutting level benches so that the contact between the fill and existing ground is horizontal. Any fill placed on the site should be properly conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with the ASTM D-1557 method, unless otherwise specified below. All structural fill material should be free of debris and organic contaminants. The suitability of material for use as fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. We recommend that structural fill consist of free -draining sand and gravel containing no more than about 5 percent fines for placement in wet weather. During wet weather, material V Geo o sEngineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 8 with more fines may be used. Sand and gravel below the upper 2 to 3 feet in the eastern portion of the house may be usable for fill during dry weather. The silt and clayey silt visible on the existing ground surface will not be suitable for use as compacted fill. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the house be supported on spread footings founded directly on the medium dense native sand or the stiff to hard native silt. The minimum depth of embedment for all footings should be 18 inches below the lowest adjacent external grade. It is likely that soft soils might be encountered during footing excavations. If soft soils are present at footing grades, we recommend that the soil be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet and replaced with structural fill. The zone of structural fill should extend a distance equal to one-half the footing width on each side of the footing; the fill should be compacted as specified above. We recommend minimum widths of 16 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. For foundations designed and constructed as recommended, an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used. For retaining walls, an average bearing of value 2000 psf may be used and maximum edge pressures should be below 3000 psf. This value applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads exclusive of the weight of the footings and any overlying backfill. - We estimate that footing settlements will be less than 1/2 inch, total and differential. It is imperative that the footings be founded on undisturbed native soils or on properly placed structural fill, as the recommended bearing pressure and settlement estimates are based on this condition. We recommend that GeoEngineers, Inc. be retained to observe all footing excavations to evaluate that suitable bearing soils have been exposed. Any loose, softened or disturbed soil present in footing excavations should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill. We recommend that the foundation design consider the possibility that future ground movement may occur. The movement could consist of an irregular subsidence of the ground and/or differential strain downslope. Geo -@En ' eers �,� Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 9 Protection of the house against potential future damage by ground movement can be accomplished in two basic ways. First, the entire house retaining wall and foundation system could be designed as a "rigid box." This mechanism would permit rotation or deflection of the entire structure without sustaining structural damage. This technique would require substan- tial bracing and stiffening of the structure and, in our opinion, is not very practical or cost-effective. The second method, and one which we recommend, includes the superstruc- ture of the house being supported on, but not structurally attached to, the foundation. With this procedure, the house frame could be releveled indepen- dently of the foundation elements. The foundation can be integral with, or separate from, the retaining walls along the north and east property margins. Your structural engineer and architect will be able to develop the means for achieving the recommended design options. We would be pleased to discuss that issue with him. Generally, the floor slabs should also be very rigid and should be structurally tied to the foundation walls so that the slab acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the structure against rotational torque. Also, the foundation and stem walls should be designed to resist bending or shear in the event that unpredictable differential settlement should develop in the future. RETAINING WALLS For design of retaining walls, we recommend an active lateral soil pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) assuming level backfill compacted and drained as outlined below. If the backfill surface slopes upward from behind the wall, the lateral soil pressure value should be increased to account for the imposed surcharge. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction on the base of the footings and passive resistance on the face of the footings. Frictional resistance can be determined using 0.5 for the coefficient of friction. Passive resistance may be determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf, providing the backfill surface is level and the footings are poured neat against native soil. If the ground surface slopes downward from the footings, Geo SON Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 10 we should be consulted. The above values are based on a factor of safety of 1. We recommend that a factor of safety of at least 1.3 for sliding and overturning be used for design. The above active and passive lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with clean, free -draining sand or sand and gravel con- taining less than 5 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 2 feet thick horizontally. Backfill placed behind the wall and not supporting structural elements should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within 5 feet of a retaining wall. Hand - operated equipment should be used in this zone. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be implemented around the base of the retaining walls. If possible, the wall backfill should be hydraulically connected to the permanent French drain system around the house. If this is not practical, wall subdrains should consist of rigid 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe bedded in pea gravel. The pea gravel should extend a minimum of 6 inches below and 1 foot above the pipe. The drainpipe should discharge into tightlines leading to appropriate collection and disposal systems. Roof drains or other surface water should not discharge into the perforated drain. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT As discussed previously, we recommend that all concrete floor slabs be structurally tied to the foundation walls. We recommend the floor be stepped to assure adequate and uniform ground support. Alternatively, a crawl space can be left under the slab to minimize the amount of new fill placed on .the site. If the slab is to be on grade, the slab should be supported on the native soils which must be properly moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted as described above for structural fill. STABILITY As discussed in the History section, this site is within the existing Meadowdale landslide complex. If the recommended measures are not followed during excavation and construction, there is a high risk that the excavation Geo Qel pEngineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 11 would trigger a localized landslide. The recommended measures considerably reduce the short—term risk and also reduce the long—term risk. As with any project involving significant cuts or fills the measures planned do not eliminate the risk all together. We strongly recommend that this report be referenced somehow on the property ownership deed. This process will aid in disclosure to future owners, the details of risk assessment included herein. In addition, that reference will aid the owner in documentation of the effort expended to improve the property. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Gil Thiry and by his architects and/or design consultants for use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to con— struction safety precautions and our recommendations are 'not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. - 0 0 o — Geo�Engineers Mr. Gil Thiry May 2, 1986 Page 12 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. HENpF 9s0 1 /yam co L 1 12979 q-.