The URL can be used to link to this page

16004 73RD PL W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiii 5804 16004 73 R D P L W T ADDRESS: A 73/-d /' TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: S' 1L/► 4w a✓ �CC�lua �/�IY r 9 $D�131 /16 o/d CRITICAL AREAS: 45 �33 DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS (OTHER): 2ewf —eq / PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: /t-0?77, z-z s-O3 SEWER LID FEE $: G LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: ! LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: ! —?, V -q b SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: 4U GEOTECH REPORT DATED: _ _ _ 161410 A 1U/161 /, 21mll? STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: .,fu ff%d6/9111lf011 lf?OLdr /1�i- loryekk AeXglhr�/e LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc 1W qo J)A ys CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER PERMIT r �8 9 p_ 199° PERMIT i�© 8969 Address of Construction: 6�2 i2ti Property Legal Description (Include all easements): r SEP Owner and/or Contractor: State L:�ense No. xSingle Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public i (�(41 S Building Permit No. % E% 7 W7 - Invasion into City Right-of-Way.A No ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit /No. Cross other Private Property: L1� No ❑ Yes Attach legal descriptions and copy of recorded easement I certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. 9/1Z w ate * CALL DIAL -A —DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * OFFICE USE ONLY, * FOR INSPECTION CALLIZU3242, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. �vc� 771-oa.3S Permit Fee: �`�� Issued By -� Trunk Charge.A; , co Date Issued: - Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: Lid No.: Partial Inspection: Comments Date Initial Reason Rejected: Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: Date9'? Initia4i�2�w ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3190 The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO . ........................---1,� NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ❑ LID NO . .................. ASMT. NO. ................ qQ Q OWNER..-----••......................•-----.--•-••---..._...-......-----•--..-......---••---•---_...._ CONTRACTOR...._....-------...___..._._.._..._....-..-..._-._..__...._•---•---._......_........ PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS ./_... %3 Ac/.._- !�f--.._._._ �`'' .... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO_______________________________________ BLOCK NO. .................................... a PWW-0001-11175 (REV.11178) NAMEOF ADDITION .... ................................................................................................................... 16' X*4 '", &14 4" PVc- 0FNC I— r7' N E�NV 070D* y U PVC S I c1tee y'7( Tcs} T 6" qo I `deep Approved: -Eo Ex►s��9 Q9 � DATE •Gr_-a-� _.•�-j•-•--....._..•--- By ........................... -•--••r__zz....... --- W. L� 0 PLANNING DATA NAME: DATE SITE ADDRESS: U L . , PLAN CH PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �.c1rLi-1'; c��.. 4-n c��= I REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: Yes / o MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: Yes / o FLAG LOT: Yes No . ZONING: t-320 -A — 2q CRITICAREAS DETERMINATION #: CJ � Study Required: r1i d C+}y) ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver w '� h•1 p 1Z�IlR.� SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ '(Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) Exempt SETBACKS: N) VA—t-- Required Setbacks: � Street: Left Side:Right Side: Rear: Actual Setbacks: Street: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No / DNA) ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: ❑ ROCKERIES: ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: ❑ STAIRS / DECKS: PARKING: Required�b Ac ual:� LOT AREA: LOT COVE o �� Calculations: �� f'Y� n � Q �� (Od � � q , 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Point: N AL.1Q_ a t.{- .2-_ Datum Elevation: \ . • "'::5F0 7.5� Maximum Allowed: A.D.U. CREATED Yes) Actual Height:twa . OO `tl7{t l i 1i0. asJ SUBDIVISION-PO-0- 1 — �',ot LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes / No OTHER -.A" -51 A r () o ra . 4-►-� c N„ c o o o A- tIs- ray+ as c. NewBPPlanningDataFor n.DOC PLANNING DATA 550&. I S4'" f t. $ 0 NAME: 5" F4""4, VIA 0076 SITE ADDRESS: 1 6�W4 - -73 "R. W, DATE:__ IZ/n /97 ZONING: PLAN CHK#: 97- 3 5& PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �30-0 u-- P arm -- CORNER LOT Flo - G°'(Yes/No) FLAG LOT A)o (Yes/No) SETBACKS: (` a" 40*_a' C"_r-PCNI r roarw- k"w ' 01""A Required Setbacks: Front: O Left, Side: O Right Side: 0 Rear: D �r Actual Setbacks: 6'r � _Z'e 4"q goat, e Front: --zii.l Left Side: o' Right Side: 5' Rear: U ' ��'A `1 s '\ Street map checked for additional setback required? T_(Yes/No) Rlel LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: ?v75m Maximum Allowed: 1009- Actual:_ �� P"f m u,, 19.21 """" I. pa"'.v U fa, $"A' BUILDING HEIGHT: -a- �� Maximum Allowed: 251 Actual Height: Datum Point: cc)Q btr-M 40 T Datum Elevation: // 7. S,' i Vm 12t A.D.U.. CREATED?: u ,tG —, LjZ wo,6- >,,�L.A,.� bra, t,xl"_� , d t x,'f j1 t...sa ec.r. MIA-1-1 /_t- - -k41- atL9ft-:� I,V,V,� /--*(I 1 41 &h, b&Waa..,r &f o I" CLr,d. c r k-A . • '-%, . t,,1 her ur— he-H,-. oy-- SUBDIVISION: P�D - 1-8 11W. 1-e� ?'r Wn Fri CRITICAL AREAS #: 95 - 03 - wu vrr SEPA DETERMINATION: �w`ia "'en3+04 a - SEPA- rtjw,Y`m ew�0"616n stir+ o P, "I-' - LOT AREA: _5 �cQ� � 4- OTHER: Plan Review By: Ofilca\permit\^plandaLdoc �hUi � n,;�r,�,xi `.� Sin'( '�'la�/ �fwli7 ,►� �„i unACtG�7c�t n7� D�fj2 -" C�� l %• 05' �'�� lesf �dla h Z5 . ya�rt o 4, � V19.05 L✓ v 6wr4 is vztA,.-c 5 - Ata i Z,3M t/W WA 99/ 7 7 Mzz .•. <�;;, ». 'CS rE;k 7•-il ti-.° .!•'i�2 .r..+r.1 eY"��^. il�l:Ri,� ` �^�`»?.• RECEIVx `2,{F{ ��y� C�'�'� .��: �i:�ai:° ,.} t �n+;' . l .:� i ':sal . r' d .F .:54J:.P •,. �.. bi. . • . .. .. r •. �.•,' r :1i•ar4t r :":,�` 1 ;. f,.,~ SUN 16 1995 PERIWrrCOUNTEA s 9 0 1 9cl City of Edmonds Critical. Areas--.Che-cklist.:�)�.ii,,,-,-- f -NOV 61'997 w The Critical Areas Checklist contained tand submit it to the City. The City will this form is to,be-filled :out aby.Any•person :5 j�.; L �reyiew.the checklist;, make a precursory site preparing a Development Permit.=,Yvisit, and,make,a determination of the Application. for the {CityrofdEdmonds.prior � Ila t vv subsequent steps necessary, topcomplete a to hiUhd submittal of a development` ;,,� development permit application. permit to the City: Witha signed'copy of this form, -the .-' .>_ r:; [•�;' .a•t •, ter, The purpose of the Checklist is to enable' : ' Yuii✓'n''�r applicant should also submit a vicinity map City staff to. determine whether any. or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel potential Critical Areas are or may be .. ___ with enough detail that City staff can find present on the subject property. The and identify the subject parcel(s). In information needed to complete the addition, the applicant shall include Checklist should be easily available from other pertinent information (e.g. site observations of the site or data available at._ plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, ,,.con junctiomwith this Checklist to assist or soil surveys). $ pp stair in completing their preliminary, _ .,•. "4 .. i7 �. �.'va3�.tAI:i :i-�:•il\I C;,. i�i �� .-..1y .1.;.? t.. rF:•i�+11.] .. ... ... -• ._.( . assessment of ,the site.", ., y vn., •..r ;-�.;it 16,y,.fs- .. An applicant --or his/her representative,- ' ; •. _'••_r must fill oui�the o-hecklist,.sign-and:date,.it �1'-D t':r: w ' i � ,:"r "'. ri --�s ; ' -�;sr ,+ •.ti�..t�!}.%l': �"t::'fit: I have completed the attached Critical Area.Checklist.and attest.that.the answers provided are — factual, factual, to the best of my•knowledge.(fill:outthe,appropriate column below).,-.��..•. ..�:- ..:: Owner / Applicant: Applicant Representative: :u '- ry;, a, y1: • � tN:. � (I/%./�/f/�(/://///�� _-i`r7 tr.,�r - x . .9' •u: i:.2.t?.r,. .. .. Name VName �50� /_WL .5,1.4.• ,_,-.��1-�-__ `:1!•`.i'J:, M"__ .. t:; .i .,:;:�,'•�-:i,;:;:. :S,_. ;i' ... ire"' �... _. .., s . f Street Address3'? {:.LTiv ?`�g£j°� $C:3 3� st(�t. ?Ad(�I C$S"� tl3uir'ac 4 :1 ,>•,-f t P 1� Yh7f i:\l ttj 1; i ,S'g �.,an. Y.ns:C �. � ti,2.'r t�c.x1c��A�..r_idr •LF CA FILE NO. Oritical Areas Checklist G G': 3. Site Informition -(sbils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address TL \1) 2. Property Tax.Account Nuni6er": 79 0 J4-*aoa-P 3,:Pod 9' 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feel): 4. Is this site currently developed? ----yes; t1l no. 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. V JOA5 Rolling: iJ 'alop6s- on site generally less than IS (avertical:risiof 10-feetover a: ai-, horizontal distance of 66-feet). ' Hilly:;'slo' pes'present . on site o more an f reth �'15%"i�d'l:e�s"'s"th�an30%,('avertical rise' 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).' Steep. A, grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a qrr horizontal distance of less. than 33-feet).. � Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: No Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: No Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the flo6dway IVP floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- IT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS WM • To: Applicant From: �LF "Owner: G NuJ b Plan Check No: Address: /6 pa 4. ;P.r/Z.0 p/-, P / . Date: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 4. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS — 7:00 A.M: 10:00 P.M.;WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS — 10:00 A.M: 6:00 P.M. -2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 18.60) �%. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. �. Builder/owner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site (ECDC 18.30.030d). -15. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30.50G) �. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 18.30) INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) 4 Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the property. If an intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may be required. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staff to determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 18.90) 19. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14%. Waiver granted to A✓ /, %. (ECDC 18.80.060D) 406. Driveways must be paved from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) -11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) r T. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. -43. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter (ECDC 7.20). -N. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) -1� Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 'i6. Connection to the City sanitary system isre uired. A separate permit is required. LID# 2/ D Fees paid: Yes No Charge X S (ECDC 18.10) -17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.90) -T9. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) PRMfAPP.dot • • a o, i• i0 �••rEL W •. IITZ,TI'•L ll-. • •, • a 9 LORIAN WOOOS''' PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REPLAT OF LOTS 54. 55. 56, AND 57. OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH CITY OF EDMONDS; SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON SECTION S. TOWNSHIP '27:•NOR,. i • RANGE 4 EAST. W.M. SEE,::V� N-81E �. FOR 'CONDITIONS RQ 1�.►s� nimi w 1 ♦ ' t 4 � tf r 16 o1 D TRACT '- -� TRAI TRACT.. / o lb/e �3---------;so i r I ~ °:ME' AD 0 WDA L £ 8 C A CH Vo /. S P �- ry Exhibit B RECEIVED BUILDING DEPT. LORIAN woods '' PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REPLAT OF LOTS 54, 55. 56, AND 57. OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH CITY OF EDMONDS; SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON SECTION 5. TOWN IP •27 NORTH • RANGE 4 EAST. W.M. SEF.;RFV R:S FOR 'CONDITIONS ell 01 WICK TABLE K ------------- ' I NMI am I ;------------J . / a / Lccom / / Rm A J. Y W.ACT -Br •• — TRACT *e � .MA 0 _ _ IRACT 'A'_ _ _J ---- /o ti.r �O . i •� !0 l;----------- j1!----------- - - .-oi•,y�_ _ , ,! j v / 162aM Sr SW. S ' t u CA D O w D A C£ Vol. S P OOWL a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 BfA CH Exhibit B 02-065 Parcel "A" New Legal Description: LOT 3 PLAT OF LORIAN WOODS ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 51 OF PLATS, PAGES 145 AND 146, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 1.31 FEET THEREOF: AND TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF TRACT"A" PLATOF LORIAN WOODS ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 51 OF PLATS, PAGES 145 AND 146, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3 SAID PLAT OF LORIAN WOODS; THENCE NORTH 16059'17" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3 A DISTANCE OF 29.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 73000'43" WEST 3.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16059" 7" EAST 22.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73°00'43" EAST 3.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 16059'17" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 22.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. WRITTEN BY: CHECKED BY: R,� 75 MAP CHECKED BY: IF, c5 ►y' r� WAS r� � r ;� vCA ; � O- ;m z 0 :o o�� .9F 1 a490 • .!STEP.'•' Jtp �NAL LAND EXPIRES 11/14/02, RECEIVED MAY -7� BUILDING DEPT. Exhibit C 02-065 Parcel "B" New Legal Description: TRACT "A" PLAT OF LORIAN WOODS ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 51 OF PLATS, PAGES 145 AND 146, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3 SAID PLAT OF LORIAN WOODS; THENCE NORTH 16059" 7" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3 A DISTANCE OF 29.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 73°00'43" WEST 3.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16059" 7" EAST 22.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73°00'43" EAST 3.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 16*59'17" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 22.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3, SAID:PLAT OF LORIAN WOODS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTHERLY 1.31 FEET THEREOF: WRITTEN BY: CHECKED BY: RS TS _ MAP CHECKED BY: Ids -��NAL LAN EXPIRES 11/14/0Z 8- ze-oz RECEIVE® MAY - 7 2003 BUILDING DEPT. ' May`12,A999 E C E l V® Project No: T-840-3-2 ' 2 6 1999 Mr.' Ronald D. Johnson DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. Architect CITY OF EDMONDS 19601 - 23rd Avenue NW Seattle, Washington 98177 Subject:, ;Proposed Addition _ Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian.Woods 16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington' Reference: Earthwork Observations No. 980447� Chung Residence J Lot 3, Lorian� Woods 16004 - 73rd Place, SW Edmonds; Washington.. Letter dated October 16, 1998 Dear Mr. Anderson: As requested,: we have reviewed the location of- the proposed addition 'to • thie Chung residence at •f 6004; - 73rd Place SW. Our work was, -required by the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed the. mass excavation and foundation conditions for'this house and presented a sunmiary of our observations in the referenced letter. The purpose of this letter is to comment .on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed addition. We understand that it is currently in the plan to add.an area measuring approximately four feet by six. feet 'to an -existing bathroom on the southern portion of the house. The addition'will extend the footprint of the house•out approximately four'feet.' This addition is.on the middle floor of the house. The'adjacent, footings are relatively shallow and the contractor has proposed excavating new.'footings to support the addition.. Further, there is an option of cantilevering• the new addition off the existing foundation. This second option would,not require any new footings„ 1.2525 Willows Road, Suite,101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 . Phone (425) 821-7777,'• Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@terra-associates.com Mr. and Mrs. Chung' c/o John Gurnee Gurnee Company Builders, Inc. 4320 - 196th Street SW, Suite B-332 . Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Subject-. Final Site Visit ; Earthwork ' Observati ons No. 980447 Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods . 16©0*1=t73rd Place SW� Edmonds, Washington. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chung: As requested,' we reviewed the soil. conditions exposed .in 'the excavation for your 'proposed new residence at 16004 --73rd Place SW in Edmonds. Our work was required by the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed .plans for this project and presented our findings -and comments' in letters dated October 28, 1997 and February 6, 1998.- We.prepared a letter, dated October 16, .1998, discussing our site observations during construction.. - On February 18, 1999, a representative of Terra* Associates visited, the subject site to observe the final site configuration. The final site layout is generally as anticipated in,our previous reports and�lett' for this site: The -only geotechnical aspect -of the construction that remains to be completed is the.:final reestablishment• of vegetation, on the site.: We did not observe any evidence `of.excessive erosion. at'the time of our visit. We recommend that suitable vegetation be established as soon as possible to, reduce the potential for.erosion:. In the interim,.mulching with straw will assist in reducing the potential for.. erosion. All discussion in our previous letters regarding this site remain.applicable to this project. 12525 Willows Road, Suite,101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 ' Phone (425) 821.-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terraQterra-associates.com Mr. and Mrs.- Chung` c/o John Gurnee Gurnee Company Builders, Inc. 4320 = 196th Street SW, Suite B-332 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Subject: Earthwork -Observations OCT ,. No. 980447 l ) 1998 Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods, 16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. ,and Mrs. Chung: As requested,. we reviewed the soil conditions exposed in the excavation for. your proposed new residence at 16004.73rd Place SW. Our work was required by_ the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed. plans for this project and presented our. -findings and comments in letters dated October 28, 1997 and February 6, 1998: Site Soil Conditions The soil .conditions exposed in the house excavations were consistent with our prior explorations. on -site... The soils exposed 'at foundation elevations were suitable for the support of the building, as planned. No 'seepage .was observed in the excavation. Perimeter Drain installation We observed the placement of a perforated drain around the perimeter of the foundation. The drain,' was., placed in. general accordance, with our recommendations. 12525 Willows Road; Suite.101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 Mr. and Mrs. Chung October 16, 1998 Fill` Compaction We performed two density tests'during fill placement. operations. The results of the compaction tests indicate that adequate compaction was;being.achieved. The fills were placed inside the foundatiori:perimeter and, ,did'not result" 'in raising.of:site grades above the,existing elevations on the site: Field Memos Copies -of our field memos are attached to this letter.The contractor was provided with a field memo at:the end of each site visit. We trust this letter adequately discusse"s our current observations' on this project., If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, _�`$, BU,�. . TERRA ASSOCIA S, , Anil Butail, P.E. .President CRUAB:dvp �1�� : 12p9/ CQ -. - Enci: Field Memos (4) Footing Excavation Examination Report (1) cc: Ms. Jeannine Graff, City of Edmonds Building Department Mr. Ronald D. Johnson Daily Field Memo far z;s ' TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. j i-� Pro ect No. Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Memo No. Kirkland, Washington Q a l'QQ ! —1 Date _. Project: C 1/ VI Subject: Location: '' 0 G 1 3 V >) �L O I - .3 Contractor: `— ' U ✓ Vl Q J Weather:_ ✓ ( Present At Site: d k/k BY: = / 7� �' Copies To: V) Daily Field Memo TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Project No. /-- 6 Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Memo No. Kirkland, Washington Date Project:. V1 Subject: Location: i f( -1`, I \ v \I Contractor: Weather: Present At Site: " v Co ies To: By: P Daily Field Memo TERRA ASSOCIATES j Inc. Project No. Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Memo No. Kirkland; Washington Date�� Project: Subject: "f-- Location: Contractor: Weather: Present At Site: "` V\ >4E VN- Avt, Je 1 t :G Test Location B - C comes To: TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone: (206) 821-7777 • FAX (206) 821-4334 FOOTING EXCAVATION EXAMINATION" REPORT p DATE FOOTINGS EXAMINED -7'I S- 7 R PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME: FitPROJECT LOCATION: CONTRACTOR- C� v vtpp RFPRFSFNTATIVF DESCRIPTION OF FOOTINGS COVERED BY THIS REPORT: fir_ c nI rnco C&V-"cV�t Our representative has examined only the footing excavations listed above. .The results of this examination are only valid fora period of 48 hours. If any change in the subgrade conditions occurs, we should be promptly notified. Any'loosened soils observed in foundation areas due to construction activity or rainfall should be removed prior to concrete placement. (71 COPY TO: SIGNATURE TERRA ASSOCIATES RESEN TIVE TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth.Sciences February 6, 1998. Project No. T-840-3-1 Mr. Ronald Q..-Johnson. 19601 - 23rd Avenue NW Shoreline, Washington 98177 Subject: Comments Regarding Geotechnical Review Chung Residence Lorian Woods, Lot 3 Edmonds, Washington. References: 1) Geotechnical Review, Proposed Chung Single -Family Residence, Prepared by Landau Associates, Inc.; dated December 29, 1997. .2) Geotechnical Report, Meadowdale'Beach; Lots 54 to 57,.Prepared by Terra . Associates, Inc., dated June 6, 1989. .3) Supplement Notes, Chung Residence, Prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1997. Dear Mr. Johnson: As .requested,. we have reviewed .the geotechnical. review letter by the City of Edmonds and: Landau . Associates, Inc:, for the proposed Chung Residence. Our comments and recommendations are as follows: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - I . Three test pits were excavated in the foundation area of the proposed Chung Residence on June '7, 1991. Based on the test pit_ exploration and our geotechnical study; we concluded that conventional spread footings can be used to support the proposed'residence. We recommended . that a bearing capacity of,1,200 pounds per, square foot (psf) be used in the footing design. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101,.Kirklarid,.Washington 98034 • Phone (425)_821-7777. .Mr. Ronald.D: Johnson February 6, 1998 2. In the referenced supplement, we. stated that the probabiliiy. of earth movement•is.likely -less than ten percent within 25 years. Landau. Associates;' Inc., correctly notes. that Figure_5. of our falls within a 30 ,percent probability zone. This 1989 report shows that'a portion of this lot; figure is based on the original 4979 Roger Lowe report of studies.on the Meadowdale. landslide area: Subsequently, extensive drainage. improvements were made by the City of Edmonds to improve stability. After these improvements and further.observations of on -site conditions, we prepared Figure 6 in our 1989 report. The information shown ,on Figure 6 represents our opinions regarding the probability/risk. A detailed discussion is presented on Pages 3, and 9.. ' through 12 of the 1989 geotechnical report. Figure 6 in the referenced report shows the estimated probability of landslide damage to. individual lots. It shows that the probability of landslide damage within 25 'years. is 'less than five percent in the southeast corner and less than ten.percent in:the- rest of the area of the Chung residential lot. Materials for structural fill should be predominantly granular with a maximum'size, of two inches and -no more.than five',percent fines passing. the No. 200 Sieve. All structural fills'should be placed in layers no - more than 12 inches thick and compacted - to a - minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). Free draining material below slabs should consist of pea gravel or similar material. with'less.than three percent fines passing the No.. 200 Sieve. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1. The estimated probability of landslide damage to the residential lot was discussed above. Considering. the location of the residence across the street from a potential,'debris flow, it is our opinion that the potential of such a debris flow reaching the residence is remote.. However; if the, owner determines that further protection is necessary, a diversion wall may be constructed to divert potential debris to the south, adjacent to the garage. In.our opinion, such a wall is not necessary. 'We recommendthat the architect' and owner review the current design and add t e diversion/protection facility,.ifneeded:��98 . -ro NOri�7 7"IW-Paev Count'z w v►-�. 2. We. recommend that the structural engineer use a lateral- earth pressure of 40 pounds per cubic . •.foot (pcf) for unrestrained_ walls, plus an additional uniform pressure of 100 psf for .restrained wall design. 3.. We concur with Landau Associates; Inc."s, recommendation that project drawings should show all, of the.necessary details for installation of utilities: 4. Based on the test exploration' loration it is our opinion that conventional. spread footings are P P appropriate for the proposed residence. We recommend a bearing capacity of 1,200 psf for the design of the footings. We recommend that the design or the .notes.on Sheet 9 be revised to incorporate this foundation bearing capacity. Project No. T440-3-I ' Page No. 2 Mr..Ronald D. Johnson. February 6; 1998 5. We recommend that Miradrain be used -together with the ;free -draining backfill material to provide wall_ drainage. 6. We recommend that the civil engineer verify details of sewer lines as suggested by Landau Associates, Inc. 7: We recommend that perforated PVC pipes are' installed at the bottoms of the rockeries to avoid trapping groundwater behind them. An experienced rockery contractor should construct the rockery in accordance with acceptable ;state, or local 'standards, such as King County Road Standards, Section 5.01. 8 We recommend that a field engineer, Verifies. all.footing excavations before pouring concrete. If the bearing surface . is disturbed; - the loose material should be removed. and 'replaced with structural fill. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If'you have any questions or require additional .information, please call_ Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Runqi Wang, Ph.D. ty BUa' Project Engineer e,04 �rnco� lt. ♦ Anil Butail, P.E. President ors.10 RW/AB:ts� s' 12J9/ q 9 Project No. T-840-3-1 Page No. 3 7 AofED'f CITY COPY M'6kwl"1-161 l%4V11k4fAD A XT"IT'N4 Date: January 23, 1998 To: File No. PC-97-356 (Building Permit) From: M.E. Meg Gruwell �7114 Via: Jeffrey S. Wilson, Responsible Official Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR CHUNG SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE; FILE NO. PC-97-356 I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist and building permit application materials (including a geotechnical report), which have been prepared for the project. A copy of these are filed in the official file for this permit. Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I recommend that an environmental determination of nonsignificance be issued for the project. One issue that has come up in review is the drainpipe in a ditch, which is adjacent to this site. This is a portion of the small stream which runs alongside 73rd Place W. and then turns to run between this lot and the lot to its south, and empties out to the west on 75th Place W. The critical areas determination done for this site in 1994 was a waiver, and did not mention the need for a study of the creek location. The stream also does not show up on our Critical Areas Map. In talking with Don Fiene he thinks that the small stream flows year-round, but that it is really only a drainage ditch which the former site owner has used to collect water from the various springs on the site to make it resemble a stream. The stream flowing through Lorian Woods does not have any native vegetation growing near it, but only lawn and dirt. The plat of Lorian Woods appears to have considered this only as a drainage ditch and not as a natural stream. For the purpose of our critical areas regulations, I am also considering it to be a drainage ditch, which has artificially collected runoff from various springs and collected it together. Therefore, no mitigation is required. PC97356C.DOC 01/23/98. City of Edmonds oR Planning Division ti Review by Responsible Official I concur: .� I do not concur: Comments: Attachments pc: File No. PC-97-356 Jef re . Wilson Date PC97356C.DOC 01/23/98. Page 2 of 2 TERRA .' 4 • ` Consultant 8 E"-" a ldwlk�T Rrrme:ZM14- FILE /doo¢ �iL ASSOCIATES, I nC. NOV - 6 1997. s in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Robert and Joann Anderson 7370 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Report Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57 Edmonds, Washington Dear Dr. and Mrs. Anderson: We have completed the geotechnical studies you authorized for your property in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. The site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The tract, referred to herein as the Anderson property, includes Lots 54, 55 and 56 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach and most of Lot 57. We understand that you intend to subdivide this property into approximately ten lots for single-family residences. A final plat has not been developed at this time. The purpose of the present study is to assess landslide hazards on the property and provide general recommendations for site improvements, and for grading, drainage and foundations for residential construction. The work completed includes 1) a review of soil reports and other information in City files, 2) examination of air photos of the site vicinity, 3) a visual examination of the property, including shallow soil explorations made by hand, and 4) exploration of subsurface conditions using test borings and test pits. This report describes our findings and summarizes our recommendations. After the property has been subdivided, the City may require a geotechnical evaluation of the construction proposed for each individual lot. Such work is not within the scope of the present study. SUMMARY The existing site topography and a possible plat with ten lots is shown on Figure 2. The property slopes downward from east to west. The central portion of the site includes a relatively flat bench. The steep slopes at the east side extend beyond the property line. A' lower bench occupied by several residences lies beyond the west property line. 15301 N:E:--90th--Street-`Redmond, Washington 98052 • Phone (206) 8&t-55-70 • FAX No. 869-9173 Mailing Address: PtG:.BQ&_1339 • Redmond, Washington 98&7�- k..l . .. , q 7-1 ,? Z- Robert and Joann Aeson June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 2 The Anderson property is part of a large ancient landslide. The area that failed extends along 75th Place West from Meadowdale County Park southward to about the 165th block and from the bluff on the east to the shoreline. The original landslide probably occurred several thousand years ago. Parts of this landslide have been active into recent times and possibly are still active. The records indicate that landslides occurred in Meadowdale during the winters of 1946-47, 1955-56 and during the 1960s and 1970s. Local residents report that no detectable earth movements and no building damage occurred on the Anderson property during any of these events. In 1979, the 40-year record of landslide events in the Meadowdale area was studied by Roger Lowe Associates Inc and the landslide hazards were evaluated. Several possible landslide categories were identified, based largely on topographic features existing at the time of the study. A map that identified the landslide hazards and estimated failure probabilities was developed for the entire Meadowdale area. The Lowe study identified three categories of potential landslides on the Anderson property, as summarized on Figure 3. Most of the property where the subsoils are believed to be ancient landslide debris was classified as previously failed material susceptible to renewed landslide movements. On the central bench, the probability that landslides of this type (4A) might occur within 25-year periods was estimated at 25 percent, the lowest rating given any area believed to be located on the old slump material. This relatively low rating was given because no landslides have occurred on the bench during historic.times. The western slopes below the bench were rated at 35 percent, only slightly higher than the 25-percent rating given the bench. Because areas on the Anderson property at the northwest and the southwest corners were believed to have been affected by three major landslides since the 1940s, The Lowe report assigned these areas a rating of 90 percent. However, because residents on property adjacent these corners of the Anderson property report that no damage to buildings and no perceptible earth movements occurred during these events, the rating of 90 percent assigned these areas likely was unwarranted. The steep slope east of the bench was mapped as generally undisturbed materials susceptible to shallow debris slides (3B) and to avalanches from further up the slope (2C). A relatively low probability of occurrence was assigned to landslide events of these types. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as likely the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, in 1980 through 1985, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed around and within the Meadowdale landslide. Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B were installed on the Anderson property at the locations shown on Figure 2. Since that time, a lowering of the groundwater table throughout the landslide mass has been documented. Robert and Joann Arson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 0 Page 3 In 1985, GeoEngineers, Inc evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in much of the area believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the Anderson property, the estimated probability that the old slump material might move again within a 25-year period was reduced by a factor of about three. Based on our test pits and borings and other available information, we conclude that all the Anderson property below the bluff is underlain by landslide debris, mostly loose sands mixed with silts, clays and buried vegetation, including trees. The depth of the debris probably exceeds 60 feet under the central bench and likely is in the range of 30 to 40 feet at the west property line. Figure 4 summarizes our conclusions concerning generalized subsurface conditions on the site. Figure 4 also illustrates ground water conditions on the site observed during our field _ work, which was performed during winter months. The water table appears to be about five to six feet below the ground surface along the west property line but near the ground surface on the slopes to the east. On the bluff, springs were observed where sandy soils outcrop above fine-grained materials. Based on these observations and our professional judgment, we agree generally with the landslide hazards assessment in the Lowe report. Figure 5 summarizes our assessment of present landslide hazards on the Anderson property and shows landslide occurrence probabilities consistent with the latest evaluation by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our opinion, Figure 5 is not adequate for assessing risk at individual residential lots. Firstly, the probabilities appear to apply only to the large-scale slumps that were the Lowe _ report's primary concern. In our opinion, while the low probabilities presented for the areas on the eastern slopes are believed to be suitable for large-scale slumps, they may underestimate the average occurrence intervals of the small-scale slides and avalanches that typically occur on steep ground. Secondly, available evidence suggests that most of the residences within areas supposedly affected by the landslides of record withstood those events with little or no damage. Consequently, probabilities of landslide occurrence, as presented in the Lowe report, probably exaggerate the risk of landslide damage to individual residences. Figure 6 presents a risk assessment that we believe is applicable to individual residential lots on the Anderson property. The probabilities presented are intended as measures of the risk of landslide damage rather than landslide occurrence. On Figure 6, the 30-percent ratings on Figure 5 at the northwest and the southwest corners have been reduced, reflecting the reports of local 'residents that the landslides responsible for the 30-percent ratings caused no perceptible earth movements on the Anderson property and no damage to residences adjacent these areas. Robert and Joann A*son Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 4 In our opinion, the present risk is low enough to justify development of the Anderson property, provided the design and construction procedures used do not impair the present stability, and provided also that future property owners are properly informed of the landslide hazards that exist, as required by the City's Ordinance 2661, and accept full responsibility for them. In order to develop the property without increasing the risk of landslide damage on adjacent property, and without unreasonable risk to the proposed residences, we recommend that certain measures be incorporated in the construction proposed for each lot. These include: 1) Homes should be adapted to the present topography, using split- and multi -level construction where suitable. 2) Where slopes are steeper than 15 degrees, fill should not be placed under the building footprints. Ground floors above the present grade should be framed over crawl spaces. 3) Slab -on -grade ground floors may be used in cuts, and on fills placed on slopes flatter than 15 degrees. 4) Basement cuts should not exceed about eight feet in height. If deeper cuts are required on steep slopes, the basement should be stepped and the excavation terraced. 5) Basement walls and perimeter foundation walls should be designed for lateral soil stresses suitable for the backslope angles. 6) Because landslide debris may provide relatively uneven support for foundations, buildings should have conventional wood -framed construction supported on reinforced concrete foundations. Concrete masonry is not recommended and brick veneer should be used only in small panels. 7) In general, conventional spread foundations may be used. Home sites where landslide debris is expected to provide poor bearing conditions should be explored with test pits before final plans are prepared. 8) Setbacks from both ascending slopes and descending slopes should comply with the requirements in the Uniform Building Code. 9) Pile and pier foundations may be considered as a means for improving foundation performance where soils are poor, and to satisfy setback requirements. 10) Landscaping should preserve the existing topography to the extent practical. Fills should not be placed on slopes steeper than 20 degrees. Fill slopes should be graded not steeper than 25 degrees. Robert and Joann Arson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 5 11) Cuts should be limited to heights of about eight feet. Clots up to four feet may be supported by rockeries. Higher cuts should be supported with reinforced concrete retaining walls. 12) Site drainage should be improved by installing drain rock bedding and perforated drain pipe in the trenches with all new storm sewers, as was done in the LID 210 storm sewers. 13) Home owners should improve drainage on their lots by diverting surface water into the storm water system. Perforated drain pipes tightlined to the storm sewers should be provided around all perimeter foundation walls and basement walls and behind all retaining walls. Rain gutters should discharge to the storm sewers in tightlines different from those used for the foundation drains. The following sections of this report discuss our findings and present our conclusions and recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is intended for the exclusive use of yourselves and your representatives. Our work has used methods and procedures consistent with local foundation engineering practices. We provide no other warranty, expressed or implied. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. SITE SURFACE CONDITIONS The project site is located south of North Meadowdale Road and east of the 74th Place West right-of-way in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The Anderson property includes Lots 54, 55 and 56 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach and part of Lot 57. In plan it measures about 350 feet by 650 feet and includes approximately 5.3 acres. The Anderson residence is located on Lot 55 in the west center of the site. As shown on Figures 2 and 4, the eastern third of the property is a slope that gradually steepens toward the east. The upper slope climbs steeply to a bluff with its crest near Elev 250 to 300 off the site to the east. At the time our study was performed, two small surface sloughs were noted on these steep eastern slopes. The central area of the property is a bench about 100 to 120 feet wide covered with grass, ivy and scattered trees. Grades on the bench vary from about Elev 120 in the north to Elev 150 in the south. The Anderson residence and a shed to the south are located on this bench. Several firs up to 47 inches in diameter and other large trees, straight-trunked and vertical, are located just south of the house. To the west the bench slopes down to the 74th Place West right-of-way. The grade change from the bench to the west property line ranges from ten feet at the north to about 50 feet at the south. Typical slope inclinations are in the range of 20 to 25 degrees with local areas as steep as 45 degrees. Rbbert and Joann A*on Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 0 Page 6 Irv1984, as part of the LID 210 work completed by the City, Interceptor Drains lA and 1B were installed on the Anderson property, approximately as shown can Figure 2. At the time of our study, many areas of the property, especially the east slopes, were wet from snow melt, rainfall, seepage and springs. Surface water not collected by the interceptors descends to the bench, runs downslope in watercourses around the Anderson home, then continues on to catch basins and other drainage features. The central bench on the Anderson property extends off the site to the north, where it is occupied by single-family residences. Other residences are located on a lower bench west and south of the Anderson property. All of these structures are supported on the slide debris that is part of the Meadowdale landslide complex. We understand that prior to the construction of the Anderson residence in 1965, six cabins and a house had been present on the Anderson property for many years. When these buildings were demolished in 1963, none are reported to have showed any evidence of landslide damage. REVIEW OF RECENT LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY The original landslides in the Meadowdale area are believed to have occurred several thousand years ago. The area involved extended from the bluff to the shoreline and from Meadowdale County Park on the north southward to about the 165th block. Landslide activity in this area has continued during historic time. The most readily accessible records describe the landslide activity during only the most recent 40 years. The records may not be complete. The landslide records indicate that much of the ancient landslide south of the present wharf was active in the winter of 1946-47. The same area is believed to have been active again in the 1960s. The area affected extended more than 400 feet east of the railroad. These events explain the 4A90 hazard rating the Lowe report gave the southwest corner of the Anderson property, as shown on Figure 3.- However, residents near the Anderson property during these landslides report that no damage occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during either event. During the same winter of 1946-47, a slide that blocked North Meadowdale Road did occur in the road cut on the Anderson property about 70 feet east of the present driveway. This slide probably was not related to the other landslide activity that occurred that winter. In the winter of 1955-56, landslides were reported at two locations north of North Meadowdale Road. The Lowe report concludes that during that winter the active area probably extended over most of the ancient landslide north of the wharf. These slides explain the Lowe report's 4A90 hazard rating shown on Figure 3 for the northwest corner of the Anderson property. However, residents near the Anderson property report that no damage occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during that winter. Robert and Joann Arson June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 7 .V J Numerous other smaller landslides have occurred within the past 40 years, most of them at the toe of the slope near the railroad. At least two larger slides were reported. In 1970, a slide just north of the wharf crossed to the east side of 75th Place West, causing minor pavement disruption, which recurs periodically. In 1973, a slide near the 158th block adjacent the railroad extended upslope to the west edge of 75th Place West. On the Anderson property, the ancient landslide mass has not undergone perceptible movements during the 40-year period of record. In addition, only minor sloughing has been observed on the eastern slopes since the Anderson home was constructed in 1965. Since that time, no avalanche debris has reached the toe of the slope at the east side of the bench. We reviewed stereoscopic air photos that show the property vicinity during the years 1947, 1955 and 1970. Pavement disruption on 75th Place West west of the property, due probably to the 1970 slide noted above, can be seen on the 1970 photos. The 1955 photos - show bare soil on the eastern slope above Lot 57, off the Anderson property. This scar probably was part of the residential construction going on at that time above the slope crest. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field work on the Anderson property was performed on February 14 through 17, 1989. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two standard penetration test borings to depths 50 and 69 feet below existing grades. In addition, six test pits were dug with a backhoe to depths that ranged from 12 to 19 feet below existing grades. The borings were made by Drilling Unlimited Inc of Olympia. A skid -mounted drill rig was used for one boring and a truck -mounted rig for the second. Continuous flight, hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes. _ The test borings and pits were located by measuring from site features shown on the survey plan provided us. The approximate locations explored are shown on Figure 2. - Ground surface elevations reported for the locations explored were estimated by interpolating contour lines shown on the survey plan. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firma A log was prepared for each boring and test pit. The soils observed were classified in general accordance with the system described on Figure 7. Logs of the borings and pits are presented on Figures 8 through 15. These logs report our interpretation of the field logs and reflect the results of laboratory examination and testing of the field samples. In each boring, standard penetration tests were performed at selected intervals by driving _ a sampler with a two-inch outside diameter using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The results of these tests are the N-values reported on the boring logs. Robert and Joann Serson M Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 8 Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory where they were again examined. The field moisture content of each sample was measured. Field visual classifications were checked by running Atterberg tests and sieve analyses on selected samples. All the test results are recorded on the boring logs. Ground water observation wells were installed in both borings. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The locations explored on the Anderson property are shown on Figure 2. The following discussion is general in nature. For more specific information regarding conditions observed at the locations explored, refer to the logs of borings and test pits, Figures 8 through 15. Boring 1 at the south end of the central bench was drilled to a depth 50 feet below existing grade. The soils observed are mostly loose silty fine to medium sands mixed with clays and silts. Based on the relatively low N-values in Boring 1, as reported on the log, and the mixed appearance of the material, we believe that all the soil is landslide debris derived from the Esperance and Whidbey formations exposed on the bluff to the east. The base of the ancient landslide is at an undetermined depth below the bottom of the boring. Boring 2 at the north end. of the central bench encountered about 30 feet of loose sandy soil with chunks of clay and wood debris, similar to the soils recovered in Boring 1. Below the 30-foot depth, silts and clays were encountered, generally very stiff but becoming hard within the final eight feet of the borehole. Subsurface conditions in Boring 2 are similar to conditions reported by Lowe . for a borehole about 150 feet northwest of Boring 2. The upper 30 to 50 feet is slide debris. The deeper clays and silts are believed to be part of the Whidbey formation and may or may not be part of the ancient landslide. _ All the test pits on the Anderson property encountered slide debris: loose silty sands with chunks of stiff to hard clays and silts. Trees buried in slide debris were uncovered in Test Pits 2 and 4. No stratification similar to that in the undisturbed Esperance sands near the top of the bluff was observed in any of the pits. Test Pits 2 and 4 through 6, which were excavated on the eastern slope, encountered ground water at shallow depths well above the toe of the slope. The sidewalls in Test Pits 2 and 4 collapsed as the pits were being dug. _ A ground water observation well installed years ago by the City is located near the southwest corner of the property. A log of the borehole is not available. We understand from discussions with the geologist who installed the well that the depth of the boring is in _ the range of 24 feet and all the material drilled was landslide debris. At the present time, the water level in this well is five to six feet below the ground surface. Robert and Joann A*son Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 9 With the possible exception of the Whidbey hard clays in the bottom of Boring 2, intact native soils were observed on this site only at fresh exposures on the bluff at the east margins of the property. Figure 4 shows a generalized profile of the native soils andthe overlying landslide materials. Near the toe of the bluff, both native soils and ancient landslide debris are covered with slope wash and avalanche debris deposited since the original landslide. As noted above, in Test Pits 2 and 4, trees were observed buried in debris. The Whidbey formation iS exposed on the bluff above the debris. In some areas near Elevs 170 to 190, the Whidbey soils are pebbly silts and sands. Further up the bluff, the Whidbey soils are finer, mostly silts and clays with seams of fine sand. The Esperance sands of the Vashon glaciation lie above about Elev 220 to 230. There are springs at the contact between the Esperance sands and the underlying Whidbey clays. PRESENT LANDSLIDE HAZARDS The Anderson property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to assess the various landslide hazards present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. The Lowe report classified three categories of possible landslides on the Anderson property, as summarized on Figure 3: 1) avalanches of debris from the steep slope at the east side of the site (2C); 2) landslides on the east slope in material that has never before failed (3B); and 3) renewed movements of the ancient landslide materials beneath the central bench and the western slopes (4A). The first two categories were considered to have relatively low risk, only a two to five percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. The possibility that a failure in the third category would occur within 25 years was estimated to be about 25 percent on The ce-niml !v.nch and ti5 on ..1ti4 wes!r n S-Io�vs' r .2.1"o* l�^�'��i�:s •��: occurred in 1946-47 and in 1955-56 were believed to have extended onto the Anderson property, small areas at the northwest corner and the southwest corner were assigned a 90 percent chance of failure within periods of 25 years. The Lowe report concluded that a reduction of ground water levels in the landslide complex likely was the most effective means of reducing the risk of additional landslides. Consequently, during the early 1980's, the City installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains at various locations on and around the Meadowdale landslide. Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B were installed on the Anderson property at the locations shown on Figure 2. Robert and Joann Serson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 1 Page 10 In 1985, GeoEngineers Inc evaluated the effects of these new drainage facilities and concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in many areas that had high risk. Landslide occurrence probabilities of 90 percent in 25 years were reduced to 30 - percent in 25 years. Similarly, ratings of 25 and 35 percent in 25 years were reduced to 10 percent in 25 years. - Our explorations on the Anderson property disclosed subsurface conditions generally consistent with the landslide categories described in the Lowe report (see Figure 3). However, when applied to more localized areas, these categories are not always descriptive of the landslide processes actually occurring or most likely to occur. For example, in the steep areas on the bluff where undisturbed soils occur, the Lowe report distinguishes between slumps (3A) and more shallow slides (3B). However, on the old landslide debris west of the bluff, all the recent and the anticipated landslide activity was classified as renewed slump movements (4A) although much of the recent activity was recognized as having characteristics of relatively shallow earthflows or debris slides. Figure 5 presents a landslide hazard map for the Anderson property that we believe better describes the slope movements that could occur. It retains the general features of the Lowe report map but has been adjusted to better fit local geology, topography and drainage conditions. On the steep bluff at the east margin of the property, the Lowe report indicates that _ slumps (3A) may occur in the exposed Esperance sands, but are unlikely. The probability of such failures is low because the springs on the bluff provide much better drainage for the sands than existed at the time the ancient landslide occurred. Nevertheless, the overly _ steep face of the bluff is constantly being loosened by weathering and plant growth. Shallow surface slides result from these processes. They usually are small in area and of little consequence for construction further down the slope since downslope movement of _ the debris commonly is hindered by vegetation on the lower slopes. On Figure 5, to distinguish these shallow slides from more massive slumps (3A), we have used the Lowe report category 3B, debris slides in material that has not previously failed. As shown on Figure 4, the Whidbey formation is exposed on the steep eastern slope below the Esperance sands. On Figure 5, this area is the second zone west of the east property line. The Lowe report indicates that shallow debris slides (313) are expected as weathering and plant growth gradually loosen this material. This zone is also at risk due to avalanches of debris from the Esperance sands above (2C). A massive slump (3A) is also possible. However, for the present drainage conditions and bluff topography, a slump would likely be confined to the overlying Esperance sands. The third zone from the east property line is below the zones where undisturbed native soils are exposed, but upslope from the ancient landslide debris (4A). The near -surface soils are colluvium from the bluff (see Figure 4). Due to surface water from the springs on the bluff, the ground water table is near the ground surface. The landslide hazards in this area are shallow slides in steeper, wetter zones of colluvium (4B) and avalanches from slides occurring higher up the slope (2C). Robert and Joann Arson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 11 The fourth zone from the east property line on Figure 5 is the lower slope at the east side of the central bench. This zone and the remainder of the property to the west are underlain by ancient landslide debris. The east boundary of this zone approximates the trace of the old failure plane on the present ground surface (see Figure 4). The landslide hazards include avalanches off the slopes to the east (2C) and renewed activity of the old slump debris (4A). There is an additional risk of shallow slides in the old slump debris or in colluvium that has accumulated since the ancient landslide occurred (4B). These latter failures are most likely to occur on the steeper slopes to the north during unusually wet winters. The remainder of the site includes the central bench and the slopes to the west. The major landslide hazard in this area is renewed activity in old slump debris (4A). In addition, the east side of the bench may receive avalanches from the slope to the east (2C). There is little chance such an avalanche would carry across the bench and down the western slopes. However, the west side of the property has locally steep debris slopes where shallow slides (4B) may occur during unusually wet weather. The west corners of the site are classified in the Lowe report as having the highest landslide risk on the Anderson property. These areas also have risks due to landslide hazards other than renewed slumps, as shown on Figure 5. A numerical probability of occurrence is presented on Figure 5 for the multiple hazards in _ each of the various areas. The probabilities shown are consistent with those in the Lowe report, as modified by the 1984 assessment by GeoEngineers, Inc. _ In our opinion, the landslide occurrence probabilities shown on Figure 5 for the central portion of the property are reasonable considering the historical record of fairly large-scale landslide events. The 10-percent rating has been assigned arbitrarily to areas _ where renewed movements of the old slump material have not been reported and are not believed to have occurred within historic times. The bench on the Anderson property is such an area. Applying the conclusions of the Lowe report elsewhere on the Anderson property presents some difficulties. Firstly, the 30-percent rating was given the west corners of the Anderson property because these areas were believed in the Lowe report to have been affected by landslides in the 40-year record. However, downslope neighbors of the Anderson property who lived through those events report that no perceptible slope movements occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during any landslide of record. Consequently, the original 90-percent ratings, and the current 30-percent ratings, probably are too conservative, based on the available evidence. Secondly, with regard to the eastern slopes, landslide occurrence probabilities in the range of only two to five percent, as assigned by the Lowe report (see Figure 3), are understandable only as ettimates of the chance that a large-scale event in the native, undisturbed bluff soils might occur. We agree that the probability of large-scale slumps of Robert and Joann son Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 0 Page 12 the bluff is low, 'as predicted by Figure 3. However, we believe these low probabilities underestimate the frequency of small-scale landslide events in overly steep ground caused by weathering, erosion, and excessive ground water. Such events, although small in scale, could cause significant hazards for residences located on the slide area or in the path of an avalanche. A third difficulty in applying the Lowe report to residential lots is that probabilities of landslide occurrence may not represent the risk of damage to residences, which is the primary concern of home owners. The historical record at Meadowdale indicates that few homes have actually been damaged by the landslides that have occurred. If all the homes within a defined landslide area were not damaged by the landslides that occurred, the probability of residential damage must be less than the probability of landslide occurrence. Unfortunately, the relationship between landslide damage