- STEU. �� - L EV� NLT:GWH:JWK:wd Attachments Four copies submitted Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Gary W. Henderson Principal 011(el;14�- ion W. Koloski Principal FIGURE 1 BORING LOG AND SAMPLE DATA KEY DRIVEN SAMPLES BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT OR INDICATED PENETRATION USING POUND HAMMER MOISTURE FALLING INCHES CONTENT 28 "P" INDICATES SAMPLER PUSHED WITH WEIGHT OF HAMMER 11.20 111 INDICATES LOCATION OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE DRY DENSITY ® INDICATES LOCATION OF DISTURBED SAMPLE IN PCF ❑ INDICATES LOCATION OF SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO RECOVERY OTHER TYPES GRAPHIC LOG OF SAMPLES SM LETTER SYMBOL SOIL TYPE INDICATES LOCATION OF THIN WALL, DISTINCT CONTACT PITCHER, OR OTHER TYPES OF BETWEEN SOIL STRATA SAMPLES (SEE TEXT) GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN Ll SOIL STRATA BOTTOM OF BORING UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAND COARSE AND MIXRRES. LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAINED SOILS GP SAND DEO GRAVELS. GRAVEL - SOILS OR FINES ,OM THAN sox GRAVELS GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL-W4-SILT Tta et7eitNi� °F COARSE Fm WITH FINES MIXTUREs ON NO. a SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT OF FINES) GC MIXTURES SAND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS. AND LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDY SOILS tLITTL.E OR NO FINES) MORE TN(AH sox Sp POORLY -GRADED secs. raAveur SANDS. OF MATERIAL IS LITTLE OR NO FINES Lam$ THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE � F�_ SANDSTION SM SILTY SANDS. SAND -SILT MIXTURES NO. O. � SIEVE p�� WITH FINES " (APPRECIABLE AMOWT ` OF FINES) SC CLAYEY SANDS. SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS. AM VERY FINE SA OS. FINE SILTS ML SSANDSFLOUR OR CLAYEY SILLTTS�WITTH SLIGHT GRAINED AND LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY LESS SOILS CLAYS THAN 50 INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM CL PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY SILTS MH INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR OIATD- MORE T1m 50% LIQUID LIMIT MICEOUS FINE SANG OR SILTY SOILS OF ITM„'W. AND GREATER M SIEVE sIZE THAN 5O CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF NIGH PLASTICITY CLAYSFAT OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT. HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS MOTE. DUAL SYMBOLS INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATION GeoEngineers Inc. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND KEY TO SAMPLE DATA f I(zUKt 00 A BORING 1 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 62.FEET *GRAPHIC 0 *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION li$02-If ORANGE -BROWN FINE TO'MEDIUM SAND WITH ML SILT (LOOSE, WET) (FILL?) 4 GRAY SILT WITH ROOTS AND WOOD DEBRIS (SOFT, WET) (FILL?) 5 ML 4 MOTTLED LIGHT AND DARK GRAY SILT (MEDIUM. STIFF, MOIST) 4 N w 23 w 10 GRADES TO HARD z H 47 a w . A 15 20 30 70 III rl .GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) 25 50 SILT SEAM AT 27 FEET 311 BORING COMPLETED AT 28 FEET ON 2/20/86 30 J PIEZOMETER INSTALLED TO 28 FEET PIEZOMETER DRY ON 2/20/86 *SEE :BEY FOR EXPLANATION OF SY.MBOL.S GeoEngineers Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATION r1UuKt 0 E 15 20 25 30 35 BORING 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 81 FEET *GRAPHIC *TEST DATA LOG DESCRIPTION SW ORANGE -BROWN GRAVELLY -FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 7 SM BECOMES SILTY 13 m SATURATED AT 7.5 FEET 10 13 SW- GRAY GRAVELLY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH SILT SM (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) SP- GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL SM (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) 19 ML GRAY SILT (STIFF, MOIST) 18 86 m 42 L i GRAY SILT (HARD, MOIST) BORING COMPLETED AT 34.0 FEET ON 2/20/86 GROUND WATER MEASURED AT 13.5 FEET ON 2/20/86 *SEE ?BEY FOR EXPLANATION OF SYA901,S Geolingineers Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATION Geo ko Engineers 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746.5200 Fax. (206) 746-5068 TO Mr. Gil Thiry, c/o Manor Market . 3.60-9 - 164th. Street -.-SW _. Lynnwood, Washington 98037 WE ARE SENDING YOU �� Attached �• Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter E-1 Change order L[F=VT'[Ea of UIRRASEUT &A, DATE JOB NO. September 20, 1988 0917-02-2 ATTENTION Mr. Gil Thiry RE Construction Monitoring of Intercepto Trench and Footings following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION - 1 1 9/7/88 Field Report No. 1 1 9/9/88 Field Report No. 2 1 9/12/88 Field Report No. 3 1 9/13/88 Field Report No. 4 1 9/15/88 I Field Report No. 5 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: C...l For approval ❑ Approved as submitted M For your use ❑ Approved as noted As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ _ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS REt,.I_1VED SEP 2 21988 PLAN"M DEPT.. l 7 Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution 0 Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: Jh If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Brian R. Beaman GeoEngineers Inc. J-t)k 2405 - 140th Ave. N-E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746-5200 / FIELD REPORT File No. Oqr -a2 - Z Project: �,Te C e � � o�e-rA Date: Owner: 7-;— 1 /t , Report No. Lar 'by: Location: E�o d Arrival Time: Page:!nc Of ose of Visit: hs i +r -) J x c.0 log Weather: Depart. Time: iPermit Nc. /'! e.. i / O �X t O. G ' 0L � �i ,•, 44- d / f Ct I) �i Two f iGt TP /1 rT s-Ji - 067- d 1 or t J / /YL 1 L J La v l//f ' End M el r -1' d. i /- I to fn ,/ G t P- 1 all P � f C- P r i � O./•n '-e n d, r _ J n, V, iC, U r-- Pry' of OQ- T-1/� f 4L �ollc 1-, a pf JJ \ j1 e 1 J v %a 1 41 o f — r o w3 a > -T �v� 2X,oc7yG i nT 12��/GtTI ❑/1 _ I a. t )i Cv� % 1e- It € N G JL_- r; . This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not Include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job c, site safety On this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed: r4,-2 GEI 45-87 GeoEngineers Inc. -� FIELD REPORT le F'ag17-_oZ__z 1 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Project: Date: Bellevue, WA98005 —9_B8 (206) 746-5200 caner: Report No. Prepared by: Location: Arrival Time: Page: ` 13(ZiA J TPrA A warn-o ff of t Purpose of Visit: Weather. Depart. Time: Permit No. O / - f -Tn C W f nn +t A kllmw -From eA' ra W- Cff' iW Cornier) 2� Ca Tnis report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespecliva of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or.direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or acon13. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed: 2zorz� GeoEngineers Inc. 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. 771V Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746-5200 I c (,cam FIELD REPORT File No. 051 -o2_Z Prot: ' Date: 9 _ 12 _8(5 Owner: Report No. Prepared by: Locati9n. / �✓ Arrival Time: Page: of Purpose of Visit: Weather: Depart. Time: Permit No. This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotachnlcal engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespectl" of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor. his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: C Distribution: Signed: GeoEngineers Inc ,Tr.✓�1 2405 -140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746-5200 � y7— FIELD REPORT File No. o 7 t 7 -Oz-z- z Project: Naw al Date: q' _/ -68 Owner. A t , , Report No Prepared -by- &',', Location: Ell" 1; Arrival Time: Page: of t Purpose of Visit: t,/.�yGf'✓L �7� �" f7,,�1/i.t!-� LIIJ/�' w� Weather: �n.�-. �t%0. r n.� Depart. Time: Permit No. K/0 � K ` / n - �io /O 1 ' � f r t : n O� Gr Iar t � ��--0 .. � ¢ t r • �e Tti J t `-� � 7D � r' i A ? / -• r r � .�'f'r d .i' � r% S �� P o� •' T i .r, r' r r"t+ ' b 9 VJi onr�J 71•rit . ,l r:. .- P t •. w �r� T � 1.... V �/ r l e�•C.. O l o f q V t U n O �1 n � 1 !i✓:: �'G / v� J �1 i O O ti� ! �'t t -ram _ 7� e- as )' 1(r , /ZLZ, -r-- c.., // w „ 1r Jam, �z LAIt h. v„ v This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not Include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: ,5, fL P411 Distribution: Signed: GeoEngineers Inc. ,J"we 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746-5200 3�" FIELD REPORT File No. OT/ 7-Oz-2- Project: e Date: q - js_ Ga Owner: 7; Report No. \ Prepared by: Location: Arrival Time: Page:/ Purpose of Visit: Q+<s'e�ve_ �afr? �XG�ct/af(o� Weather: Clov� Depart. Time: Permit No. W /4- rri - �/ /OSti G't'r4 RILi-r / 00('-, ez (ond, SO r/7�4 Wct�/ O I e, i r C-Gn i v. L.j2 . 7- / I nn5 " ( 5 1 `- r; s, 11 C Sci i d� tn�r (J SQNQ r yr i.� o J. Mn Ivn, tr: r v a e) ) t /!.l ilO ✓n .�/(CJn �'l� � •J� t�� (//r)� 1: 0 -L' r� .y1lr � u ;L'� vJ � � � '9 CT it i r., i , I i ., n �"� vJ r � 9 ' � - • / [ a JI J I - . I -'� •` C. - T' /�, • - [� n i� �. , .• 1 .l O H iCr.)�— P T . O .. Ct/ O I) �o A -, 1 /r J 1\O rT..•+ on 1, r l i� OD; n,�n 1T1� Ipuijn /I v i i 7 I 1 421 J .l G:� r. S /�.A /f`•: 3 r'J ! r.'/ �- `ri r / `, 1 0 •r r � �� n, I S � 1 ooTr ,.., a � st Tn T, /r, a ro v n Gr G.. i l F rid , 'irs-) — -L (• ".c. �I �ti f`J 1 ... ♦ i 'J , 1 1 H C.l...- i l.' / f �.�.� / L •' 1 'v r n a ! e✓r0.YV iJ A iaQ c L%/, 1� G /^VI• i✓Art� (I 71-/ jr>F44- r- x r a 1...cj' cry -r .� 1 Z , , , SL, -JJ " le OLT- -4 J) �. Li� Il nw tr �7VC-' e i �L 't r-. r /_ r l.k' U i1 I , O r' ! r- !� ? A 1 r n c. I n i . air, r 1 iP r r P n IPA- l I r, r 7LJ, /cJ o -• +-L -r Ti n Q 1 T r 1 Ja-) LE ti" t :J This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the -plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed: GeoEngineers Inc. 2405 -140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746-5200 FIELD REPORT File No. D *7 -o-Z -Z Project: n Mew , Date: ; Owner: Report No. Prepared by: Location: Arrival Time: Page: of Z i Purpose of Visit:�- [ / D�G�ivL 1D0rf� 2X Hvtjiu� Weather: / &-/,v . Depart. Time: Permit No. t / 3 }} i r I r _ 1 �I I Area 1 1 r � :> u i L aegis This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not Include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed: RESTRAVE COVENANT/EQUITABLE SERVITUD: FOR MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES For the purpose of keeping upstream and downstream properties free from any adverse consequences of surface water which may have been accelerated or increased in volume as a result of activities on their property, pursuant to City of Edmonds requirements, have installed certEl%h drainage facilities. Said facilities have been designed by Western Surveyors, Inc. engineers and are in accordance with the City of Edmonds drainage regulations. In order for the drainage facilities to operate properly, they must be regularly maintained by no less than an annual inspection of catch basins and piping followed by cleaning and servicing the drainage system as may be necessary to maintain design operation. Accordingly, y i h �- $i,�t- i y , agree and covenant that they and their heirs, buccessors a-ftd assigns, will annually inspect the catch basins and piping, and clean and service the drainage system, as required to maintain design operation as long as the approved drainage facilities on the below -described property remain a private storm -water detention system and/or water treatment facility. This agreement shall be construed as a restrictive covenant and/or equitable servitude running with the land, and shall be binding upon the undersigned owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, in perpetuity, or until the private drainage system is dedicated to the public, if ever. This covenant/servitude shall be solely binding on the below - described property and shall not be construed as a covenant relating to any other properties upstream or downstream over which present or future owners may have no control unless specifically detailed herein: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 29, OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF VACATED 75TH AVE. WEST .LYING ADJACENT. COVENA14TED this _ �-- day of , 19�, Appl�nt's Name Appl/ycant I s Name STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) L - y On this day personally appeared before me 191. to me known to -be the individuals described in and who execu ed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this of //yd 6,.s i , 19,EL. r// NOTARY PUBLI in and for the State of Was ington, residing at JOB 86-107 L47 07-30-86 PAGE 1 OF 1 day BUILDING AU G - 6 1986 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT/EQUITABLE SERVITUDE FOR MAI14TENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES For the purpose of keeping upstream and downstream j properties free from any adverse consequences of surface water which may have been accelerated or increased in volume as a result of activities on their property,` pursuant to City of Edmonds requirements, have installed cerrtt� drainage facilities. Said facilities have been designed by Western Surveyors, Inc. engineers and are in accordance with the City of Edmonds drainage regulations. In order for the drainage facilities to operate properly, they must be regularly maintained by no less than an annual inspection of catch basins and piping followed by cleaning and servicing the drainage system as may be necessary to maintain design operation. Accordingly, rr��' �f l agree and covenant that they and their heirs,'successors aftd assigns, will annually inspect -the catch basins and piping, and clean and service the drainage system, as required to maintain design operation as long as the approved drainage facilities on the below -described property remain a private storm -water detention system and/or water treatment facility. This agreement shall be construed as a restrictive covenant and/or equitable servitude running with the land, and shall be binding upon the undersigned owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, in perpetuity, or until the private drainage system is dedicated to the public, if ever. This covenant/servitude shall be solely binding on the below - described property and shall not be construed as a covenant relating to any other properties upstream or downstream over which present or future owners may have no control unless specifically detailed herein: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 29, OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF VACATED 75TH AVE. WEST LYING ADJACENT. COVENANTED this --- day of CU Lzj— P App1j,4_-gnt' s Name Appl.11cant' s Name STATE OF WAShINGTON )ss COU14TY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me T to me known to -be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this of //06-&'_ST , 19Z11L. 7 NOTARY PUBLin and for the State of Was ington, residing at JOB 86-107 L47 07-30-86 PAGE 1 OF 1. 6 day BUILDING AUG - 6 1986 r PRQ7ECP REVIEW C ST f PRC = NAME: //� // /`/�y/ �j1�f -� P ADDRESS : fr APPLICATION REKEIPT DATE: �--- Reviewed by: (initial/date) COMMENTS PLANNING -WPR/SWR STREET qLQMDrcr— TIRE BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY/MULTIPLE/CODE-RCIAL - (Circle"One) //%/// /%// m /,// %//////// SETBACKS CHECKED - Planning //////// 77777777 ////// // VARIANCE/SETBACK ADJ. / / / / /////// CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 2 / ///////// ADB REQUIREMENTS CHECKED ////// ///////// //////// //////////11 OTHER ZONING REQUIRFMEN'I'S ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 4 s ��2�✓ ENVIRONMENTAL FIATURFS 's/%� . W/// ///////// //////// 5 G ACCESS SLOPE & VEHICLE ACCESS - / o ///////// ///////// //////// 6 T17777711 / / DRAINAGE PLAN '(On Site) / / //// .//////// 7 STREET FILE `7/` ////// ///////// ///////// //////// 8 DESCRIPTICN VERIFICATION O 1G 9 _LEGAL 11117TITI /// ////// QUIT CLAIM/DEDICATIONS , ///////// ///////// //////// 10 / // EAS04M - PUBLIC/PRIVATE ///////// ///////// //////// 11 CAIMATE SEWER CONNECTION IF NO LID# o210 ////// ///////// ///////// ////////1 12 ////// / / / / PLAT/SUBDIVISION RErXJIREME TPS ///////// //////// 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY CONS"IRUCPICN PERMIT REQD ////// ///////// ///////// 14 BOND READ FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 71.0 ////// //./////// l////lll/.////l//l 15 SOILS CONDITIONS & GROUND WATER FIELD CIfEaED ////// ///////// ///////// //////// 16 STREET PAVING REQUIRED ////// ///////// ////////1 17 CURB AND GTPTER REQUIRED ////// ///////// ///////// ////////// 18 SIDEWALK REQUIRED ////// ///%///// ///////// 19 / / / / / CURB CUT FOR DRIVEWAY READ 20 — // 7 7 7 7 7 TITITTFIT TITFITfR7 STREET NAME SIGN REQD ///////// ///////// ////////// 21 M11ER SIGNING REQD //.//// ///////// ///////// ////////// 22 TfTF171 SIDE SEWER AVAILABILITY ////// ///////// ///////// //////// 23 - TT EXISTING WATER MAIN SIZE ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 24 WATER KTI`ER SIZE ////// ///////// ///////./ ////////// 25 / TIT SERVICE LINE SIZE ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 26 HYDRANT REQUIRED ///////// ///////// //////// ////////// 27 /// / TTITIT/ HYDRANT SIZE EXISTING ////// /// 28 CROSS CONNECTION INSPECTION REQD ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 29 WATER METER CHARGE READ ////// ///////// //////// /// 30 / / TF1 TF1 T1// FIRE LINE CHARGE READ - SPRINKLER ///////// 31 STREET CUT ////// ///////// //// 32 OPEN DITCH EXISTING ////// /////////.