and landslide occurrence cannot easily be evaluated and varies from place to place. Moreover, the probability that a landslide will damage homes will increase as the density of homes increases, even though the probability that the landslide will occur remains constant. A qualitative risk assessment that incorporates the considerations above is shown on Figure 6. We recommend its use for residential lots on the Anderson property. In our opinion, the risk is lowest on the central bench, which we do not believe has experienced any landslide activity during the 40 years of record. Following the argument above, we believe the probability of landslide damage likely is less than five percent in 25 years, base on a landslide occurrence probability of ten percent, as shown on Figure 5. On the western slopes, the risk is higher than on the bench, due primarily to the influence of locally steep slopes, and to the proximity of downslope areas with higher landslide occurrence probabilities. The risk at the toe of the eastern slopes, in our opinion, is also higher than on the bench, due to the threat of small slides of overly wet slope debris and to avalanches off the steeper slopes to the east. Slides in the debris on the lower slopes apparently have not occurred during the 40 years of record. Due to the recent drainage improvements, and to the additional drainage improvements that will be effected by future home owners, the frequency of occurrence of such slides is not expected to increase. Slides off the upper slopes that might cause avalanches on the lower slopes apparently are occurring with an average return period of ten to 20 years. Due to their small size and to hindrance by the heavily vegetated lower slopes, no avalanches have reached the lower slopes during the past 30 years. In our opinion, residences located on the upper slopes would be closer to potential small-scale landslide activity and thus would experience greater risk. Because these areas are comparatively inaccessible, they are unlikely to be selected as home sites. Robert and Joann ?arson 0 Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 13 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figures 5 and 6 and the preceeding pages describe the landslide hazards and risks present on various sections of the Anderson property. The hazards can be separated into two general groups: 1) large-scale, relatively deep-seated slope movements caused by renewed activity off the ancient landslide; and 2) small-scale, comparatively shallow slides. These latter slides may be avalanches off the oversteepened bluff at the east margins of the site, or slides in colluviurn that have accumulated below the bluff. Within the past 40-odd years, large-scale activity has not affected the Anderson property. Moreover, the drainage system installed by the City under LID 210 has improved the large-scale stability and reduced the risk that a future large-scale event will affect the property. At the present time, the probability of occurrence of a large-scale event is believed to be less than 30 percent in 25 years everywhere on the property, and in the range of 10 percent in 25 years on the central bench, the western slopes and the lower eastern slopes. In our opinion, the probability of landslide damage is significantly smaller than these estimated probabilities of landslide occurrence, as illustrated by Figure 6. The risk of a landslide activity, both large-scale and small-scale, is now low enough to justify development of the Anderson property. This applies to all the lots shown on Figure 2. Some lots have higher risk than others, but on all lots, the risk is small enough to warrant development. On all lots, residual risks exist that cannot be eliminated. As required by the City's Ordinance 2661, future lot owners should be fully informed regarding the residual landslide risks, both large-scale and small-scale, and their purchase agreements should require them to accept full responsibility for these risks. While efforts to further reduce the risk of large-scale landslides, in our opinion, are not warranted, the risk from, small-scale slides may be either increased or decreased, depending on the construction on the individual lots. Lot owners should be held to construction and maintenance standards that will reduce their risk as much as practical. The paragraphs below in this section of the report describe recommended measures to reduce the risk of small-scale landslides. These measures, however, will neither entirely remove the hazard nor eliminate the risk. Residences constructed most everywhere on the Anderson property will be supported on old landslide debris. In general, conventional spread foundations may be used. However, our test pits indicate that on some building sites bearing conditions on the debris may be relatively poor. Building supported on such material should be expected to experience small settlements. Consequently, in our opinion, the Anderson property is best suited for wood -framed construction with stiff exterior wall sheathing. Concrete masonry walls, which can develop cosmetic damage with only small settlements, are not recommended. Brick veneer should be used sparingly. Lot owners who wish to reduce the risk of cosmetic damage caused by settlement may consider supporting their homes on pile or pier foundations. Robert and Joann arson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 14 Working conditions on the Anderson property may be excessively wet during the winter months, especially on the eastern slopes. We recommend scheduling all site work for the drier months from April to October. ,Site Improvements In order to subdivide the Anderson property, only limited site improvements are _ necessary. To provide access to the interior lots, the existing driveway must be extended, approximately as shown on Figure 2. Either concrete or asphaltic pavement may be supported on the landslide debris on the Anderson property. In either case, the subgrade _ should be proofrolled to assure it is firm and unyielding. The uppermost twelve inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of its ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density. Site soils may be too wet to achieve this level of compaction. In that case, a _ clean bank -run gravel or crushed rock should be imported and a subbase constructed at least twelve inches thick. Asphalt pavement should, have a base course of crushed rock at least four inches thick and a surface course of asphaltic concrete at least two inches thick. Concrete pavement should be at least five inches thick. It may be placed directly on the subgrade, provided — the work is done in dry weather. A base course of crushed rock a few inches thick may be needed in wet weather. We recommend extending the storm sewers to the end of the new driveway. This will provide an opportunity to install additional drainage at the toe of the east slopes and provide a place where lot owners can discharge their foundation drains and roof gutters. The storm sewers should be tightlined. To pick up ground water seepage intercepted by the trench, drain rock bedding and perforated drain pipe should be installed in the excavations, as was done with the LID 210 storm sewers. The drain pipe should be placed at the lowest invert practical. The trench should be lined with filter cloth and backfilled with pea gravel, except within two feet of the surface. Other utilities should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with AWPA standards. All utility trench backfill should be at least moderately compacted. Under pavement, backfill in utility excavations should satisfy the proofrolling and compaction recommendations above. Cuts and Fills _ Residences and landscaping should be designed to fit the existing topography. Homes on the relatively flat central bench may be conventional construction. If desired, fills up to about three feet in depth may be used to raise grades. Foundations and slab -on -grade _ ground floors may be supported on properly compacted fills. Robert and Joann Aron June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 15 Homes built on sloping ground should be multi- or split-level, as suited to the present topography. Basement cuts into the slope should not exceed eight feet in height. Deeper basements should be terraced. Fills should not be placed under homes on slopes steeper than about 15 degrees. Ground floors above present grades should be framed over crawl spaces. Cuts and fills in landscaped areas should be minimized. Cuts up to four feet high may be supported by rockeries, provided high maintenance and a risk of failure is acceptable. For higher cuts or where better performance is desired, reinforced concrete retaining walls should be used. All retaining structures should have backfill drains near their footings connected with tight lines to the storm water system. In general, wood -framed residential construction may be supported on conventional spread foundations. However, because most of the property is underlain by landslide debris, bearing conditions at some building sites may be relatively poor, especially on the lower eastern slopes, where our test pits uncovered trees and other vegetation buried within the debris. Preliminary building plans, once prepared, should be reviewed to evaluate likely foundation requirements. Following the review, exploration of the building site with test pits may be recommended. Where needed, the pits should extend several feet below the intended footing bearing grades. To provide suitable bearing for footings, unsuitable materials, if found, should be removed to depths at least two feet below the footings and replaced with compacted gravel or rock fill. Where buildings overhang slopes or are located close to slope crests, the foundations should be stepped down to bear well below present grades. Setback requirements, as described below, should be satisfied. Where conventional foundations for such applications are not practical, pier or pile foundations should be considered. Since these piles likely will be supported entirely in debris, careful attention should be paid to estimating design capacity. Buildings supported on landslide debris may experience settlement due to the excessive and variable compressibility of the debris. Home owners who wish to reduce the risk of poor foundation performance may consider using pile or pier foundations to support their residences. The use of these deep foundations will reduce the risk of damage caused by settlements due to unsuitable bearing materials present at shallow depths. However, deep foundations likely will not reduce the property damage if a future landslide occurred on the site. Consequently, deep foundations should not be viewed by property owners as a means of reducing their risk of landslide damage. Robert and Joann Arson June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 16 Setbacks From Ascending Slopes In order to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures, the Uniform Building Code requires that buildings be set back from ascending slopes. Residences constructed on the central bench well away from the steep eastern slopes will be exposed to very little risk of this type. However, building sites on the eastern slopes may have only minimal setbacks and thus higher risks of damage caused by these potential small-scale failures. UBC requires a minimum setback of 15 feet. On slopes not overly steep, this requirement can be satisfied by excavating a bench behind the residence and supporting the low cut with a retaining wall. On steeper slopes, the code's intent can be satisfied, in our opinion, by constructing the foundation wall adjacent the slope to a height where the top of the wall is 15 feet from the face of the slope. Since these small setbacks are catchment areas for debris sliding off the slopes above these homes, where the setbacks meet only the minimum UBC requirements, the rear walls of the buildings, in our opinion, should be designed to withstand debris impacts. i. i For setbacks from descending slopes steeper than 18 degrees, we recommend complying with the UBC requirement of 40 feet or one-third the height of the slope, whichever is less. The slope height may be measured to the next lower bench of significant width. Where it is desired to construct within the normal setback zone, the intent of the code, in our opinion, can be satisfied by lowering the foundations. Where the slopes are high, pile or pier foundations may be necessary. Basement and Foundation Walls Because homes on the Anderson property will be supported on old landslide debris, foundation bearing conditions may be relatively poor. Building settlements that vary from place to place should be expected. In order to reduce the risk of poor foundation performance that may result from these variable settlements, we recommend using only cast -in -place concrete foundation walls and basement walls, properly reinforced. In general, residences on sloping sites should be stepped to fit the present topography. Basements are recommended since they will assure that many of the foundations will bear well below finish outside grades. We recommend limiting basement cuts to a maximum of eight feet. If a two -level basement is desired on a steep site, the basement should be stepped to fit the slope so that a terraced cut can be made with each terrace not more than eight feet high. Robert and Joann Anon June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 17 1. All basement walls and foundation walls should be provided with perimeter footing. drains. The drains should consist of a perforated pipe within an envelope of washed stone, all enclosed by filter fabric. The walls should be treated with dampproofing. A drainage course should be placed outside the wall and connected to the footing drain. This wall drain may be either free -draining gravel backfill or a manufactured drain attached to the wall after the dampproofing has been applied. Soil lateral stresses for structural design of foundation walls and basement walls will depend on the steepness of the backslopes and other factors and should be selected specifically for each building site. �.• At the present time, surface runoff, rainfall and seepage from the bluff and near -surface ground water are collected on the eastern slopes by Interceptor Drains lA and 1B. These recent improvements have significantly dried up the Anderson property. Some water undoubtedly passes under the drains and reaches the ground water. Since the water table presently is well below the ground surface at the west property line, the present large-scale stability of the Anderson property, in our judgment, is adequate to justify subdivision of the property. However, measures to improve site drainage can be obtained at little premium cost by incorporating them into any storm sewer extensions that may be needed, as discussed in the Site Improvements section above. To reduce the risk of local, small-scale sloughing of steep slopes due to excessive surface water and high ground water, other drainage measures should be installed as part each lot owner's construction. Each lot should be landscaped so that all surface water is collected and conveyed into catch basins connected to the storm sewer system. All basement, foundation, and retaining walls should be provided with perforated footing drains, as described above. The drains should connect to the storm water system with tight lines. Cleanouts should be provided. Rain gutters should be connected to the storm water system using tight lines separate from those used for basement drains. Stability During Construction The present stability of sloping sites will be disturbed by construction activities on the individual lots and the risk of slope failures will be highest at that time. The risk is mainly to builder's operations close to the disturbed area. Builders can minimize their risk by using good construction practices. Surface water should be diverted into catch basins and the site dried up prior to making any excavations. Excavation sidewalls should be sloped back at safe angles or supported with temporary shoring. Where excavations encounter ground water, perimeter ditches should be constructed to control the water. Robert and Joann A*on June 6, 1989 • Project T-840-1 Page 18 Excavations on the individual lots may create hazards on adjacent lots, depending on how the buildings are sited and on the construction sequence for adjacent buildings. Problems of this type are unlikely, but should be considered on a lot -by -lot basis. Since a slope failure in landslide debris initiated by an excavation on the Anderson property would not progress upslope into native, undisturbed material, temporary excavations will cause no risk for neighbors of the Anderson property. Excavated materials stockpiled on steep slopes would place neighbors downhill at risk. Excavated material for use as backfill should be stockpiled on gentle slopes where adjacent property is not endangered. Surplus material. should immediately be hauled off the site. In our opinion, the development of residential construction on the Anderson property will not have adverse impacts on the landslide hazards that affect the Anderson property and the neighboring property. Implementation of the drainage measures recommended herein will lower the groundwater table and reduce the current risk of landslides on the Anderson property and on the property downslope. Construction on the Anderson property will not affect the stability of the bluff and thus will not adversely affect neighboring property to the east. Maintaining healthy vegetation on slopes is important for controlling erosion and reducing the risk from small-scale landslides. The existing vegetation on steeper slopes outside construction areas should be preserved to the extent practical. Trees thatmight topple onto the buildings should be trimmed back but not removed. Catch basins and storm drain lines should be kept clear of debris and free -flowing. During construction, stripped soils should be covered with straw or otherwise protected to reduce erosion. All landscaping around the residences should be installed as soon as practical after the buildings have been completed. CLOSURE The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from test borings, test pits and visual observations of soil exposures. However, subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site may differ from those observed at the locations explored. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident before construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. Robert and Joann Awson June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 0 Page 19 The following figures are included and complete this report: _ Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 . Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 _ Figure 7 Figures 8 through 15 Vicinity Map Exploration Location Plan Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report 1979 Generalized Geologic Cross -Section Landslide Hazard Map Residential Risk Map Legend for Test Pits and Borings Logs of Test Borings and Test Pits - We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please contact us whenever we may be able to assist you, and please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Respectfully submitted, TERRA SOCI TES, INC AS:C . . Charles R. Lie Engineering Geologist William Bailey Project Manager Anil Butail, PE President BU T A S H �e' N yy �L 0 GISTSP V�r� ss� O N AL..ifil vs '< 1 SN, a > u.cf sw N o. ;I a ?p I 1 •fRE1• ST sw • a4t. Y > „'. 0 140R03 3 ST Sw Z I • .5 '++199 �z I • : ! v"1 144TH ST S% .. c , ��,. .: f (� ;�;• A' �,�, � 1 ` z , sr'r,, JY „� S'« z :, I.. +t s. ''• - ' � �•: / "r �•L', � C7�? I 8 ¢ sW`T ♦i --z S .. :.;:/i-�'•, :s,. - � . Ri 4,` ih� 1•r �•:J:.`:�. :•Y«L' r' p z dS01 w,. �9i 31 ,s��• 5, I- . F' _3 ^' /'" i.." Z•_ t+,. �� YtsFr 11� L �^k•i�3 'I..•Ei.'i 0 W:.��ri ea r+ 51 - rs:n®3�,�-!`?�I«•.i-. s. �s«� i '+_ , �/�J// ^ ':'�;`n'7.Y 1✓ 'IV�.y'�,�vY. r. y'�?e,- /! _„ Jed - e i�-----•: -:e:. :ai'^ ..: ?'.... tsl•.��yJ�.`�'),^ F� "' - i:,,�: -1 _��•a _�Q -5 ,S ',• 1 S'« S/`.�•1 ¢`1'}'#"" �'Zi'.L !7�r +r`:;%r+,'�IA� )- -i'%- y� ^-� <• i Sw•'o' •m •fir_ i_'_ - - -n(-• 'a �' '-• .. _ _ a- 1�i£1i17CL.•,.7615T / SIST 181 P` a _ •i:. t L:f S•r.'_' fw.'• - °�i1f 1/. :soTM �o frt00w0A of .-... ,1 `ISZHO ST `ti S'w f x 7S :5': ! . i\,YI -'. 'COUNTY ......r I L ;I1 RO ST ; a a l3 :, 1`.1r•: ryo r I ., ): Sw I ,� .'rzW i^-?•JwDS?i: •1,,.....; I;.... a ISJpD VL Sw lal SM1.I , 7 ;i. Q '�:','Y� f ^/I.I� t7,. " �. y 157i_II I. •ST MEAD ' p' OWDALF S i+-I ... KDurIY . S :/ f r E' (� ",,.;(�. / sRT,•�,yT,�(J��g'�.