///////// 33 / /. / / / / / / REQD ////// ///.////// ///////// 34 CULVERT REED ////// ///////// ////'///// 35 SIZE ////// ///////// ///////// 36 /// CATCH BASIN REQD ////// ///////// ///////// 37 INDICATED ON SITE PLAN ////// ///////// ///////// 38 SHOULDER DRAINAGE MAINTAIN / SHALE OPEN RUNOFF ////// ///////// ///////// 39 MISC: ///////// ///////// 40 M • REVIEWED BY: PLANNING MGR. FNGMEERING MGR. PUBLIC WORKS MGR. • r� RESTRICTIVE COVENANT/EQUITABLE SERVITUDE FOR MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES For the purpose of keeping upstream and downstream properties free from any adverse consequences of surface water which may have been accelerated or increased in volume as a result of activities on their property, q WGT 7#1 pursuant to City of Edmonds requirements, have installed cer� drainage facilities. Said facilities have been designed by Western Surveyors, Inc. engineers and are in accordance with the City of Edmonds drainage regulations. In order for the drainage facilities to operate properly, they must be regularly maintained by no less than an annual inspection of catch basins and piping followed by cleaning and servicing the drainage system as may be necessary to maintain design operation. Accordingly, agree and covenant that they and their heirs, buccessors a assigns, will annually inspect the catch basins and piping, and clean and service the drainage system, as required to maintain design operation as long as the approved drainage facilities on the below -described property remain a private storm -water detention system and/or water treatment facility. This agreement shall be construed as a restrictive covenant and/or equitable servitude running with the land, and shall be binding upon the undersigned owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, in perpetuity, or until the private drainage system is dedicated to the public, if ever. This covenant/servitude shall be solely binding on the below - described property and shall not be construed as a covenant relating to any other properties upstream or downstream over which present or future owners may have no control unless specifically detailed herein: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 29, OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF VACATED 75TH AVE. WEST LYING ADJACENT. COVENANTED this day of 0, 19it . App14(cant's Name STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this'day personally appeared before me <�Ta, g 7 M. Ti/i.2 , to me known to -be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this r day of 7 NOTARY PUBL n and for the State of Was ington, residing at JOB 86-107 L47 07-30-86 PAGE 1 OF 1 BUILDING AU G - 6 1986 r BURLINGTON NORTHERN- RAILROAD • Western Surveyors,.Inc. 13322 Hiway 99 South Everett, WA - 98204:- Attention: Earl'J. Bone, P. E. 86-107. Gentlemen: 2000 First Interstate Center 999 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1105 July 23, 1986 Re: Permit No..PX86-16063 for 6" water drain at EDMONDS, WA. Attached is copy of completed agreement for your file. This will also acknowledge receipt of GILBERT L. THIRY'S cashier's check No. 5239948 dated July.21, 1986, in the amount of $450.00, to cover the permit fee .for the ENTIRE PERIOD'. Before beginningany work on our right-of-way, 48 hours'.advance notice must be given to Roadmaster M. J. FORGEY so he can make any arrangements he deems necessary. His telephone number in Seattle is 206-625-6462. Please be advised that in the event this property is sold, the facility does not automatically go to new owners You ?MUST notify the Railroad of your intent, giving the new owners a letter of permission to transfer this agreement. The Railroad well then send the necessary application for the transfer. This must be done immediate) upon any legal property 4� sale/and or transfer. Yours truly,. 1 t�l , C. David George Permit Clerk/PAC�IIC DIVISION cdg/j1238601 Att. cc: R. L. Gunderson D. R. Schumacher (King) M. J. Forgey 0i i 't °? • Pipeline Permit No. PX86-16063 Western Surveyors Inc. 86-107 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 15th day of JULY, 1986, between BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Railroad" whose post office address is 2000 First Interstate Center, 999 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104-1105, and GIL THIRY Whose post office address is 672.4 - 160th S. W. Edmonds, WA 98020, hereinafter called "Permittee," WITNESSETH: Railroad, for and in consideration of the fee herein provided to be paid to it by Permittee and of the covenants and promises hereinafter made to be observed and performed by Permittee, does hereby grant to Permittee license and permission to excavate for, construct, maintain and operate a 6" drain on Railroad's Right -of -Way, opposite to inlet of Culvert #21.50, fastened to Railroad's bulkhead (to the satisfaction of 8 R 8 Supervisor, Thomas A.'Driscoll,-Seattle, 206-625-6238). Permittee must keep inlet to culvert open. .There will be NO WORK ON RIGHT-OF-WAY unless there is Flag Protection" provided by the Roadmaster's office (M. J. Forgey, Seattle, 206-625-6462) at the expense of the permittee. "IF" at any time flow is greater than predicted,'causing undue problems, and endangerment to track, permittee MUST REMOVE and redirect drainage AWAY from the track. hereinafter referred to as the "facility," upon, along or across the right-of-way of Railroad, underneath the surface thereof, and under the of its railroad,' as the case may be, at or near tracks EDMONDS, in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, .to be located as follows, to -wit: Crossing at Survey Station 1238+81 - Milepost 21.50. Permittee in Consideration of such license and permission hereby covenants and promises as follows: I. Permittee will pay in advance to Railroad for this permit the sum of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($450.00) for the entire period remains in effect and Permittee will also pay all taxes and assessme tsithatrmit may be levied or assessed against the Pipeline. This provision shall in no way affect Railroad's right to terminate this permit pursuant to Paragraph 9 hereof. 2. Permittee, at Permittee's sole cost and expense, shall excavate for, construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair the facility, placing the same in accordance with the specifications provided in application dated 7/2/86, heretofore approved by the Railroad's Chief Engineer Region. Permittee shall fill in the excavation, and restore the surface of the ground -to its previous condition subject to the approval of the Superintendent of the Division of Railroad upon which the facility is located. Said Superintendent shall have the right at any time when in his judgment it becomes necessary or advisable, to require any material used in the work to be replaced with like material or with material of a more permanent character; also to require additional work or change of location of said facility as a matter of safety, or of appearance, or on account of additional tracks being laid, change of grade thereof, construction of a building, or for any other reason whether or not connected with the operation, maintenance, or improvement of the railway of Railroad, all of which shall be done at the expense of Permittee in the manner herein provided. 3. Permittee shall give to the said Superintendent at least 48 hours' advance notice of any work to be done by Permittee in the excavation, construc- tion, any reconstruction, maintenance, repair, change of location or removal of the facility, and shall conduct such work in such manner as not to interfere With the maintenance and operation of the railway of Railroad. .4. In the event that Railroad, at the request of Permittee or any agent or contractor of Permittee, or for the protection of its property and opera- tions, does any work, furnishes any material or flagging service, or incurs any expense whatsoever on account of the excavation for, construction, any recon- struction, maintenance, repair, change of location, removal of the facility or otherwise, Permittee shall reimburse Railroad for the cost thereof within twenty (20)'days after bills are rendered therefor. If the excavation for construc- tion, any reconstruction, maintenance, repair, change of location, or removal of the facility, requires any or all of the following work: Removal and replace- ment of track, bridging, protection of track or other railway facilities by work or flagging, engineering and/or supervision, such work is to be performed by Railroad employees and the cost borne by Permittee. 5. In the event any cathodic electrolysis or other electrical grounding System is installed in .connection with the facility which, in the opinion of Railroad, in any way interferes with any train signals, telephone or telegraph lines, or other facilities of Railroad, Permittee upon being informed by Railroad of such interference shall forthwith discontinue operation of and remove said grounding system, or take such steps as may be necessary to avoid and eliminate all such interference. Permittee further agrees to indemnify and save harmless Railroad from and against any damages, claims, losses, suits or expenses in any manner arising from or growing out of interference with the ,signals,,., telephone or -telegraph lines of Railroad by the operation, use or existence of any such grounding system. 6. Permittee shall and hereby releases and discharges Railroad of and from any and all liability for damage to or destruction of the said facility, and any other property of Permittee located on or near Railroad's premises; and shall and hereby assumes any and all liability for injury to or death of any and all persons whomsoever, including officers, employees and agents of -the Parties hereto, or loss of .or. damage to property to whomsoever belonging, including property owned by, leased to or in the care, custody and control of the Parties hereto, in any manner arising from or during the construction, any reconstruc- tion, use, maintenance, repair or removal of said facility, however such injury, death, loss, damage or destruction aforesaid may occur or be caused; and shall and hereby does indemnify and save harmless Railroad of and from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, damages, 'recoveries, ts, costs or expenses arising or growing out of or 'in connection with any usuchninjury, death, loss, damage or destruction aforesaid. Permittee further agrees to appear and defend in the name of Railroad any suits or actions at law brought against it on account of any such personal injuries, death or damage to property, and to pay and satisfy any final judgment that maybe rendered against the Railroad in any such suit or action. The liability assumed by Permittee herein shall not be fact, if it he a fact, that any such suitor affected or diminished by the action brought against Railroad may arise out of negligence of Railroad, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or be contributed to by such negli- gence. ..7. Permittee shall not transfer or assign this permit without the written consent of Railroad. 8. Nothing herein contained shall imply or import a covenant on the, part of Railroad for quiet enjoyment. 9. It is expressly understood and agreed that Railroad may at any time cancel and terminate this license and permission by giving to Permittee ninety (90) days' notice in writing of its intention to cancel the same and at the expiration of such notice this license and permission shall terminate. Upon receipt.of such notice..and before the expiration thereof, Permittee, under the supervision and direction of the said Superintendent, or his authorized repre- sentative, shall remove the facility from the right-of-way of Railroad and restore the right-of-way and premises of Railroad in a manner and to such condition as shall be satisfactory to the said Superintendent of Railroad. If Permittee shall fail to remove the facility and restore the said right-of-way to such condition within said ninety (90) day period, Rail,road at its option may remove the same and restore the said right-of-way to its previous condition, and Permittee shall pay the cost and expense thereof to Railroad. 10. Upon any failure of Permittee punctually and strictly to observe and perform the covenants and promises made herein by Permittee to be kept and performed, Railroad may terminate this Agreement on ten (10) days' notice to Permittee, remove the facility, and restore the right-of-way to its previous condition at the cost and expense of Permittee. 11. In the event of Permittee's removal of the Pipeline from Railroad's premises, Permittee agrees to terminate said Agreement by notifying Railroad's Division Superintendent in writing of Permittee's removal of Pipeline and termination of said Agreement within thirty (30) days from date of removal of said Pipeline from Railroad's premises. 12. Any notices given under the provisions of this Agreement shall be good if deposited postpaid in a United States post office addressed to Permittee at Permittee's post office address above stated or as otherwise directed by Permittee. 13. The license and permission herein granted is subject to permits, leases and licenses, if any, heretofore granted by Railroad affecting the premises upon which said facility is located. 14. The the event of Permittee's removal and/or retirement in place of Pipeline from Railroad's premises Permittee agrees to terminate said Agreement by notifying Railroad's Engineering Department in writing of Permittee's removal and/or retirement in place of Pipeline and termination. of said Agreement within thirty (30) days from date of removal of said Pipeline from Railroad's premises. 15. Subject to the foregoing provisions, this Agreement and all of the covenants and promises thereof, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties hereto, their respective executors, administrators, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Railroad and Permittee have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Witnesses Snature o Permittee: PX86-16063 cdg/jl168616 BURLINGTON NORTHERN AILROAD COMPANY By Re ional Engineer GIL THIRY By C` 31 Title t. 1 1 1 A/-� i /� '/Z x / %% Letter -Report Geotechnical Engineerin ervices Driveway Wall Reloc Thiry Residenc Edmonds ton �f RECEIVED May 25,` Y 2004 MAY 2 6 2004 PERMIT COUNTER For Gil�<X ---G-EO-ENGlNEERS File No 0917 OOl 02 , ; • May 25, 2004 Gil Thiry ' 15810 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 GEOENGINEERS� Subject: Letter -Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Driveway Wall Relocation Thiry Residence Edmonds, Washington File No. 0917-001-02 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE This letter -report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the relocation of your rockery wall along your driveway at the above residence. A vicinity map showing the site location is provided as Figure 1. Our services have been requested by you to respond to requirements identified in a letter from City of Edmonds dated February 23, 2004. Our scope of services has been completed in accordance with our confirming agreement dated April 28, 2004 which you authorized on the same day. We understand that you will be constructing a new modular block wall to widen your existing driveway for garage access. The block wall will be less than 4 feet in height. The purpose of our services is to evaluate the near -surface soil conditions and the new alignment of the wall as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations for construction. Per the City of Edmonds' letter, a plan and elevation view of the proposed wall should also be developed for permit submittal. Specifically, our services include the following tasks: 1. Review geologic maps, previous geotechnical reports, and other information in our files regarding ' pertinent subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. 2. Complete a detailed geologic reconnaissance of the site to observe the topographic and near -surface ' soil conditions at the location of the existing rockery and proposed new wall. This includes photographic documentation, sketching of significant features, field -developed sections of the site topography, shallow probing and excavation of surficial soils using hand tools, and observation of groundwater conditions. 3. Construct an elevation view of the proposed wall. The elevation view includes the existing ground ' surface elevation at the top of the wall, the existing driveway elevation at the bottom, and the potential block configuration. 4. Address other issues as requested in the February 23'd letter by City of Edmonds. ' 5. Summarize our field observations and recommended wall configuration in a brief letter -report. ' Earth Science + Technology 2924 Colby Avenue telephone 425.252.4565 Everett, WA 98201 facsimile 425.252.4586 ,j website www.gecengineers.com rGil Thiry • �, May 25, 2004 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS ' GENERAL The residence is located on the west side of 75`h Place West in the northern portion of the Meadowdale area as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. GeoEngineers' completed previous studies on the property including recommendations for the original home construction. The driveway entrance is located on the south side of the property as shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand that the ' garage entrance will be relocated to the east side of the house requiring a slight widening of the drive aisle in this area. The driveway has a very gentle slope up to the north. The driveway will be widened by ' approximately 3 to 6 feet, requiring relocation of the existing rockery wall. The rockery will be replaced by a modular block wall less than 4 feet in height. GEOLOGY Surficial geology in the Meadowdale area includes glaciolacustrine silts with sand and gravel (Double Bluff Drift deposits), medium to coarse sands (Esperance Sand), glacial till, and old and recent landslide deposits. The landslide deposits consist of both ancient and recent, shallow debris slides. Mitigation of landslide areas has been accomplished through vegetation management, control of ground water, and installation of deep foundations, where appropriate. HAND EXPLORATIONS Two hand explorations were excavated to a depth of 4 feet at the proposed new wall alignment. Subsurface soils consist of approximately 3 to 7 inches of landscape bark and topsoil overlying medium dense silty sand and stiff sandy silt. Ground water seepage was not encountered in the explorations. WALL CONFIGURATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed modular block wall. As described previously, the existing rockery wall located on the east side of the driveway will be shifted approximately 2 to 6 feet to the east and rebuilt as a modular block wall. The new wall will be approximately 43 feet north -south at which point the wall will make a 90 degree bend and extend approximately 6 feet to the west to connect with the driveway. Based on our field survey, the new wall height will be less than 4 feet. Based on the wall configuration and our field exploration, geogrid reinforcement will not be required behind the relatively short wall provided standard -size modular blocks are utilized for the wall (individual block dimensions of approximately 8 inches high by 18 inches wide by 21 inches deep). The proposed wall alignment and profile are shown in the attached Site Plan and Profile, Figures 2 and 3. Site photographs are included as Figure 4. The City right-of-way is depicted in two of the site photographs using a nylon rope fixed to the property comers. IG e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0917-001-02 Gil Thiry • • May 25, 2004 Page 3 SITE PREPARATION AND EXCAVATION We understand that the existing rocks within the City Right -of -Way are to be removed. As shown in the Site Photographs, this includes roughly 8 to 10 rocks. Based on our calculations, approximately 11.5 yards of soil and 12 to 14 tons of rocks will be excavated during construction of the new wall. We recommend that the foundation block bear on the medium dense silty sand or stiff silt soils anticipated at the base of the excavation. The site soils within the proposed retaining wall alignment are moisture sensitive and susceptible to disturbance by construction equipment during wet weather. Earthwork costs could be reduced by proceeding with construction during the mid -summer to late fall. Plastic sheeting should be utilized to protect disturbed areas from wet weather as discussed in the "Erosion Control" section below. DRAINAGE LAYER We recommend that a drainage layer consisting of a minimum 12-inch-width of clean crushed rock be placed behind the wall. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of this drainage layer to promote positive drainage. The clean crushed rock can also be utilized as unit fill in the modular blocks. EROSION CONTROL The potential sources or causes of erosion depend on many factors including construction methods, ground configuration (i.e., slope length and gradient, amount of exposure, etc.), soil type, construction sequencing and weather. Erosion and sedimentation control measures must recognize these sources or causes, and control measures must be specifically developed to remedy those sources or causes. As a minimum, we recommend the following measures be accomplished: • Prevent erosion from occurring by: Minimizing the area of vegetative disturbance; providing blanket protection of disturbed areas; and grading to avoid concentration of surface runoff onto or off of cut or fill slopes, the roadway, or natural slopes. • Intercept surface runoff onto or off of disturbed areas to minimize sediment transport. • Provide erosion control system redundancies. For example, the above preventive measures combined with installation of plastic sheeting during wet weather, or straw mulch where appropriate, provide the desired redundancy. • Hydroseed or protect disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by the Gil Thiry for use in relocation of the driveway landscape wall. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Please refer to Appendix A titled Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use for additional information pertaining to use of this report. IG e o E n g i n e e r s File No.0917-001-02 Gil Thiry • May 25, 2004 Page 4 Please refer to Appendix A titled Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use for additional information pertaining to use of this report. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if you have any questions regarding this report or we can provide additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. Q&la c, W4 of WASy.,��I'd, A. Debra C. Overbay, PE Senior Engineer 29247 S` 4 O�t� CIST.OL Jon W. Koloski sslONAL ti�G Principal EXPIRES 7/23/ QS JWK:DCO:akf EVER:\0\0917001 \02\Finals\09l 700102r Attachments: Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 - Profile, A -A' and B-B' Figure 4 — Site Photographs Three copies submitted Disclaimer: This document (email, text, table, and/or figure) and any attachments are only a copy of a master document. The master hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No.0917-001-02 d C d C` C C /r �FCNr�:J UTH NT i if31fP46'P yt ___� �t,�y lA�A•RX ks •/ i fYy tiz f k a.;a .Ys 4..v.:., 'µl C -.5t< �'l♦♦ � i '� f,e( '�' `5� off"`-'r,. 13'PL xr-OPEN .�' o' PL SN a C'lbQ gl'Jc+� c 13 z N p fJy a o 'Old Q, � 4 b " PUGET 136TH a y ST SW t a 'LJ7TH PL �yx" ' s SW < 136 b : ;a ;^ PL SW ss ..j :.w!, 136TH (,,3,�•'x A-.,.o�• SW PC 42N0 S ex W J a 1367'H PL 5 s� Je '^�� < PL 39 1PL N o S'4 0.4 138TN £ SOUND p SW 4 °!�? IL\� PLla n~ S4 e13 t O m"ELLO 0Y 7 W 141S7- o, o, 140 PICNIC ` a PO sr sw NTSr K 32 �sr �3 0 Iazpe 3 = 3i33F- ,g a a' 1 'R� 1ST ST S Q• N RMA e � r u $ T Jqa r 43RD14bu ST '^ SW �, v>� F sr ¢ s� 144TH ST 56€ 0 W Z �M BEACH SW ' 4 QL 54 uoi ;z =N '- N 5200 P 3 & + a 6 gl PC 1�6� = P( ' o 1 116M SS a €�� ` RD s sko 1 ��`�� 76M 5 S iY 146M �_ ST SW PL;SW RO ro ,7 s SS `'W ---138 . i ST SW E S 46 1"= y _},�i%"AN'�t•' v147n+f`sWa = a FISHER 3 �g�N PL N 148 5200 a° ' a' < 7zoo e a 51 ST :'S < a Pol $W 149M P SY 116M LSW i �y 149TH S M ST PL SW tip9�SW 14gSH NUKKA (mPL% 1YYM ttn 149TH ti50TH PL SW �� hoSN = = ti ' z ISOTH a 150TN- PL SW s = PL _ J ;i$tt,l p 152N0 N E s1 �?Aw _ .P c tc�'d�sn UC NOS{ ST SW 9p a < a - 1 a S CCN� �> PL ST s .r' ST SW 5400 1 152 1ST ST SW' D + $T u rnMEA�WDALE�1Sf a {^CC'' OPEN SPACE 153RD, PL SW �'�^ '�" A a, = i3�iy{a6 154TN � o' 54TH ST SW 153R0 Sie 156TH1 CDUlfyk� nI1Puw p i a' PL SW Q $ sr C a 157TH S7�r. $ri. n s Ni $W S 3 ... PL sw T� F ,is��/A,7 1�7N e a ° �' 'P:r uri a J 1571H 15nx sr 15 PL SW „z L W ^ BT= ,�. .. §s5 ,• x CUNDS,,.GULCN-:•A 1587H 158)H PL y7 < I 1 u°i / LsaMSTSW PL 169TH MEADOWDALE o ,;OPENgSPACE,.' a Q 1 PL 54 TS„�'P S' $W., a - (n MARINE S. 160 ts o $T uN O , SW f { I60TM P= $W 3 2c N d �/¢ C 1 $T SW 9lF/� 16 T P 5 } ! LNNW, �/_ 162NOo-,P,L{ ,� a 161ST BROWNS F 63PO 63R0 (ST'SW " ^ T° � " : 6 62N0 PL SW PL 5I" r J 4 and £ PL�W SW 163RD P S7 < 71v, Sr BAY 164TH PL SW SW , 64 164 W 165TH i5;' ,�i� Y, > > LLo 61 N ?x PL SW 3";q m > '� < a z PL c� °may 16 .5 = 3 Z r � `c 165TH PLa d FIRW T TH $T 4800 $ c�1?r;��7� i �� ' •a Z J..�sw, �EADQWDIG R: F=-i SW 3 P G O L- ^ ¢ s ^ a o a r fL05( I67M e SY als s Y s N 0 1900 3800 SCALE IN FEET Reference: This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. GMENGINEER� VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 i. ON 0 N L0 0 N 0 i 0 0 0 I 158th ST SW in pr0'09-498 ; N88'09 43"W 212.49' R-5258.80' ; VACATED 158th ST in L-15.02 N9'44'17T 1.56' . � N88'09'43w 19?.89' ' 99.2� va FND RIC STAMPED 1S 9435' M' Q2'(S) OF CALL. COR. i (ACCE17M) ; LOT 1 I UPPER EXIS71NG HOUSE 115810 Am 1' 17'53* Lart $ R-5258.80' OECK Lm 119.15' �., ------------- — — LOWER �,1i..L,�,1 — EXISTINC LO—T UNf—--— r DECK AND - — — — — — _ — — — �"P �.,. UPPER LEVEL DEC ' "�i' i I < TO TAL AREA 1 1 \ 25,312f SO. FT. \ \ \ \ \ I I I / 1 \ \ ` IN \ \ l \ \ \ \ \ •� IYpE- \ tE,}I` ASHPALT I I 1 1 \ I R�FJP ROCK•01 \��. DRNEWA1' 1 \ \ \ \ �AC -� IiroV SUF 1.0 9� 9�5 rI I \ \ V BENT R/C STAMPED 1S AND tS 9801 AND 0.8'(N) OF SET COR. 1 1 54.5 \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ 58.4 \ \ \ \ 1 1 I FENCE IS 1.2' TCLF N88'0943w 184.63' 7W FENCE IS 1.5' _ - 20_19 - - CO SOUTH SET SOUTH OF Fit' TBlltz N LOT 3 n�AC Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updates to the data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The roaster hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Reference: Drawing enttiled "Exhibit Map for Gil Thiry", provided by Western Engineerings, Inc., dated 11/10/03. GEOENGINEER� 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 4 ---7 .11 GEOENGINEER� APPENDIX A REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE APPENDIX A REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS ' This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Gil Thiry and his authorized agents. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other ' sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report ' is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended ' liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS This report has been prepared for the proposed wall relocation to be constructed at your residence. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. G e o E n g i n e e r s A-1 File No. 0917-001-02/052504 If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. ' A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre -bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. 1 IG e o E n g i n e e r s A-2 File No. 0917-001-02/052504 • • GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre -bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on -site personnel and to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. G e o E n g i n e e r s Ell-3 File No. 0917-001-02/052504 _s h � ' wvI 7z At 94 .91 J cn co 0 V-4 St i�ms.�rs» u W 0 ` / N W N U a W IY —� Z _.co_A ; � — �� I > f,i \ I -------------!•BS--� --��------ \_CJ l w Z O U CC w a r lJ w w o ? N w U N O M E-+ O a bCI`K V $;� I — �1_29---- -- \ 54---NV � —_ Z t J a W a W W Z 0 z w W LAC RI W cr n 0 LL N � O O O y L M 0 O O L n 0 \ N _ r E. 0 O � O L O O .O � O O C U '0 U W C m N y O - c _ E a0i E o 0 U L 0 0 0 � � C (n C`E0E o E o 0 in V) Li w Q) v u o o c J N U N O N N a� N o EEua) O O O T C U L c � a�U • 0 .0 E. E o rn� o X- uCL 7 N Q ac u� 3 uua� v« N yo 0 0 7 0 c aD o u 0 O N O a-c apt m rnowu a c E N 0 N o O O C � U p O O C E c 0 � U •� p c W 1] N .O p 0 X ` y U N W _O C O O L _ aT .0 0 o s m 0 0 IVo c' C O O j ' u N r h "4f /Op •pt/ Z 0 � �RE�vC,y OR.11nr o ^,C. U vc Q 4• n o S 9/ '\ .c O-V/ m •`� �;: c+ IMP IF o m f CJ 40 4 d �► S9/ L : o 09/ It qq� � n 4 u, r Ps/ a srrz j , fit Flq 77Y/►� y3s. bY4�!)OA'�df�d�d�w� '�`��i 1� f L 100,�ti '2' BENT RIC STAMPED 1 AND 1S 9801' AND 0.8'(N) OF SET COR. in 158th ST SW in pr0'09'49' N88'09'43W 212.49' R=5258.80' VACATED 158M ST = WWI 1=15.02 1.56' 93.7• T � .,,; . 09'43w 192.89' 9A?' FND RIC STAMPED. '1S 94J5' a2'(S) of CALC. COIL / (ACCEPTFO) -� r" 3 4 LOT 1 TAKe ,--ME I UPPER V POSTING HOUSE 115810I ve � �� f'v-�tG Wnl!'3 8 R-5258.80' 1 DECK '17 ( -OZ31 Lm 119.15' •G.! ' Its p --------------- ----i`OWER ( Zr "41.G.G,y�� . EXISTING LOT LINE r DECK AND- - - - - - - - - - - - �22WP UPPER LEVEL DECK i I I I `,,TOTAL AREA \25,312t SQ. FT. ASHPALT �- I ROCK, oRrvwAr N J I I I I 1 1 Cp �N 1 \ 1 l 1 \ \ \ -� SCE IS 1.2' SOUTH OF SET . CORNER I 7'CLF N88'09'43w 184.6J' LOT 3 7'CLF ^ FENCE IS 1.5' SOUTH OF Pt APPROVED BY it I 20' I w 1 8 APPROVED S NOTED BY�p or qVEERING TBM ME _ I Isuf Roc INS LE11 RECEIVED MAY' 2 6 2004 - -"" PERMIT COUNTER 2= 40 Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. C 2. This figure is for informational purposes only. It is intended to assist in the identification of features � SCALE IN FEET discussed in a related document. Data were compiled from sources as listed in this figure. The data sources do not guarantee these data are accurate or complete. There may have been updotes to the �� SITE PLAN data since the publication of this figure. This figure is a copy of a master document. The roaster hard copy is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GEOENGINEERS� Reference: Drawing enttiled "Exhibit Map for Gil Thiry", provided by Western Engineerings, Inc., dated 11/10/03. FIGURE 2 • - c i t Q a: LLLJ LLI O N ~ Z o W VN `� i— 0 0 ~ F- . W wLLJ W. 1,12 1 6. L - J, .3 E C - -5.. T WA 2 7 IV, R.,4 E. W. All. LOTS I AND .2, BLOCK .29, OF THE PLAT A4&ADOWDAl_,ff BEACH AS Q&COR,046P 11V VOLU".= T OF PLATS , PC. 36 RECORDS OF %3NOHOA414H C0e11V7-Y,,WA%3H1WG7-0A1. T49dE7'H5R W17"H A PORTION Ovc- VACA7-ED 75 rl" 4VE. W.,;' L,VIA16 ADVACEIVr. 0 NOTE :.ALL, ROO,-- DRAINS SHALL rlaHnINE GENERA LNOS 6,EPARA7-,Cl_K 0F, BUT 7-0 C~A449N BASIN W1rH r4O4Or/A/0 DRAIAIS ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE AND lc-*eCNCH DRAIN. STANDARDS. TO CITY OF EDMONDS, 2.) PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK PERTAINING, TO DRAINAGE, THE N. RIA4 %SAIV. SEW. M.H. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CITY OF EDMONDS AT 771-3202 To 'I z 00. d 0 SET -Up SCHEDULING, AND THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN ENGINEERING rj DATUM - ASSUMED DEPARTMENT AT 625-6111, EXT. 3306. � CXid 7. 07/18:4872 EDMONDS. REFER TO B.N. FILE I Ocvc 3.) CONSULT THE SOILS REPORT PERFORMED FOR THIS ENGINEERS INCORPORATED,- DATED MAY SITE BY GEO 16 1 1 4) 1986, FILE No. 917-61. 7' hl %5 T. j W CIV 0 7- _j 4.) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF,,, qz� tz" 4) 00. /ja TH Jr THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF A UTILITIES (WHETHER lz� 40-0 dW SHOWN' ON THIS ALL EXISTING k) N PLAN OR NOT) PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF I cj % so N, CONSTRUCTION, SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE :4J "W - CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AT EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY' 7A/ da REGARDING APPARENT UTILITY CONFLICTS. • B. W to 5.) ALL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM OF 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY. (DETERMINED BY THE MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST.) 4a I CIVCH t a'- Al ly CA-I.p OR 9 F 6.,) GRADING OUT /At.- e, SIDE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST COMPLY WITH "AX. CHAPTER 70 OF UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, X 0 7.) THE DRAIN' TIb zo0, %*b �4,, AGE CONNECTION AT THE B.N. 0 RAILROAD, AND THE FRENCH DRAINS ON -SITE, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FIRST, AND BE 1t1'(0 % OPERATIONAL PRIOR TO ALL OTHER SITE WORK. 8-) ROCKERIES SHALL BE 2'f, HIGH MAXIMUM; A1� % SHALL BE, AT 3.5:1 ll BATTER; USE 2 TO 3'MAN ROCK MINTMUMj THE'WALL -SACKVILL SHALL. S, CONSIST OF 2-4" QUARRY SPALLS' TO 6" MINIMU'""THICKNESS 0 lZI ARA BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE CUT OR FILL MATERIAL. ALL 00 18 t", EA'ISr .SEWER %57-V5 CONNECT THE WALL' SHALL BE CHINKED, WITH VOIDS' IN 7' "'$ C-1 < TO ELIMINATE ANY C3 0 QUARRY ROCK GRIAIDER PUMP PRESSURE LINE. VOIDS.GREATER THAN 21#0 HOUSE CONNECTION, .SEE r 01 1 91 .SECTION /1'/00, JH7". Z oir.2 CATCH BASINS 164/ j SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM \9 Deck vvq4 W,4),,� "i, 18". INSIDE, DIMENSION. /a SNOHOMISH ' COUNTY STANDARD CONCRETE CATCH BASIN TYPE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATES MAY BEADS 1530�,,OftoOQUAL % a** 0,00 RECO 'i is ROO,` A 185• IICVO7-�; DRA 10.) THE FRENCH DRAIN PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN PIPE SHALL BE 4. CONCRETE," STEEL, ALUMINUM, OR HIGH STRENGTH P-V-C-',,MEETING 48 1 TAP EX1,5T. WATER L INE THE STANDARDS OF A.P.W.A. (2) (4), dERVICE e ME7-ER SPECIFICATIONS 0 (6) SURILIA16A9N NORTHERN RAILROAD W17H ",41VUAL, r(IRIvag-F 77 LIAM 5), RA&ROAD, PRava-cr \57A. 1.2,36 IV r- VALVE CrKPle,44,) A rle 77 1' AdIAI, ll-) CLEANOUTS SHALL UTILIZE 45* 'BENDS WITH NON —PE' 11c,/ IL cm /Va. 0,-/ hS 4 8 72 COVER RF PIPE AND� F0440W "ROUAIA �J V REMOVABLE. CAPS BROUGHT TO THE FINISH GRADS SURFACE. C SEE SHEET '2 of J' FOR f C. A W,3 OPE I /,,V. CoVE WATERLINE, TRENCH / - . V I ivP N k,.* 14 47. TOP5Z. :r Top =/ 4,%T _IELA V, I Z A4A L C4 7E rILL WITH "A 84LOW \51-0,z -)V 0 1597r, W- 164. 6\3 0 4) < 0 U q, T C, 0 N% APPROX. GRADING QUqlV7-17-1Z,5 .2 3 --------------- 41 71OZA4 CXCAVArION F71-4 <7'0 LEVEL OelVEWAy) 1,1 T —8 140H T S PICRIC y A 210 'D Z 1. 1 IS7 ST SW Pt SW -;, _F� WOA4 �.S/77�r� 10 RAF"99V44 q to 14300 2 '4 1�4TH S Af-*. % tq PL r A BACHiwi fito 'T"148T SW NORM EA EA$H RD 41 Rt _j IL70 151ST S-T 160TH 'ty W 53 -5 Sl > ce nw< ST < IV Alfl�,,,, IOAK ROJ I PL SW T lwl� Pt sw 41' T ie a > 6011 >t IG6P4.Sw x 7% ST p sw 14ZND A W �t ! 141P I PL p It ST �0 /W i/ SW, > 4 -CIO ?15 --- � WILT SW W > w511lIeDeE j.5l00-- A, tesTj$4i RAIL A l A D/V105 t S cl/r EQ UAILLY 49 7-'WN iVPR&R .00 AND 40WCR jA 77MBER 0 i ( 124. 0 Ij 700 ELBOW 1 .0 00 0 10 Co "A P.,S. P4 A S 7-. V4 x J " I I .-� 0 0 1--- 1A0 BOLTS WATER -rl7'E CONNECT/ON 0 0 lK, I'A4.6;rA4 PEA GRAVEL %Y rRAR Co - P. 11C. SCHEDULE 40 0 WITH J ae c4,yr IRON 0 I- Ad a4eEWU -a Iz 7-1A4BER (er Yp) 6 "IL. ID PLASTIC 0 0 01/ R. 0 0 D MIRAA71 140 J) 6 60 o1_�FABRIC FILTER o. Ica. 0 6 0 VEP C L --t7 6 PER F. CMP OR -WA 4 L ED rH le'K 4,0 INVERT PER PLAN 115.3 MlAoo'. FRENCH PRAW DErAIL DE,rAll- A% -A " /V 0 .SCALE NO SCALE A4E.514 SCREEN G " I= VC. TEE Z ADAPTER/ WA rERclR 00,c' -volivr FRO A4 A.D.,S- I I It Z 6o IAIV. = 149.00 6 FROM Al E *5 H SCREEN mm. L At C.B. I J OIL JE PA RA TO NO SCALE 4 Fie OM ROOF ,�4-4 rR oA4 roor v 19 -VIC INI r),000' MAP EDA40AID-S, WA Ism STRE,ff FILE XX Rev Ji:,ffl&-A40VC X0CK_-,ek- EAST' 0,-- CAIeA&C PER 4014.4 --A/ Gq. P, -16-8& jpJb. NO. RE -VISION I DATE BY 67-ORM -DRAINAC7E e PROFILE PLAN $ ern Foeqrveyors 745.1594 or 355.2776 GIL THIR),- A==== LAND USE CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERS 0 LAND SURVEYORS 6 724 - 16 0 rH 6 W. 13322 Highway 99 South 0 Everett, WA 98204 * (206) 745-1594 EDA40ND3, WA. 9,5020 DWN. BY--- DATE PROJECT MANAGER SCALE (206) 74.5-14&1 K.A.M. 6-11-66 E.-Y.BoAlE 20.0' CHKD. BY--- DATE SHEET JOB NO. 1E.-I. 48. 7 -2 -45co OF 3 86 -107 -A 7 Ff.;M1 NORTH /480 1 12, EXCA VA7'140*V rR4ENCH DRAIN 1 170 5eCrIOM THRU Cw4RA04C -A4AXI..2 ' H16H DR I VIC WA v F.F. - /6 6.00 ROCKERY ON WOW ONORrH %Y1,0C Or a FAX� A r rp 5 0 IV. E. CORIVi5 0 SE CrION (9 0+50 OF HOUSE rHRU GARAGE NORTH 175 SOUTH EXCAVArION 170 1 1.170 ENTRY 5ECr101V 7*HRV LIVINO AREA WIRAILIAIG CRAWL "SPA I — FRENCH DRAIN 5CHE"ATIC FlXXL- IBC 0' .00ARAD4 AWAY I / co 5 GARAGE WALL /,5 D5316NED , FOR J , Or 4:AR7"H AGAINST /7-. THE )tOCXERY W144 ONLY ,BE Z' HICPH. I 406 JrRUerURAL P4AAIJ I "Pal KE7Hel. EME W,474CAl SERVICE /-/,VE M SNARE W11A1 TRENCH rROA4 "AlAl 70 0 0 0 to 0 • 0 00 00 a 0 0 0 , I a 0 1 V 0 �o 0 FILL TRENCH A41AI. f46 0 to 0 0 I' DEEP W1rH � 0 PEA` GRAVEL OR 0 0 0 10 WASHED DRAIN ROCK 0 0 0 0 d 0 C) .5. , NORTH /6 0.0 .150 4' PeRF PIPE ORADIIAL4Y SNAKES ALON6 MENCH 807'ram. DRAIN INTO CS.-*2 PER PLAN W&W W1.4" r1.rLrl-1A1E WATERLINE.,TRENCH DrL. /V4 SCALE t7.L -A NSF_ G _ - T P_ 9.7 A/ Q ed F W A,,/ 1 20' 20' TO. 4rwA Al. � � 1 .gin, ST. Ovo T ©PAN} _ 41 o h N oh ° op h a a Z 00 40 of- 1/1 {,1/ VF6E' AJoy 1 � i CCfAi�ED -AVErlEivr TO R tN I \ ` • `• BARE 6ROOM WEDS 1V O \1` I Ta BERFCJOVEp \ \ \ 165 11YATFLY D' 0 �' ` _ - =' - y_ _ " A}WI M,04NAL TO 8 FMOVYD ! f<os 0' /V/C/l B PUSI,� 0 �37 EC£TTON A�� HTEp �`iR ' iVB 49'Si3" W 2./O 24' Q v h h �1 ~ rrJ � r W 1 r, art �01 1 . WHERE,_', POS iBI,E,. MATNTATR� 910,TRR411r vR�GRT'i'ATIOFR FOR, SIT,T CONTROL* ; 2 ♦ TEMPORARY' SILTATION . AND DETENTION PONDS, ` WILL B , -REQUIRED. ONE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTABLE TO Tft CO(#NTY IS BY - PLACING STRAW BARE ACROSS". SWALES - HELP. BY. TWO STARES PEA - HALE. RIP -RAP SHALL BE USED ON BOTR IDES 'OF .13ALXS FOR . EROSION CONTROL A3 REQUTRED.,. 3 . , ALL 'TEMPORARY SILTATION ARID DZT,90TION PONDS ',S'f m_ . at MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDIM,ON 'UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT' CLEARING' AND OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE, PERMANENT " DRAINAGE FACILITIES `ARE OPERATIONAL. 4. AFTER CONSTRUCTION, TEMPORARY SILTATION CONTROL AREAS SHOULD BE EITHER RETURNED TO ORIGINAL GROUND CONDIT1614 ' OR 'PRTA6ED " INTO PERMANENT APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN. 5. THE SILTATION CONTROL $SYSTEMS. DEPICTEa;ON THIS DRAWING ARE SUCH AS TO 'MEET MINIMUM ' COUNTY REQUIREMENTS..' , AS CONSTRUCTION, PROGRESSES AND EXPECTED. SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, MORE SILTATION CONTRPL FACILITIES MAY BE, SQUIRED TO INSURE 'COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL OF THIS ' PRC?PE�tTY. THEREFORE, DURING'THE COURSE. OF CONSTRUCTION,, IT SMALL BE. THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY. NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE. CREATED By HTS ACTIVITIES Alm, TO' PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER'-. AND. ABOVE ftikmUm; REQUIRtMEN'TS,. AS .. MAY BE NEEDED. . 6. STOCKPILES ARE TO BE LOCATED IN. SAFE ARE AS AND ADEQUATELY i 'BY PROTECTED TEMPORT SEEDING' AND RULCTRNG . , it?O•-St PREPREFERRED.R'Y 7. AREAS TO BE ROUGH GRtA.DED VITH F'I`NIF,H GRADING TO'FOLLOW NEAR; `ARE 5 _.� ` PROJECT COMPLETION TO, BDED E SEEM H'ITTR ,ANhTtf T,., PERENNIAL OR HYBRID ''CRASS. `AND .RYETHIS ALSO INCLUDES PERIMETER 01KE THE SEDIMENT, BASIH EMBANKMENT. R(xRTR�O�SE1�17 L�REI*ER2REU, .. ' . 8. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH GRADIRRG, PERMANENT VEGETATION(CONSISTING . OF RAPID,. PERSI TTENT ' AND LEOUNE) WILL APPLIED. (MINIMUM 80#' PETR. ACRE) THIS IS TO 1f4twjYEs. 20% ANNUAL, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYEGRASS 40%: ,CREEPTNG RED FESCUE, - AND- 40%, WHITE CLOVER' HYDRO -SEED PREFERRET). ' 9. FERTILIZER: 'SHALL BE APPI,IED AT 4000 PER ACRE or 10_b 20 (10 POUNDS PER.1100 SQUARE FEET) OR EQUIVALENT,` 10. PREPARATION _Ok 'SURFACE, ALL AREAS TO Ot S1T "DED:' SHAI►I, SE CULTIVATED 'TO ,THE SATISFACTION OF THH' N0INEE ., TAtt MAY, B i ACCOMPLISHED' .BY DISCTNG;'', RAKING, HARROVI,fi;, OR OTAtA ACCEPTABLE MEANS. 1T. THE ENTRANCE SHALL' BE MAINTAINED IN A► CORIDITI>�N """ICRT FILL F'RR VEfiT TRACKING OR FLOW OF' ' MUD PNT,0' ,0V0LI' RIGHTs,_OF-t9A . l THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRR SSING W' TRR 2 INCH STON ,, -AS, CONDITIONS DEMAND, - AND REPAIR AND, MEMOUT OF ANY STRUCTURES USED TO ' TRAP srDTM9NT. RtD MATERIALS 3PIT,T.Eb, , DROPPED, WASHED.OR TRACKED FROM "VEHICLES ONTO'ROADWAYS OR INTO STORM DRAINS MUST � BE REHOVED', MME'61ATELY. j A - T B 146TH T "SW i C PICNIC Pp N I ST ST SW. .'c > Utx %F z 14]No Pc sw 147RD3 3 ST SW +�►',4) w " I = x �Sr`'rH 3 N� ISW Y � IDS IJ� Pl 5w THu 'i s a a ��; �i.v�lu�nl� 'r� . Sw Q \' ��} I15tlt� �+l eW cr I . ❑❑s1 T t ..-. > 4 PL W �� w (4 T!j PL - A B CFi1nu1 ' cc1 SH .a H �s1- sw� „i w �d td IN =Pl 5W . m I NORMA - EACH <' �e11' v a sr Sw � W'ST 43 Pis , N 149TN NO M " H 10 I FISHER i a'IRD Y31 �;v '� 3 �f 3 PL SW 5T I YIH Pl SW > _ N. PL I,.zl ..6 al ._ . .Q�.-S r v+ , r Vi w-' i 150TH _ PL 1 SW �..1 li4 SI SW- �f 161ST �� I �i 150TH ? ��<' s ; . _3 �, , t x3 s r? h `1` �r 16' 10Nn ST s> ';,1 No ST 4 SW a ��' 1 > - a D ST a# �Of z 62N L 153 1 3: e PL { h •s < 153AD PL SW y�153R =l SW PL W Q 1 u ST - Qi- - EADDWDACE' ID K RDI _ 2 7T xr tlC .>IQDUNTY D` 3 []'} 19TH PL SW iF !$ r, I i` w DARK; "' ""= 587 ST SW. \d 156Rt ' ^> di 1 �.� n,I II PL SW `, I � M ,s = r a 160TH I Sl' I is • $W Y .. f►i fY-t------ I �.� c i60 PL � Sw r { I 1 � � 3 •J 161p SN a 161ST PL Sw 162NO A ''� Q w 3 , ,,,� .SiWi cr. L — . . a . ., .. I 3 d16 F IMi r1 166' —1 s i6 HT P L VI C!N/ TY MAP NO. REVISION DATE BY T�'1111PORAR Y ZROSIOW r " Prs 745.1594 nce or - 355-2776 CL /ENT : G I L THI R Y LAND USE CONSULTANTS 6 724 - /GO rH 6 W. EDMOND5 , WA . 98020 (Z 06) 745 - 14&1 CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS 13322 Highwoy 49 South • Everett, WA 98204 • ('206) 745.1594 DWN BY' DATE K.A.M. 60 -!/-6& PROJECT MANAGER E.-4.13 . SCALE (ZO&) 743 -2 943 (OFFICE) CHKD. BY- DATE SHEET JOB NO. 3 OF -3 66 -107 -A