�`,rI , . y ` I _ s Q I PA L/,(: _'.' :b,„• S I S I, 1 I, i 1 _- M'�l�`•1 I �I P• - c' a o 7r7' '•:' }@,5r'�`�`.�;?;,,�.Ja�' ::i:�`� •S-= - 160TH 1- - -- ST- G SWv7vII' - - "�'' s f JY<�! LAEOUGTEN, M * - ' '`.aI - - -• - - - - ... ._ _. f!.r W ARfs. ; F9 P TH xrl SW-_-- I a{ G i p 3 OO♦��t-% w. - vYr• S.62M 0i .6, '+L w S I a C:'1::: fi•.: •• `/ti= i3 9�,�� D' S ISw / A lO : 5T 5'r.;cc �Lstli._rr .�j`)• tiMTH< T s .s 3t6•sTH ST Sw I� ,.tfii' •.i r',* 'r: fir- S 5r �6. - •I i' �• . ,'I �S -- .^Nyr:..i C t•sn!yl4 ?T�: j�'..4 i -y-sz ` ��' ` ROC'i�Tsi ii:lyr oop r� C '� �M/•X t�y,;^{ S'y• 1,^�y��,� � r• .. .� �s . I ll� •'+c� Y'S'3 �s':°°T� •,, •yy s.:.: '.'v'Trl•s.: 'I.Ni"'�., .• G�� i.'31•(�»• ,(�' !Ap' `•Fc. + ter.• grvr A� r��„✓• Z_� ,'vf'?�°t�: 1►i, ?^y3{--r- r�.- kBR;� WN': _ '�, i'� • I`ca p atsn_w' s��; .•..ia .168T.i7„S'T^ �� - m \ O1, ��• 'T 21 i"s� ✓R: 1 `•{'+MEADOW A I,•rL ti Y --•� w 1:; uk i' L o. E ��Ti r JI`.,i r• +) 0O R�1'\ 9��11<,r.p s I,e!-�r�i �_.irP SYi'_, _ /J-.1',-� v; I- T�>or. M. .I". 4 Sf vs+ s'^' 3�' I IsI�3 ��:1• V^7'sTt i Rn•�.i��i'�{.1. ti•�_ .,; 3 ,lir— ,.iIfi•.._5 5-:, ,y6 :'2ND �I �I� ;f .1715 tsil>il:Ji �Ji a. :T2r10•ST.SY/, �1,�,(ur<• I'_ �-�r. „ . I>'s} 'T:NDi .P f " �_ �I � .PL�Sv'• 9 1 1 . t.� _ y„ I. . o w`o : 1•�' -`t fiU'y fl•_V. .�.`^„i..+►. '� 7 R R 0 P � te r: 5./:S a\,,,>'y,.olT, .90'S t P.Cti �. . ,_ .,,� r-� c % -,� :; .i.. 5 • / SVN' ��ySC[ f`-'t�^�, Ivy' y a': i • �.�,il _J!' �. ,T"I I'�.r��i*�,� ♦'� ca-�c�Z ST`•-�ZI s kfrt✓ /� LJIVI�f�^1'7 -1 SNONO /SH " ¢ CDUN iY + � 3 t lTTr.. zr;. t5"^ a•. zr. x �P. ' �' V T T•'ul'!M _ - .5 -r J 7 it llzjt- �I L g �. s zv, "�---� _ .- •( J \ ,. l•.-\ .� • Z D ;"' Q•_ _ PAR, PROPERRs' - - ..Q z,, _'`� .BIj.. Iz# a1 9'"' iST S. ,� •Mt^�! �% J;/!1•r r••�`� 76TNSTr• C '/1rHt �13 L < IM• ," r �-' T+ a• 15w, Nav-I. SJ tlfr:..:v 4 $w I1IC �I+It$I r- k 3 _ r. S & 6R < ...L•�� £ G it �;� STjS'A'. ' QII<(�, .I -'I .� hi I+ L`^'79-M'. •ir (17571•., I•a Q\L l�\E\I`1 "7 " `fl/ �ST Sw' ,T '. STi �i I BCTM ,� ,:u 5r :'SW I vL7 SrrQ' rt'•.,L.t,C.-'•.l;: �l '}!>:. .t el sr/.. ,y_ST;S'N.1r. q h-- 7w c _ f.s•.r/;r 'nCl >i, ets Sv J e D •L o �� I3' idi} D:STr..rT �+ r ; • sw o� ('�. , t I' "': •v.'L�-�L-1 u.. 1 ND e:.dy r• 'F.'.. 8' ,;.{..�7 ;py,. ^/r {.+- •S a„i vs` a� W� I 't�'!)a ,:n. ii•r 'n' �5'rr lll)P9'L, r .',:� ..Y••, •/r N _ .r.Y°./ '�: �_. .>!.-_ •r .. '..-i ri to +•�. `r/nrj,''(a'Ji .SM I:-SI�-;' - T'i Yl..Eir�'rF:•o:�.,,w ;y. _ :> ��''/r' qT�f pct{43 :a"7 gr�y:"P.�f r'��,' Mfrs, �� r.Y,v 7 -` •L„ -Af f•'. .. rI '. 1..' - ,:n•. ! C yT�. YLf`;I��., •��,!L Y •�� l I j f_rl~ LT__ s .1, .t ��r.•�/ L=.°� l Illvr�''•5J" '(J.. .-t,�1,.- i - •�f 'z7 _ t �l j-i ri' t '�[4a. I!M-r fir--a� > ^1;0-J �Ir, zs -'-d ICI] t v •J ,:ds t I �_{�.} ¢ Ie6T,; Rv I1 T 5i-'---�� •1 w ^��•;-L.+'i;•` •i '"P2"O`•S.=. ' '�?1• '-, s• .5w 15 i:ZTyy�}�(js� �• ',' a - -�' - - 88?H_ ST �y.$�/3 ;•-:fS:�•- ;V. '�^-. r :�%'' .P�'S r�t•JI�'•.t BfiC.� • �i.' �. .I��. z�. ,r-•. ^�•:S { 'b .. I _• _- > >• >' •� r:` .; I o t is _ ` Id.._ d .r_.�-. 1'^ a ,�A.,, _-�•�, •; :e9TH o l LYNN.':: :: p.: y v��y� ST.-Swi+".ri: =1-.. r•:�1-�r 3•"� I-.Ei ;J -• aLl_ ( gl°9Tn R' r V�_Sv/� .../D•L'!':. GEIINY. LN' 1?9T41.P1_ 5'f,l �s• 1•t. ,+t• i � - '. 37189) .. PL SsL: •W- .>:�.,�;,I:..rA �i3.i•4 �, '�!!i `) :. .; bl'-.•r:U > I ST S.: ' _ c JYr�. i L`'- Ly4\1• •1 nr - > _ H. 'i ... "r •Y /1' {. _ , •L<": PL -� •_ <.' F- <. C 1r•^ �V 41/, 90TN; :R a ;,��3.. z fi`• �¢ 6� I ;r a IST' I �� i.!IS' .. 'f.5rI C4 ' lye >-..ems, Y r. -N,► ra _• F� s I•�. •I'.:. ri ...+ 5-tf rs T`rS LS .a 9t STs'�.N 1.- nf.19 iS7. ^ff!•�• OTM� ~ ��T ifl "J. f\L•_ Sr sr'r ' o v0 1�. , ti ST-Sw I'9i5Tt STi;" T•'.•` , 1. s �' 1• ••O:ih�, a,z ' 112vD. ST�Sw r� ,9C h �• ::� ''r'k+,. Sr:'•ii. 7T iJQD'D Sw� f ;; r-"-•'-�• ` .' Yf�lj �-0—;1., Kvn 1 -I� C /1,- Q '�'i-. _ .p:- c:5•r1 •S t_:.:. �'_C' a) c '9 ,.f0 c-_ f... � `ii:'. s1nJ. L SY� n "SCQ'3 c.4. ?3�• 1 -•. ?' n - S•rn �L <• , . � ti., - Q' vi (� R •��:. -.�.. a 'I `. �i,k:,-;.'l�% v.rL;;/:. x'19Jay .•t. _-..j'. .. �'' :pit :< ;t `il`z3 :•r"'9}t�Sw.�s �!/•is.. W:.A ?l'�NrL.T-.¢ .c-. 1_ I: •.':/_'•�.�� 1 "S9 TH ggT ,+ �j'+'Sta` } �� MTH STSW 13( .I'.n'': r.:ri .} ..::� ,.- a :.•; L 196TH1 ST SwY,;-I <^:ryes' t u �> I Y Y'/tJj rxie6' �i `iy:n y wl^ a is 2. K: aAI:. 7J_.It i 1 SW'ru« L7�! i;,: 1 6TH` "fsa'1. rS'1+ ,IL7l-�•'_� ;^J: N. fit. �ti:?fi-5�•�''rTTN ST. � �C 7 1'Ol •!. / �":-k T� ..i•/'. e:Rl?9P ;r �t - V.i• _ This figure copied from THOMAS BROS MAPS. Snohomish Canty, Washtrigton, 1987 TERRA VICINrrY MAP ANDERSON PROPERTY ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 Figure 1 m V) CD dP� cc m N. MFADOWOALF RD. 7, I it 171 x -A / N � 1 �` I�; �16�II I I I I I I 11 �\•\'` (� , �,,� ,R `j E�%� I 'rl! I I I I r �I' I(�� (�" �!� 1 ., ,;�� : I IIII � /� ��\l�l�ll�il��l�ll, l F 00000 91 I/k �• i elf �� \\ °\�•,� \'��I I !� � � �II� 'I• L 0 I LANDSLIDE HAZARDS I 4A Renewed movements in old slump matcrial 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material I; =li ' q 3B Debris slides in materials that have not I `. IQ d. previously failed ~ \ \7 Tice two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability I ;,tj �. \ of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period i j t I Ij 3 02' - - 35 C9� t 4 A 2 s vI• ' 1t l This figure copied from Figure 5 in 1 �\ — 4 2 the final report on the Mcadowdalc tl Area Landslide Hazards Investigation ` I •i ,� ' by Roger Lowe Associates Inc, 1979 / 2 A ' 4 90 .` I It _ A06 f: 1 2 I i V� •.., r ''� 3 i+ I 2'0 A e t C�2 v n \4b I /, p 0' _r 3802 jJ K.,,y"•.r 1. I � �4A 35 . ANDERSON PROPERT 2c 4A25 4A 2$; N w :r �. t� C 2 0 Scale: 1 300e / i t / % (" —✓ . % -^'� ►,i r ,r TERRA LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT ANDERSON PROPERTY ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Geotechnical Consultants Prof. No. 84( —1 Date 3/89 Figure :3:] 280 200 p� F 160 Approximate Present ground water table 1),--1 (offset) l l 120 l ' City Piez l (offset) l ' Skanp debris from ancient landslide 80 l lie e This figure is for illustrative purposes only. The subsurface conditions shown are an interpretation of the conditions observed in test.borings and pits, and other available information. Variations may exist between actual conditions and the conditions shown. Probable ancient tailtue plane Ground lost since the ancient larndside Pteserd grotnd sutace / r VASHON DRIFT Spring line Sands . Fiance pays WHDBEY FORMATION Pebbly sands and sits Possible seepage zone buried under colluvium Conuviurn with buried trees (avalanche & slide debris) TERRA `'�"""`= `NSIDEPISC ' ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE9 Geotechnical Consultants Prof No.840-1 Date N- Scale: 1'- 60' 3B-t- - -; LOB' 8 - • --�:. --12 :* o j: aC LOT 1 _�. - LOT; 3 4A LOT � ! _ �.i� ;;• _� �' LOT 4 _.__ 4B _ — L_ LANDSLIDE HAZARDS `;�-_ �•.�� 3A Slumps in materials that have not previously failed 3B Shallow landslides in oversteepened slopes that have not previously failed 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material 4A Renewed movements of old slump material 4B Shallow landslides in previously -failed material The trailing digits indicate the estimated combined probability of occurrence, in percent, during 25-year periods c _... r... Inw M. AA-A020 4�.1.:::. TERRA =. ASSOCIATES — Geotechnical Consultants LANDSL ANDER MEADOWDAI Proj. No.840-11 Dah • F-A ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF LANDSLIDE DAMAGE WITHIN PERIODS OF 25 YEARS RATING PERCENTAGE Lowest Less than 5 LOW Less than 10 Moderate Less than 15 Highest Less than 25 Site Survev by Group Four, Inc Job No 118-8020 -- N la Scale: 1' 60' TERRA Kr WUrN 1 IAL ANDERSONI ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEAI Geotechnical Consultants I Proi. No.840-1 Date 5 SOIL CLASSIFIrATlnNl QVCTPKA LETTER I MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL GRAPH SYtABOL TYPICP.L DESCP!PT!0�,; GRAVELS G'W ; o. `a Well -graced gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, J Gravels little or no fines. GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures. O a) More than 50% of (less than U N coarse fraction !3% fines). little or no fines. Gravely GM Silly gravels, gravel -sand - silt mixtures, v is larger than 0 a M No. 4 sieve. with lines. non -plastic fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. <C E > plastic fines. Cr 0 o N SANDS Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, o Sands little or no fines. W c More than 50% of (less than SID Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, cc Y Z 5% fines). little or no fines. Q Q) C r coarse fraction S�`� Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, U is smaller than `vSa ithfin non -plastic fines. SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, No. 4 sieve. Plastic fines. J — SILTS AND CLAYS ML norganic silts and very •fine sands, rock flour, sIlt or clayey fine sanas or clayey silts with O U) o Liquid limit is less than 50 . CLVEX Inorganic clays of low to. medium plasticity, clays, sandy clays, silty lean E N �avelly clays, V. I Organic silts and organic clays of low W ae d z Z C)OL r,r,� I I plasticity. C ti N SILTS AND CLAYS IViH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatornaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. Wv Liquid limit is greater than 50%. CH Inorganic clays of higl, plasticity; fat clays. > 01-I t l I l Organic clays of medium to high plasticr,y, ue w H organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly'organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS I 2" OUTER DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING; tsf 2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER qU PENETROMETER READING, tsf P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight �C SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED PCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot SZ WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot LEGEND FOR BORING & TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 I Figure 7 r_1 r BORING NO. 1 Logged By CRL Date 2/14/89 ELEV. 1421 Graph Soil Description Depth Sample Blows (0) 4u p tsf CS CS Ft. Ivy ground cover, 18" duff & topsoil Sgp Grey fine SAND, some silt 6 Z 8 4 sm Grey silty fine to medium SAND with 10 I 11 15 silt zones, some orange stain Same, less silt 16 = 3 22 ml Grey non -plastic SILT 20 = 14 35 3/15/89- sm Grey silty fine SAND 25 = 8 32 ml Grey clayey SILT with thin sand lenses 30 = 21 33 2.0 to 4.5+ ml/ sm Mixed grey SILT et silty fine SAND 35 = 9 29 Same 40 24 25 mcl Grey clayey SILT 46 I 10 33 2.5 to 3.5 Boring terminated at depth 50 feet Ground water observation well installed BORING LOG TERRA ANDERSON PROPERTY :. ,:. A.:... • ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 Figure 8 Alk AM MW BORING NO. P. Logged By CRL Date 2/16/89 ELEV. 1201' Graph us CS Soil Description Depth eft Sample (N) Blows W (%) q , tsf u Ft. Concrete slab ml/ Grey silty fine SAND and clayey SILT, = 4 26 sm some orange Rain 6 Grey silty fine SAND with clay T 5 33 to 3/15/89 Same, with some organics I 5 24 16 Same, with hard clay chunks & wood = 13 46 20 sm Grey silty fine to.medium SAND = 10 19 26 No recovery = 21 30 ml Grey sandy SILT = 12 31 36 Grey SILT = 22 31 40 ml/ Grey clayey SILT with sandy zones = 17 37 2.5 46 Same ZI 31 24 3.5 60 ch Grey'CLAY = 24 38 3.5 66 Same = 25 36 2.5 80 Grey CLAY, thin bedding = 35 35 4.5 86 CH Same LL=75; PI=43Pr 95/9" 23 4.5+ BORING LOG -' • ' TERRA ANDERSON PROPERTY 9: 4 - ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS • Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 7Figure 9 Logged By CRL Date 2/14/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 5 10 15 20 TEST PIT NO. I Elev. 141± W Soil Description (a/o) 12" duff and topsoil 39 sm Brown silty fine .SAND, loose, moist 16 Same, grading tan to grey, medium dense, dry 7 Brown silty fine to medium SAND ml Brown SILT 25 sm Brown silty medium SAND, some gravel, chunks of hard clay, med dense Same, marbled gray -brown -orange 20 Test pit completed at depth 18J feet No ground water observed TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 1 Figure 10 Logged By CRL Date 2/14/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 6 10 16 20 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev. 147± W Soil Description cl 9" duff and topsoil Mixed brown and grey sand, silt and clay Grades to CLAY chunks, soft to hard, with numerous logs 38 sm Grades to gray silty SAND with organics 33 Test pit completed at depth 14 feet Ground water seepage at depth 4 feet and below Sidewalls collapsed 0 TERRA ASSOCIATES . Geotechnical- Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Prof. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 - Figure 11 M Logged By CRL Date 2/15/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 5 10 15 20 TEST PIT NO. 4 Soil Description Elev. 153± W (%) 18" duff and topsoil 43 Grey silty fine SAND with numerous sm trees, loose 33 Test pit completed at depth 12 feet Ground water seepage at depth 3 feet and below Sidewalls collapsed 0TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No. 840 -1 Date 3/88 Figure 13 C Logged By CRL Date 2/15/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 6 10 16 20 TEST PIT NO. 5 Elev. 137± W Soil Description (%) 12" duff and topsoil 27 sm Grey silty SOD with orange stain, wet. loose 27 Test pit completed at depth 12 feet Heavy ground water seepage in upper 2 feet TERRA - ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 1 Figure 14 ?� •Logged By CRL Date 2/15/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 5 10 15 20 TEST PIT NO. 6 I Soil Description Elev. 14 2± W N 12" topsoil 35 sm Grey silty fine SAND with zones of soft clay and chunks of hard clay, loose 33 Test pit completed at depth 15. feet Moderate ground water seepage below depth 6 feet TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 1 Figure 15 Water Service Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENTNO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ❑ LID NO ................... .ASMT. NO................... PERMIT NO.9 SOYSE 7 OWNER........................... CONTRACTOR .............................................. r� L-, W. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. BLOCK NO. JOB ADDRESS I % ........-.3.........�.....I.............. Approved: 73rd �L 9•1e-9e -7�l DATE...................... By .......................... PWW 0001.11l75 (REV.11178) xETuxiv annREss: � City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 Sth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 980?210184 07/21/98 11:22 p.0005 Recorded Snohomish County COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference #: 97 -3 & Grantor(s): (1)-ZIM147 CHUC V6 (2) IMYOKI-V6 Ch" Additional on pg. Grantee(s): _ City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec 5 Twn a 74 Rn Qtr � OR Lot , Block Plat A5-- 8i Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) +90q MQ CAS CO ()) . Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY: jZ6 DATE: PAGE / OF S� Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY: �� DATE: !fd yi3 PAGE Z OF 57 1. Description of Subject Property This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of 16004 73rd Place West, EDMONDS, WA (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: 11'1FfpeP,} LV CiT`/ a G L7auAI rY, Lot 3, Lorian Woods, According to the plat thereof recorded in Volume..51 of Plats, pages 145 and 146, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish., State of Watihington. 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the.City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number 04(insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of 9807210184 APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY: .�Jj. DATE:..S7AA M PAGE OF -! the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or f 1 E VED FOR RECORDING: X DATE: y` OF 5— arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director Ks/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. MR.':M s 4� i i EY:, ED FOR RECO ING: DATE:r�� Q �_ OF DONE this day of ,199 OWNER(S) By: By: By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OFF -,I ID 0 .,I ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (h4s-AkT) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this 9' •• v PUgU�'- N� .9A RY• 3.�•'• L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOW\C O V ENANT �)80'7210184 0 • CITY OF, EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ORDER TO -CORRECT VIOLATION Location of Violation (Address): 16004 7P Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 , Tax Account Parcel No. 007904-000-003-0009 Issued To: Seung Chung, Property Owner Address Of Person This Order Is Issued To: 16004 73`d Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Code Section Violated:. Edmonds Community -Development Code Chapter 16.20 & Uniform Building Code Sections 106 & 108 &.109. Description of Violation: Construction of an addition within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area without first receiving Critical Areas approval and a building permit. Corrective Action Required: Upon notification of the violation the property owner submitted a permit gpplication for the construction work. The permit application has been ready to be issued since November 7 2003. The corrective action required is that the property owner remit outstanding permit fees to obtain the required building_ permit. Note, the contractor listed on the face of the permit needs to obtain a Cily business license. . Contact Marie Harrison, Senior Permit Coordinator for any other questions Correction is Required no later than: 5:00vm (time) January 9. 2004 (date) If correction is not made by the date and time specified in the Order, a Notice of Civil Violation shall be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation shall assess fines of $100.00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. Date Posted: Issuing Party. Signature Date Mailed: December 16, 2003 Date Served Title Building Official S. K. C I, urn F:d c S , w 802- 50 STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: / &00!7 t - -73 dd t' Edmonds, Washington 9804131116 04/13/98 15:00 p.0001. Rec..orded Snohomish County Legal De crip ion: Assessor's Parcel Number: 110f 43. I have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory dwelling unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for two years after occupancy. by the current owner (unless a waiver is granted by the Community Services Department) and until after a conditional use permit has been approved by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of a conditional use permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a building permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a conditional use permit. Property Owner Signature: �( / .c�z� z�n 4 Date: L4 -7 > - -Lff STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) N eyou.n 9 C. hrt.�, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 5 e-L-LnK signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses purposes mentioned in this instrument. Notary's pressure seals must be smudged. Dated: L4 - 8 z- M OFFICIAL. SEAL L SCHMIDT Notary Publo -state of Wastdnpton My Commission Exphes 11-9-01 Signature of Notary Public:S . Residing at: ".AnnL OWCt My Appointment Expires: l I - CP -d THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR. or c f Y OF smo"Wfi Audi.of. i' fiAb Tsttviil{itpaT.nsh°mibh CoUrIty sttumeht is oertl{y thatth nt the document now on �10 hafoby MAO and CoffAOt OOPY to p{11GQ trio or ,*corded to Y nto my hall, witn sR wh8teOt' i he '18 dqy pt c AMditar SO O: SEALS.,. � A 000, CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ORDER TO CORRECT VIOLATION Location of Violation (Address): 16004 73rd Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Issued To: Chung, Property Owner Address Of Person This Order Is Issued To: 16004 73`d Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Code Section Violated:. Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.20 &. Uniform Building Code Sections 106 & 108 & 109. l Description of Violation: Construction of an addition within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area without first receiving Critical Areas approval and a building permit. Corrective Action Required: Upon notification of the violation the property owner submitted a permit application for the construction work. On MU 20, 2003 the building division reviewed the plan and required modification. A copy of the correction notice is enclosed. A second copy of this notice was sent on 7/11/03 without response. The corrective action required is that the property owner must respond to the outstanding corrections so that the building_ permit may be issued. Correction is Required no later than: 5:00pm (time) September 23, 2003 (date) If correction is not made by the, date and time specified in the Order, a Notice of Civil Violation shall be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation shall assess fines of $100.00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. Date Posted: Date Mailed: September 9, 2003 Date Served Issuing Party Jeannine L. Title Building Official r- `hc.18913 January 14, 2003 • CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Wm6ms, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-=I Website: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. Steve Chung 16004 73'd Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Lot 3 Lorian Woods, Illegal Building Encroachment Dear Mr. Chung, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 'The City Planning Division has informed my office that you have received preliminary approval on Your application for Lot Line Adjustment. Star Campbell, the City Planner working on the file has one last remaining issue in order for this process to be complete. As you are aware, you must submit an updated Title Report. If you have any. questions on this requirement please contact Mrs. Campbell directly at 425-771-0220. As you know from my letter of September 4, 2002 once the lot line adjustment is approved and recorded, you must then submit a new building permit application for the construction work. Please provide the required information to Mrs Campbell by February 14, 2003 If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal business hours at 771 0220. If you wish to meet in person please call in advance for a mutually agreeable day and time as. I am frequently assisting other citizens and not always available. If you need further assistance on Sincerely, Jeannine L. Building Official • Incorporated August I11 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan lnc.189M ' September 4, 2002 • • CITY OF EDMONDS 1215TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98M - (425) 771-02M - FAX (425) 771-Ml Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. Steve Chung. 16004 73`d Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Lot 3 Lorian _Woods, Illegal Building Encroachment Dear Mr. Chung, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As .a follow-up to my letter dated August 30, 2002. The following options are available to you to h resolve the illegal building addition encroachment: • Submit a demolition permit for that portion of the structure that encroaches over the lot line and remove the illegal addition, or; • Make application. for a lot line adjustment to alter the lot line to accommodate the encroachment. This presumably would reduce the common area of the plat therefore; the homeowner's association would be required toapprovethe application. For procedures and requirements on obtaining a lot line adjustment contact Steve Bullock Senior Planner at 425- 771-0220. Note, double fees shall be assessed for this application, and; • If the lot line adjustment is approved you must then apply for a building permit for the construction work. A complete building permit submittal. including building plans would be required. Note double fees shall be assessed. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal business hours at 771-0220. ff you wish to meet in person please call in advance for a mutually agreeable day and time as I am frequently assisting other citizens and not always available. If you have specific questions regarding the lot line adjustment process please contact Senior Planner Steve Bullock at 771-0220 extension 1223. The City expects.your complete submittal by September 20, 2002. Failure to submit by this date shall result in the issuance of an Order to Correct Violation- Notice which is the first step in the City's civil penalty process whereby compliance to the code shall be secured. Sincerely, Jeannine Lt Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 18% Sister City - Hekinan, Japan, lhC.189v August 6, 2002 • U CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-OM • FAX (425) 771-=1 Website: www dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. Steve Chung 16004 73`d' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Lot 3 Lorian Woods, Illegal Building Encroachment Dear Mr. Chung, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As a follow-up to your letter dated June 30, 2002, the City expects complete permit applications to be submitted by August 30, 2002. The following options are still available to you to resolve the illegal building addition encroachment: ' • Submit a demolition permit for that portion of the structure that encroaches over the lot line and remove the illegal addition, or; • . Make application for .a lot line adjustment. to alter the lot line to accommodate the encroachment. This presumably would reduce the common area of the plat- therefore; the homeowner's association would be required to approve the application. . For procedures and requirements on obtaining'a lot line adjustment contact Steve Bullock Senior Planner at 425- 771-0220. Note, double fees shall be assessed for -this application, and; • If the lot line adjustment is approved you must then apply for a building permit for the construction work.. A complete building permit submittal including building plans would be required. Note double fees shall be assessed. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal business hours at 771-0220. If you wish, to meet in person please call in advance for a mutually. agreeable day and time as I am frequently assisting other citizens and not always. available. If you have specific questions regarding-, the lot line adjustment process please contact Senior Planner Steve Bullock at 771-0220 extension 1223. The City expects your complete submittal by August 30, 2002. Failure to submit by this date shall result in the issuance of an Order to Correct Violation Notice which is the first step in the City's civil penalty process whereby compliance to the code shall be secured. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan i _ • CITY OF EDMONDS GAflY "�KEMA oR 1215TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-=1 Website: www.d.edmondsmaus DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. Steve Chung June 18, 2002 16004 730 Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 . RE: Lot 3 Lorian Woods Dear Mr. Chung, As a follow-up our letters last. year regarding the Planned Residential Development code changes, the final City Council decision has been made and unfortunately will not. resolve your specific lot line . encroachment violation. I have confirmed this determination, with our Planning Manager. Therefore, as previously noted, the following options are available to you to resolve the illegal building addition encroachment: • Submit a demolition permit for that portion of the structure that encroaches over. the lot line and remove the illegal addition,. or; • Make application- for a lot . line adjustment to alter the lot line to accommodate the encroachment. This presumably would reduce the common area of the plat therefore; the homeowner's association would be required to approve the application. For procedures and requirements on obtaining a lot line adjustment contact Steve Bullock Senior Planner. at 425- 771-0220. Note, double fees shall be assessed for this application, and; • If the lot line adjustment is approved you must then apply for a -building permit for the construction work. A complete building permit . submittal including building plans would be required. Note double fees shall be assessed. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal business hours at 771-0220. If you wish to meet` in person please call in advance for a mutually agreeable day and time as I am frequently assisting other citizens and not always available. If you have specific questions regarding the 'lot line adjustment process please contact Senior Planner Steve Bullock at 771-0220 extension .1223. The, City expects that you make a final decision by making application for permits by July 12, 2002. Failure to submit by this date shall result in the issuance of an Order to Correct Violation Notice which . is the first step in the City's civil penalty process whereby compliance to the code shall be secured. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan- danan 1n c.189v 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-=1 Website: www.oi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering August 23, 2001 Mr. Steve Chung 16004 73'd Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Lot.3 Lorian Woods Dear Mr. Chung, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As a follow-up toyour letter dated March 23, 2001.1 regarding your desire to be notified of proposed Planned Residential Development (PRD) code changes; the Edmonds City Council will be: discussing this issue at the next City Council meeting to be held on August 28, 2001 in Council Chambers at 250 5 b Avenue South. The meeting starts at 7:00p.m: Please be advised, if Council approves a new ordinance and if this new code benefits your existing code violation we: expect you to submit all the required permit(s) for approval within 30 days of ordinance acceptance. If the . Council decides not to change the PRD code. then the City expects you to submit a demolition permit for that portion of the structure that encroaches over the lot line within 30 days of final .Council action. If you. have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal business hours at 771-0220. If you have specific questions regarding the proposed PRD code changes please contact Senior Planner Steve Bullock at 771-0220 extension 1223. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Oc r 23 zA✓o.,lc �e✓f�a✓ • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Citv - Hekinan. Japan • • CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REVIEW FILE # LL-2002-176 APPLICANT_ Seung-Kyoon "Steve" and Heyoung Chung PROPERTY LOCATION 16004 73'd. PI. W.. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A lot line adjustment to expand the west lot line of the parcel to allow an addition that has been built to be within the boundaries of the lot. A. INTRODUCTION: Mr. and Ms. Chung own lot 3 in the Plat of Lorian Woods. Lorian Woods is a Planned Residential Development (PRD) that consists of lots that have 0' setback requirements from the lot lines. The Chungs had' an addition to their house constructed that actually encroaches over a portion of the west lot line of their lot. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment has been made to remedy the situation by moving a portion'of the west lot line to the west so that the addition will be completely within the lot and meet the required setback. The adjustment of this lot line incorporates some area from the common area tract in Lorian Woods. To compensate for this, the applicants propose moving the north property line to the south slightly to 'give back' alike area of their lot to the Common Area Tract. The lot line adjustment map shows the existing lot lines and the proposed lot lines (Attachment 2). B. ANALYSIS OF DESIGN: 1. Number of Lots Involved: 1 lot and the common area tract 2. Development Standards: a. Lot Standards: Since the subject lot was created as part of the Lorian Woods PRD (PRD-1-89), there is no minimum lot area. The allowed lot coverage is 100%. The lots have 0' setback requirements but the eaves of a building cannot project beyond the lot lines. e. Common Area Tract: Tract "A" was created as a common area tract through PRD-1-89 (Attachment 3). The area in this tract will not significantly change because the lot line adjustment includes moving the north lot line to the south. This will add roughly)the same amount of area to the common area tract (78.6 square feet) which will compensate for the area taken away from the common area tract (78.75 square feet) by the adjustment of the west property line.. Refer to Attachment 2. 3. Topographical Consideration: The site slopes gently down from east to west. 4. Zoning Ordinance: The lot line adjustment with the proposed conditions of approval, meets all standards for lot line adjustments and the standards of the Planned Residential Development (PRD-1-89). Page 2 Chung Lot Line Adjustment StaffReport File No. LL-2002-176 5. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal lies within the large lot single family designation. As submitted the proposal meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Encroachments: The lot line adjustment will allow for a completed addition to the house to meet the required 0' setback from the property'line. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 1. SEPA Determination:. Exempt from SEPA. 2. Shoreline Master Program: Exempt From Shoreline Master Program. 3. Critical Area Determinations: A Critical Areas Study was completed with the review of the subdivion that created the subject lot. The study confirmed that steep slope hazard area did exist on a portion of the property that was subdivided with the Lorian Woods PRD. However, this steep slope hazard area is on the eastern portion of the Lorian Woods PRD site and the subject lot is on the western portion of the site and does not affect the proposed Lot Line Adjustment. D. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS: The Engineering Division, the Fire Department, and the Public Works Department have reviewed the application. No comments were received. E. DECISION: Approved with the following conditions: Prior to recording the applicant shall: • Prepare a recording document for signatures by the property owners with vested interest and final approval by the Planning Division. • Include on this document a statement that, "The lots shown are subject to the'conditions of approval for the Lorian Woods PRD as found in the City of Edmonds File Number PRD-1-89." • Submit an updated title report that shows accurate ownership of the common area tract. F. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Lot Line Adjustment Map 3. Lorian Woods Plat Map have reviewed the application for lot line adjustments pursuant to Chapters 20.75 and 20.95 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Star Campbell, Plani ing. Division —1'X--0-:1 Date Page 3 0 • Chung Lot Line Adjustment Staff Report File No. LL-2002-176 RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION A request for reconsideration or clarification of this decision may be made by filing a letter with the Planning Department within ten (10) working days of,the mailing of this notice (see mailing date below). THE RIGHT TO APPEAL This decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. In this case, a written letter must be submitted to the Planning Department within ten (14) calendar days of the posting of this notice (see posting date below). City of Edmonds, Attn.: Planning Division 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 DATE MAILED: 01111ir• r.►ir• EXHIBIT PARCEL 8 FNO REBAR & CAP LS#18737 (TRACT "A") \730 57360 ORIGINAL �043 £ G 00 \r. LOT LINE PROPOSED LOT LINE LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING U 1.31 N16.59'17"E L2 1.31 N16'59'17" E L3 3.50 S73'00'43"E L4. 3.50 S73'00'43" Tri-County Land Surveying Company 4610 200th St. S.W. Suite A 4*40, Lynnwood, Wo. 98038 (425)778-2926 fox:776=2850 SCALE — 1" = 20' 1 /o was` Bc�,A O 9 14 70HAL LANDS MIRES 11/14/0?, $- Zg.vz J Attachment 2 PRD-1- LORIAN woods PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REPLAT OF LOTS 54. 55. 56. AND 57. OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH CITY OF EDMONDS; SNOHOMW COUNTY. WASHINGTON SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP -27 NORTH.. RANGE 4` EAST. W.M. FF R�F:�/ RSF . FOR CON ITIONS 2 CURVE TABLE K A/FAD MALE 311M AZ Ito r �.,. •n I � t �-------------34"- +' ,t 1� LEGEND / / • I t i . sa rsrra , at o sea - CAW • P---'�--- -----d 1 t ! •emA 1—cm war rmo s aw.sv 14) mr�a w_�sa r< na versa ! • !:� �w • -'� r 16 pl D J. f / / t ! Q' • : . TRACT .A. I may, 3`----------- TD • r.w f Q • • • ..e'-'— • 4 lI ;-----------f �, ' �• f 4 / X // T • 14P1xI I / •`�. / 162nd.ST. -1w .d E3C3WL RM we cav I . ' ofW TRACT 'B' W TRACT 'A' �w a e �3= j• � w MEADO WDA(E- V o / PAM I OF 2 /■■t CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 ORDER TO CORRECT VIOLATION Location of Violation (Address and/or description of location: 16004 73'd Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Tax Account Parcel #7904-000-003-0009 Issued To: Steve Chung, Owner Address Of Person This Order Is Issued To: 16004 73rd Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Code Section Violated:. Uniform Building Code Section 106, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.00, 19.05 and 20.35 Description of Violation: —I) Construction of addition without first obtaining required building permit. 2) Construction within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard area without approval. 3) Construction of a building over a lot line within a Planned Residential Area. Corrective Action Required: 1) Make complete application for all required discretionarapprovals and building permits, OR, 2) Remove structure with valid demolition permit. , Correction is Required no later than: 5:00pm (time) March 23, 2001 (date) If correction is not made by the date and time specified in the Order, a Notice of Civil Violation shall be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation shall assess fines of $100.00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. Date Posted: March 8,,M Date Mailed: March 8, 2001 Date Served Issuing Party. Signature tle Code Enforcement Inspector <hc.18y., � r CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 •FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering August 4, 2000 Mr. Steve Chung Techtrade International, Inc. 741 15'' Way, SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Chung: I am responding to your questions which we reviewed when you visited our office today. The. first set of issues is regarding your single family property in the Lorian Woods PRD. Apparently, your home encroaches over the property line as it exists on the recorded PRD plat. You stated that your. homeowners association has "approved" your suggested solution whereby you would dedicate a portion of your current property as common open space in trade for expanding your property to correct the existing building encroachment. However, as we discussed, our current code would require you to submit a full PRD amendment application in order to get the situation corrected. This was also pointed out in the June 20, 2000 letter, from Karissa Kawamoto of our office, which also set a date of September 18, 2000, as the deadline for submitting the necessary PRD amendment application. As we discussed, the Planning Board is currently working on a re -write of the city's PRD code. One of the issues they are reviewing concerns the process and standards for "minor modifications" to PRDs. Because this re -write may offer you an opportunity to correct your situation without the need- for a full PRD amendment, I am willing to extend the deadline for submitting a PRD amendment application through the end of year. The new deadline for submitting an application for PRD amendment (or modification, if the code is amended to allow such an application) will be January 2, 2001. The second issue we discussed i concerned your property at 741 15t' Way SW (adjoining Edmonds Way). The property is zoned BP (Planned Business).which allows both small- scale commercial offices (as you are proposing) and a single family residence. The parking standard for a professional office with no retail use, no onsite customer service, and.deliveries only being made to the premises, is one (1) space per 800 square feet of floor area. Arsingle family dwelling would also require an additional (one) parking space. Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Steve Chung 1� , August 4,% Page 2 I' If you haven't already done so lease note that you should check with the ci 's Buildin • y y ,r y � � and Engineering divisions to make sure of any additional parking and access requirements, including handicapped space(s). You should also be aware that any proposed single family dwelling must meet the city's definition of "family" which is attached for your reference. I am also enclosing a copy of the BP zoning classification which describes the uses you are allowed. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, L Robert Chave, AICP Planning Manager Cc: Building Official Jeannine Graf 0 Edmonds Community iklopment Code 1653.020 0 Chapter 16.53 BP — PLANNED BUSINESS Sections:. 16.53.000 Purpose. 16.53.010 Uses. 16.53.020 Site development standards. 16.53.000 Purpose. The BP zone has the following specific pur- poses in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chap- ter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve areas for those small scale neighborhood -oriented retail stores, offices and retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of adjacent neighborhood areas. B. To ensure compact, convenient develop- ment patterns which provide a transition to and do not intrude into adjacent residential neigh- borhoods. C. To permit uses which allow for con- trolled access by arterial traffic but which do not contribute significantly to traffic conges- tion. D. To permit uses which provide for pedes- trian and transit access to development from adjacent neighborhoods. E. To permit commercial uses which utilize site designs which allow for and promote shared access with adjacent commercial par- cels. [Ord. 3127 § 1, 19971. 1653.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwellings in accor- dance with the regulations applicable -to the RS-6 zone, Chapter 16.20 ECDC. 2. Business or professional offices or studios. 3. Small-scale retail sales or services not exceeding 5,000 square feet of cumulative space on a site, such as convenience stores, video stores, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, bookstores, florists/nurseries, dry cleaning stores and laundromats. 4. 'Art galleries. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly or repair of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use. 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use. 3. Multiple residential, in the story above the street floor. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. I. Communiy facilities, as listed in the RM zone. 2. Medical, dental and veterinary clin- ics, including supporting uses such as pharma- cies and laboratories. Veterinary clinics may include the boarding of animals under veteri- narycare but not commercial kennels. 3. Businesses open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 4. Financial institutions. . 5. Restaurants providing on -premises service to seated or walk-in patrons. 6. Small-scale retail sales or services greater than 5,000 square feet in `an area of cumulative space on a site, but not exceeding 10,000 square feet of cumulative space on a site, such as convenience stores, video stores, barber shops; beauty shops, gift shops, book- stores, florists/nurseries, dry cleaning stores and laundromats. 7. Congregate care facilities. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Condi- tional Use Pe gnit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a per- mitted or conditional use. E. Prohibited Uses. Any use not specifi- cally set forth herein, including but not limited to: 1. Automobile service stations. 2. Drive-in/drive-thru businesses. [Ord. 3127 § 1, 19971... 1 16.53.020 Site development standards. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: 16-14.1 (Revised.41)7) 16.53.020 Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Lot Area Lot Width Street Setback Side/Rear Setback Height Floor Area BP None None 15 feet Nonei 25 feet2 None t Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R-zoned property- 2 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height have a slope of -four inches in 12 inches or greater. B. Signs, Access, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those for the BN — neighborhood business zon- ing classification. Access to BP -zoned prop- erty shall be combined whenever possible with adjacent properties through the use of internal circulation or frontage driveways. C. The . required setback from R-zoned . property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and continuously maintained by the owner of the BP lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or dense, continuous hedge shall be maintained in the setback. [Ord. 3127 § 1, 1997]. Li (Revised 4/M 16-14.2 Edmonds Community opment Code 11.30.010 E 0 0 Chapter 21.25 "E" TERMS Sections: 21.25.010 Easement. 21.25.020 Equipment shelter or. cabinet. 21.25.100 Expressive dance. 21.25.010 Easement. Land which has specific air, surface, or sub- surface rights conveyed for use by an entity other than the owner of the subject property or to benefit some property other than the subject property. [Ord. 2924 § 1, 1993]. 21.25.020, Equipment shelter or cabinet. Equipment shelter or cabinet is a room, cab- inet or building used to.house equipment for utility or service providers (see Title 22, Plates 1 — 4). [Ord. 3099 § 6, 1996]. 21.25.100 Expressive dance. Expressive dance means any dance which, when considered in the context of the entire performance, constitutes an expression of art, theme, story or ideas, but excluding any dance such as, but not limited to, common barroom - type topless dancing which, when considered in the context of the entire performance, is pre- sented primarily as: a means of displaying nudity as a sales device or for other commer- cial exploitation without. substantial expres- sion of theme, story or ideas, and the conduct appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. [Ord. 3117 § 8, 1996]. Chapter 21.30 "F" TERMS Sections: 21.30.010 Families. 21.30.020 Fence. 21.30.030 Flag lot. 21.30.035 . Float, recreational. 21.30.040 Floor area. , 21.30.050 Formal subdivision. 21.30.060 Foster. home. 21.30.070 Fraternity. 21.30.080 Freestanding sign: 21.30.010 Families. A. Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related by genetics, adop- tion, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adop- tion; or marriage and none of whom are wards of the court unless such wards are related by. genetics, adoption, or marriage to all of the members of such group living - in . a. dwelling unit. B. The term "family" shall include: 1. State licensed adult family homes required to be recognized as residential use pursuant to RCW 70.128.180; . 2. State licensed foster family homes and group care facilities as defined in RCW 74.15.180, subject to exclusion C below; . 3. Group homes for the disabled required to be accommodated as residential uses pursu- ant to the Fair Housing Act amendments as the same exists or is hereafter amended. C. The term "family"'shall exclude individ- uals residing in halfway houses, crisis residen- tial centers as defined in RCW 74.15.020(3)(g), group homes licensed for juvenile offenders, or. other facilities, whether or not licensed by the state, where individuals are incarcerated or oth e`rwise required to reside pursuant to court order under the supervision of paid staff and personnel. [Ord. 3184 § 1, 1998]. 21-9 (Revised 2/98) 0 Techtrade International, Inc. 741 15ti' Way, S.W., Edmonds, Washington 98020 Tel: (425) 712-9703 Fax: (425) 712-9803 e-mail: tektrade@aol.com TO: Jena Brooks FAX: City of Edmonds CC: Rob Chase, Planning Manager FROM: Steve Chung, P.E. REF: 771-0221 DATE: July 20, 2000 Plan Check #99-251 Total Pages: 5 Thank you for following up on the issue relating to the building permit application. My letter to Mr. Chave dated July 12 and the letter from Karissa to me on June 20 are attached herewith. The overall map of the Lorian Woods development is attached for your information also., Our house is on Lot No. 3. The lot is 60' wide and 90' long with total area of 5,400 f - As soon as we found out that the 3' x 22' area upstairs was cantilevered into the "Common Area" air space, we had discussed the problem with the members of the Lorian Woods Homeowners' Association'.. They all understood and agreed to accept the encroachment into the "common area". It was agreed that we would trade with the same land area on the northern edge of our lot. During review of our building application to the City of Edmonds to enlarge one of the bathrooms, Ms..Kawamoto noticed the encroachment and asked us to go through the entire Planned Residential Development (PRD) process with application fee of $1,000 and public hearing. I had a formal meeting and had discussions with Karissa Kawamoto and Jeff Wilson. They were going to establish a simplified process and advise me the steps to take to legally correct the problem. i The proposed modification of the lot size, which had been approved by all the affected parties, is attached for your information. I firmly believe that all I have to do is to have a new legal description of the lot done by a professional land surveyor and record it with the Snohomish County Auditor's office. All the Lorian Woods property owners agreed to the process. My wife and I decided not to modify the bathroom and I hereby request to cancel my building application under Plan Check #99-251. We do need to resolve the encroachment issue;. however, the $1,000 fee for the process is unacceptable. I would like to ask the City to advise me with a reasonable process to resolve the situation. I would appreciate it if you would discuss the issue with appropriate officials and advise me the process to follow at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Steve Chung 7 777 July 12, 2000 Mr. Rob Chave Planning Manager City of Edmonds 121 5 h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Fax: (425) 771-0221 Subject: Letter from Kawamoto to Chung dated June 20, 2000,'RE: "Illegal Encroachment" Dear Mr. Chave: While I was -,eager to hear from Ms. Kawamoto that your Planning Department came up with a simpler way to resolving the "illegal encroachment" issue, I was surprised to receive the letter referenced above, which is quite contrary to the meetings and discussions I had with her and Jeff Wilson of your Planning Department. We had our house build last year in the Lorian Woods Planned Residential Development located at the North end of 76' Avenue in Edmonds. The development was planned in. such a way that individual lots were sized just large enough to put a house in. Our lot is 60ft wide and 90ft long with total area of 5400 ft2. A drawing mistake was found after the basement foundation concrete had been poured resulting in portion of the second floor cantilevered out 3 ft x 22 ft into the Lorian Woods. common area. We had our home owners association members accept the mistake and it was agreed that the same amount of land area would be traded. At the meeting with Jeff Wilson and Karissa; I was told initially that we had to go through PRD regulation. But it was agreed that there should be an easier way to resolve the problem. When I talked to Karissa in early June at the city hall, she,said that it would take about six months to formalize the deviation because it was a low. priority: task for the city. Since both of the people have left your department, I would like to come.to your office whenever you are available and ask your help to resolving the issue. I would appreciate it if you would give me a call at 742-9593 anytime. �rti -q1 °3 . Sincerely, teve hun g, P.E. T-'� r 1;.w CITY OF EDMONDS ' 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Inc. 1890 Planning • Building • Engineering June 20, 2000 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Steve Chung 16004 73rd Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Illegal encroachment Dear Mr. Chung, Last August, you were notified in writing from the City about the processes involved to amend a Planned Residential Development (PRD). We have not received a response to date and the original building permit to construct the __bedroom addition has since expired. Because the western most cantilever of your home extends into the common area of the Lorian Woods development, it.is considered a plat and building code violation that cannot be left unresolved. , As .we have discussed in the past, the PRD amendment roces p p s requires a public hearing and approval by the City Council. It is however, the only option next.to removing that portion of the home over the property line. The filing requirements are similar to those for a subdivision and the fee is $1,000. If the City does not receive an application for PRD amendment or application for demolition of the illegal overhang within 90 days (September 18, 2000) violation proceedings will. begin. Failure to rectify the situation shall result in $100 a day fines. Application materials are enclosed. As of June 22, 2000, 1 will no longer be with the City of Edmonds. Please contact Rob Chave, Planning. Manager to inquire which planner has been assigned to work on your project and Jeannine Graf, Building Official to discuss the demolition requirements. Sincerely, Karissa Kawamoto Planner 10 cc: Planning Manager Building Official Enclosures as noted above Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan e I J RIAN WC31CII S PLANNED RESIDENTIAL .OEvELOPMENT REPLAT OF LOTS 54. 55, 56, AND 57, OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH' CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON - SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M. ('-d-t f4d• 3 CURVE TABLE N. mb I !/J 1 / ------------J I / Lanaa ----- awe, / N.,,,....... — — — LIC040 a er —M ®i � mr•c .,•••�a sc a r.�..ow. I � � t / a � 1h Ir DACE R0. �o Fiir s ioaas - r i TRACT W C /r / /--__----- / 0 r- �• y., •1ffi' I / r f w + L------------- i , • • __ '4. g 1 W + ACT 'ter TRACT -A- mwai re4 -' •,,,,,,far � C wT I I r n I Ii 1' M E A D O W 0 A L E B E A C H �TJ ••••••• Vol . 5 P g. J8 COWL...... 06w.28swe _ 90lOKal y) V Q k! m 1 `o PACE I OF 2 .� s 15 , Cam a February2000 23, Dr. Mary Neering 16119 73`d Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Change of Lot No. 3 Boundary Dear Mary: k. A major conflict was found in the middle of our house construction, and we consulted with then president of the Lorian Wood Home Owners' Association, Dr. Anderson. Dr. Anderson had discussed and received consensus from the . resident members of our Association at the time, and we proceeded with the construction. According to design drawings, the edge of mid -level cantilevered deck was to match the . West edge of the lot line and footing of the building to be 3 ft inside the property boundary . line. However, mistake was made in the footing drawing. After the basement footing was poured and mid -level floor was completed, the carpenter found that mid -level deck would extend beyond property line by three (3) feet. It intrudes air space of the. Association's common property but it would not hinder a pedestrian walking underneath. The lot No. 3 is 90ft long North to South and 60ft wide East to West property line with total land area of 5,400 ft'. The length of the mid-1 deck is 50ft, and therefore, the total area intruded into common area is,� 3 ft 04). As it was discussed and agreed by those members present at the February Association meeting, we will trade with the„ 2-5' x 60' strip ftZ .on North edge of our lot b We would like to leave a written record documenting the fact that the association members agreed to the change of our Lot No. 3 dimension. The modified lot drawing is attached. Sincerely, Steve & Heyoung Ch APPROVE I, Lot No. Name & Signature z/ Zo /Y e BNH S �U ADD. 4 3-oy2 / 3 ,. 25 3/ a %RG� ,off A D 2'L3r d ST. S.W. 3 /0 Lo 3 2 / 1 in 1 ' .0 RO ADO 6 /4 V N.Z �1 �-1�,I a / 2 4 7 28 29 33 13 th. WAY S.W. �+ �+ I rn') 14A 13th WAY 3-o4e r 1 0 5 34 --� / 4 � 5 B T s. 3 �� SUNS W ST j — — — -1 35 — --i 64 O Q s-osl 1 n, AR 39 38 37 36. �.la2 D6 /V NO __ h CT �`D• / B L A/ E 4 / 10 i� 3-o�9\�jv / I/ /0 9 8 7 /7 3-0$2 ,53 /7 / �,o ti ;` i ,o 12 /6 ,01, 3 14th WAY S.W. 3 1 2 /6 3_05 3 3'0 /, \ ♦ t� �i�y /3 3 6 4 2 /8 15Ca B T1 /0 15 tl 4 0^1 ,14 J tv) lo IZ /4` ' C �g ♦y' 5 3 / 19 t NO /3 9 14 O 5 ` � < /5 — .- -- �•` �♦\ ,o''a,lo 14th WAY S.W. -oy� 8 /3 Z 6 _ ? O 3-091 ♦♦ !`�� / o /6 /T 9 /O 120 14th WAY 7 /2 0 U I ,I '09� ♦ ` 6 7 //. 4 5 6 11 S• ' -094 cQ� ♦♦� ♦♦ jh cJ'�• /`s1j� 3 2 / /O 9 S � 3 2 % ADD NO. % ♦♦ �, 4 IRS 453 sw CL , R ♦Fa .. N a T,; /7 /8 _ 13-1o's ♦'%Jpy ♦ P+NES Lai a 226th PL. S.W. s-�o4 s ° ♦ P 3-O 5 9 r4 s,♦ A 6 3 7 3 22 �9L� ,y ♦ G' 4 6 i W i / ♦ ♦,♦ `�` 9 4 24 ` ♦ „333 / �: mz oo ♦ Q � � f---- , .o / 27 NOTE: P. A. M., Mor, '73 . This is not a survey, it is a parcel map used for location of property only the ,X r j c�- X S , .! `� x (! `j'� 7 This sketro is fOrthe e imate gene 1 apon o1 iheg 8 IV1}--lTT�f1Y O the app oc i " 7 r' premises without aCtUal stlNni�n, E � a nc�.189v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building = Engineering June 20, 2000 Steve Chung 16004 73rd Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Illegal encroachment Dear Mr. Chung, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Last August, you were notified in writing from the City about the processes involved to amend a Planned Residential Development (PRD). We have not received a response to date and the original building permit to construct the bedroom addition has since expired. Because the western most cantilever of your home extends into the common area of the Lorian Woods development, it is considered a plat and building code violation that cannot be left unresolved. As we have discussed in the past, the PRD amendment process requires a public hearing and approval by the City Council. It is however, the only option next to removing that portion of the home over the property line. The filing requirements are similar to those for a subdivision and the fee is $1,000. If the City does not receive an application for PRD amendment or application for demolition.of the illegal overhang within 90 days (September 18, 2000) violation proceedings will begin. Failure to rectify the situation shall result in $100 a day fines. Application materials are enclosed. As of June 22, 2000, I will no longer be with the City of Edmonds. Please contact Rob Chave, Planning Manager to. inquire which planner has been assigned to work on your project and Jeannine Graf, Building Official to discuss'the demolition requirements. Sincerely Karissa Kawamoto Planner cc: ' Planning Manager Building Official Enclosures as noted above • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Inc. 189v r� CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering August 19, 1999 Ron Johnson 19601 23rd NW l Shoreline, W Chung Residence 16004 73`d Place West, onds Dear Mr. Johnson, . BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR As we have discussed, your clients have a situation in which a deck has been constructed outside their rear (west) property line and is now encroaching into the Lorian Woods Planned Residential Development common area. The Chung's are interested in processing an amendment to the PRD in order to incorporate the encroachment into their building site. This letter is intended to outline the steps involved in changing the recorded plat. Construction of a structure outside the property lines is prohibited due to their encroachment into the common area. Staff is required to enforce the boundary lines of the lots as shown on the PRD plat and do not have the authority to grant a variance to allow an encroachment. Neither does the Homeowners Association. Each lot within the Lorian Woods PRD is allowed to cover up to 100% within the boundaries. Edmonds Community. Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.35.110 states, "any change in a plannedresidential development shall be applied for and processed in the same manner as an original application". Any proposed amendment will require at a minimum, one public hearing and approval by the City Council. I have enclosed the subdivision handout which contains the filing requirements. Fees would consist of both preliminary and final subdivision and Planned Residential, Development. If the decision is to move forward to revise the plat and PRD, city staff would be willing to attend a pre -application meeting with your consultant team to.discuss,the specifics. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Karissa Kawamoto Planner cc: Subdivision, PRD and fee handout • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan., Japan eel a= TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences May 12,1999 Project No. T-840-3-2 Mr. Ronald D. Johnson jut- Architect 19601 - 23rd Avenue NW SERV jCES DE�E V Of EDMONDS GTE Seattle, Washington 98177 Subject: Proposed Addition Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods 16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington.! Reference- Earthwork Observations No. 980447 Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods 16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington Letter dated October 16, '.1998 Dear Mr. Anderson: As regtie.sted,-we-baye reviewed the location of the proposed" addition to the Chung" residence at 16004 - 73rd Place SW. Our work was.required by the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed the mass excavation and foundationcoedit ens for this bouse and presented a.:summary of our observations in the referenced lea-cr. The purpose of this letter is to comment on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed addition.. We understand that it is currently in the plan to.add an area measuring approximately four feet by six feet to an existing bathroom on the southernportion of'the house. The addition will extend the footprint of the house out approximately four feet. This addition is on the middle floor of the house. The adjacent footings are relatively shallow and the contractor has proposed excavating new footings to support the addition. Further, there is an option of cantilevering the new addition off the existing foundation. This second option.would not require any new "footings. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra(g)terra-associates.com Mr. Ronald D. Johnson • May 12,1999 The footings for the new addition must be at an elevation that is'the same as the adjacent house footings. The new footing should bear on undisturbed native soils and may be proportioned for an allowable. bearing pressure of 1,200 pounds.per square foot (psf). The new footings and stem wall should be pinned into the existing footings and stem wall. All, drainage facilities in the area of the .proposed addition will need to be rerouted to accommodate, the new addition. We do not -recommend spanning the existing drainage facilities with.new structural elements. All footing excavations should be observed by Terra Associates, Inc. to verify that the footings are at a suitable elevation, and that the soils have an adequate bearing capacity for. the new. footings: Regardless of the option chosen, the proposed addition should not increase the risks associated with the construction on this lot, provided the recommendations contained in this. and our prior letters are incorporated into site development plans. We trust this letter is -sufficient for your current- needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, •please "call. Sincerely yours, TER Z� ti An B ail, P. x Pre e 17005 o . Ai. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.,k 1 Consultants,in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences. Subject. Final Site Visit " Earthwork Observations No. 980447 Chung Residence Lot 3,. Lorian Woods 16004 - 73rd.Place SW Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr: and -Mrs. Chung: As requested, we reviewed the soil conditions exposed' in the excavation for your proposed new ' residence at-16004 - 73rd Place SW in Edmonds. Our work was required by:the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed, plans for this ,project and presented our. findings, and, comments in letters dated October 28, 1997 and Feb:ua�y 6, 1998. We prepared a letter, dated October, 16,.1998,'discussing obis site observations during construction. On February 18, 1990, a representative of Terra Associates visited'the subject site,to observe the final site. configuration. The final site layout is generally.as anticipated -in our previous. reports and letters for this site. The only geotechnical aspect of the construction that.remains to be completed is the final reestablishment of vegetation on'the site.: We.did not observe any evidence of excessive erosion at,the ' time of our visit. We 'recommend that suitable vegetation be established as soon as.possible; to reduce the potential for erosion. in the .interim, mulching with straw will assist in reducing the potential for erosion.-. All discussion in our previous letters regarding this site remain applicable to this project.- . 1,2525:Willows Road, Suite 10.1, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777,.*, Fax (425) 821-4334 terra@terra-associates.com TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences October 16, 1998 Project No. T-840-3-2 Mr. and Mrs. -Chung c/o John Gurnee Gurnee Company Builders, Inc.. 4320 - 196th Street SW, Suite B-332 Lynnwood; Washington 98036 3 f ='A Subject: Earthwork ObservationsOCT No. 980447 1998 Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods 16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs..Chung: As requested,. we reviewed the soil conditions exposed in the excavation for your proposed. new. residence ar 16004 -'73rd Place SW. Our work was required by the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed, plans for this, project and presented our.findings and continents in letters dated October 28, 1997 and February 6, 1998: Site Soil Conditions The soil conditions exposed in thehouse excavations were consistent with our prior explorations on -site. The soils exposed at foundation elevations were suitable for the support of the building.as planned. No seepage was " observed in the excavation. Perimeter Drain installation We.observed the placement of a perforated drain around the perimeter of the foundation. The drain was placed in general accordance with our recommendations. 12525 Willows Road; Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 Mr. and Mrs . Chun • g _ October 16, 1998 Fill Compaction We performed two density tests during fill placement operations. The results of the compaction tests indicate that adequate compaction was being achieved. The fills were placed inside the foundation perimeter and,didnot result: in "raising of grades above the existing elevations on the site: Field Memos Copies of our field memos are attached to this letter. The contractor was provided with a field memo at: the end of each site visit. We trust this letter adequately discusses our current observations -on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, 1 BUS► TERRA ASSOCIA S, Anil Butail; P.E. 97005 President CRL%AB:dvp l' RE3 1ZP9/ 2 Q Encl: Field Memos (4) Footing Excavation Examination Report (1) cc: Ms. Jeannine Graff, City of Edmonds Building Department Mr. Ronald D. Johnson Daily field ' Memo r : TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. ProjecfNo. Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Memo No. Kirkland, Washington J�� _ _ Date Project: C k aln Subject: Location: �'lD Q I 7 3V d 7 1 ZUl� 3 Contractor: Weather: ✓ Present At Site:. Daily Field Memo TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Pro;ect.No:�i=C� 's Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Memo No. _..... Kirkland Washington Date c� Project: v V Subject: 2 1% Location: �( L f(i i�`, \ � v \1 Contractor. L� 1 WeatherPresent At Site: • . Daily Field Memo r. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc• Project No. �R Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Kirkland, Washington Memo No. Date 3 0 - g Project: Subject: +—Od r Location: Contractor: VN Weather: Present At Site: v t L- t, Y Project • . TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants (425) 821-7777 Daily Field Memo Project No. &fo - 3z- Memo No. Date Subject: Field Density Test Data b l Test Location. B Copies To: ERRA ASSOCIATE Inc. Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101., Kirkland, Washington 98.034 Phone: (206) 821-7777 P. FAX (206) 821-4334 -1 U FOOTI-NG EXCAVATION EXAM I NATIOUREPORT DATE FOOTINGS EXAMINED -7'IS PROJECT NAME: CONTRACTOR: DESCRIPTION OF FOOTINGS COVERED BY THIS REPORT: PROJECT NO. PROJECT LOCATION: ' q'� REPRESENTATIVE: J 11V�I/t i 04 l I ti (Q C 61v\ G t%� Tff Our representative has examined only the footing excavations listed above. The results of this examination are only valid for a period of-48,hours. If any -change irnthe subgrade conditions occurs, we should be promptly notified. Any'loosened soils observed in foundation areas due to construction activity or rainfall should be removed prior to concrete placement. COPY.TO: SIGNATURE" . Ar TERRA ASSOCIATES RESEN TIVE TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in G-eotechnical, Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences BUIM ?. . Mr. Ronald D. Johnson. 19601 23rd Avenue NW . Shoreline, Washington 98,177 Subject: Comments Regarding Geotechnical Review Chung Residence. Lorian Woods, Lot 3 Edmonds, Washington References: l) Geotechnical Review, Proposed Chung Single -Family Residence, Prepared by " Landau Associates, Inc., dated December 29, 1997. 2) Geotechnical Report, Meadowdale"Beach, Lots "54 to 57, Prepared" by Terra Associates; Inc., dated June 6, 1989. 3) Supplement Notes, Chung Residence, Prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1997. Dear Mr. Johnson: As requested,. we have reviewed the geotechnical review letter by .the City of Edmonds "an&Landati . Associates; Inc., for. the proposed Chung "Residence. Our comments and recommendations. are as: follows: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 1. Three test pits were excavated in the foundation area of the proposed Chung Residence on June 7, 199 L Based on the test pit_ exploration and our geotechnical' study, we concluded that. conventional spread footings can be used to support the proposed residence. We recommended . that a bearing capacity of "1,200 pounds per -square foot (psf) be used in the footing design. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 Mr. Ronald D. Johnson • February 6, 1998 2. In the referenced supplement, we stated that the probability of earth movement is likely less than ten percent within 25 years. Landau Associates, Inc., correctly notes. that Figure.5 of our 1989 report shows that a portion of .this lot falls within a 30 percent probability zone. This, figure isbased on the original 1979 Roger Lowe report of studies on the Meadowdale landslide area. Subsequently, extensive drainage improvementswere made by the City of Edmonds to improve stability. After these improvements and further observations of,on-site conditions, we prepared Figure 6 in our 1989 report. The information shown .on Figure 6 represents our - opinions regarding the .probability/risk'` A detailed discussion is presented on Pages 3, and 9 through .12 of the 1989 geotechnical report. Figure.6 in the referenced report shows the estimated probability of landslide damage to individual lots. It .shows that the probability of landslide damage within 25 years is less than five percent in the southeast corner and less than ten percent in. the rest of the area of the Chung residential lot. Materials for structural fill should be predominantly granular with a.maximum size. of two inches and.no more.than five.percent fines passing the No. 200'Sieve. All structural fills should be placed in layers no . more than 12 'inches thick and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Designation 13=698 (Standard Proctor). Free draining material below slabs should consist of pea gravel or similar material with less than three percent fines passing the No. 200 Sieve. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1. The estimated probability of landslide damage to the residential lot was discussed above.' . Considering. the location of the residence across the street from a potential debris flow, it is our opinion.that the potential of such a debris flow reaching the residence is remote., However, if the owner determines that further rotection is necessa a diversion wall ma be constructed to, divert potential -debris to the south, adjacent to the garage: In.our opinion, such a wall is not necessary: 'We recommend that the architect and owner review the current design and add the diversion protection facility, if needed.Gfl�Ll"5 �o i✓DT tvx r,Z E "r?IW— - PW.Mve-a7ew. (azci►M wymi, �). 2. We recommend that the structural engineer. use 'a lateral earth pressure .of 40 pounds "per cubic - foot (p' l) for unrestrained. walls, plus an additionaluniform pressure of 100 psf for restrained wall design: 3. We concur with Landau Associates, Inc:'s, recommendation that project drawings should show all of the necessary details for installation of utilities: 4. Based on the test pit exploration; it is our opinion that conventional spread footings are appropriate for the proposed residence. We recommend a bearing capacity of 1,200 psf for. the design of the footings: We recommend that the design or the notes on Sheet 9 be revised to incorporate this foundation bearing capacity. Project No. T-840-3-1 Page No. 2. Mr. Ronald D. Johnson. . February'6, 1•998 5., .We recommend that Miradrain be used together with the •free -draining backfill material to providewall drainage. 6. We recommend that the civil engineer verify details of sewer. lines as suggested by Landau Associates, Inc. 7. We recommend that perforated PVC pipes are installed at the bottoms of the rockeries to avoid trapping groundwater behind them. An experienced rockery contractor should construct the rockery in accordance with acceptable state, or local standards, such as King County Road Standards, Section'5.01. 8. We recommend that a field engineer verifies -all footing excavations before pouring concrete. If the bearing surface is disturbed, ")the loose material should be removed and .replaced with structural fill. We trust- this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you .have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES!, INC. Rungi Wang, Ph.D. BUTT Project Engineer t,, Of q15 Anil Butail, P.E.; 17 President RW/AB:ts� Project No. T-840-3=1 Page,No, 3 • • MEMORANDUM Date: January 23, 1998 To: File No. PC-97-356 (Building Permit) From: M.E. Meg Gruwell 1, Via: Jeffrey S. Wilson, Responsible Official i Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR CHUNG SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE; FILE NO. PC-97-356 I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist and building permit application materials (including a geotechnical report), which have been prepared for the project. A copy of these are filed in the official file for this permit. Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I recommend that an environmental determination of nonsignificance be issued for the project. One issue that has come up in review is the drainpipe in a ditch, which is adjacent to this site. This is a portion of the small stream which runs alongside 73rd Place W. and then turns to run between this lot and the lot to its south, and empties out to the west on 75th Place W. The critical areas determination done for this site in 1994 was a waiver, and did not, mention the need for a study of the creek location. The stream also does not show up on our Critical Areas Map. • In talking with Don Fiene he thinks that the small stream flows year-round, but that it is really only a drainage ditch which the former site owner has used to collect water from the various springs on the site to make it resemble a stream. The stream flowing through Lorian Woods does not have any native vegetation growing near it, but only lawn and. dirt. The plat of Lorian Woods appears to have considered this only as a drainage ditch and not as a natural stream. For the purpose of our critical areas regulations, I am also considering it to be a drainage ditch, which has artificially collected runoff from various springs and collected it together. Therefore, no mitigation is required. U City of Edmonds cza Planning Division PC97356C.DOC 01/23/98. CITY COPY' Review by Responsible Official I concur: I do not concur: Comments: Jef re . Wilson Date Attachments pc: File No. PC-97-356 Page 2 of 2 PC973W.DOC 01/23/98. y pC Ell,y 0 Y OF EDMONDS T COPY 121- STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Rt.- Ce7l V Description of proposal: Construct a single-family residence (City of Edmonds File PC-97-356). Jt14 ?3 Proponent: Seung Kyoon Chung OEV etop NT SE 1999 OF E20 C fS CTR Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16004 - 73rd Place W., which is Lot 3 of Lorian Nods subdivision, Edmonds, Washington Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. X There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: (425)771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: _ (AO" Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than _rat,_ (, ! 99l , by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX PC97356M.DOC 1/23/98.SEPA Posted on -Ja _ Z 3 , 1999- , at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of 2STREt I f I (L r ' 1nc.1891, CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering - Wastewater Treatment Plant January 8, 1998 Ron Johnson 19601 - 23rd NW Shoreline, WA 98129 Re: Site restoration bond for construction of Chung residence at 16004 - 73rd Pl. W. Dear Mr. Chung: Due to the slide potential in your area, it will be necessary for a site restoration bond to be posted to insure repair of damaged utilities and pavement surfaces across the property frontage in the unlikely event a slide should occur during construction of the house. An estimate of $23, 820 has been tabulated to cover the total restoration. The bond form is in the "Meadowdale package" that you obtained from the building department. The bond must be in place before the Engineering Division can authorize permit issuance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, at (425) 771-0220, extension 325. Sincerely, James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer GCH/JCW/sf c: Permit Coordinator 7CHUNG.DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Izic C)') CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant January 8, 1998 Ron Johnson 19601 - 23rd NW Shoreline, WA 98129 Re: Site restoration bond for construction of Chung residence at 16004 - 73rd Pl. W. Dear Mr. Chung: Due to the slide potential in your area, it will be necessary for a site restoration bond to be posted to insure repair of damaged utilities and pavement surfaces across the property frontage in the unlikely event a slide should occur during construction of the house. An estimate of $23, 820 has been tabulated to cover the total restoration. The bond form is in the "Meadowdale package" that you obtained from the building department. The bond must be in place before the Engineering Division can authorize permit issuance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, at (425) 771-0220, extension 325. Sincerely, o-amz- e • 94 lI James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer GCH/JCW/sf c: Permit Coordinator 0 7CHUNG.DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 O Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan III .- . •. _ • Undated City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist for. the proposed residence, `signature -,not- legible. , GENERAL ; Based on'review of the:documents provided,: we understand that'the subject property is located.in;the Lorian . Woods; development; near the southeast'corner of: th`e intersection' _of 75th `Place West':.and 'North Meadowdale Road.. The subject property, is within the mapped' 1Vleadoivdale Slide 'Area(Roger Lowe and''-; Associates 1979);:therefore, our -review is in accordance:with the -requirements of City -Ordinance, 2,661; Earth ; Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas. The`subject site is bounded on the east by Lorian Drive on the south -and west by. developed property, and: to It a north. by North- Meadowdale Road: - We understand that the site is "undevelope'd; . and has' been landscaped in the,past as'a portion of the yard foi the residence to the,south. As.shown,o'n h_e.site plan, the , parcel slopes generally', downward to the west.,- Maximumalopes on the property appear to be about 50 percent; in .the southwest portion of the site. The site geology reported, in boring B-2; drilled .near the northeast corner of the "site`.by"Terra Associates,, Inc.. (Terra), `and,described in •their 1989,geotechnical report;'consists of.a sequence of very moist to wet,. loose'to medium dense,, -silty sand with chunks of clay and_wood/organics to,a depth of about 31 ft ' (interpreted as slide debris in the Terra report); very;moist to wet,' stiff. to,very stiff silt and clayey- silt, to a depth of about 51 ft; and: very moist very stiff to hard" clay to the bottom of the boring, at, a depth'of about 64'.. " ft. , Groundwater. "was measured in a piezometer installed in the boring at'a depth of about l 2'/z ft below the, ground surface on March 15, 1989 GEOTECHNICAL''REPORT. , Though'we,generally concur with the conclusions and recommendations contained in'Ten'a's 1989: ' report and October 28; .1997.'supplemental letter, no recommendations are provided.in either document for earthwork'activities.at the. site. 'Also; -in Terra',s 1989rreport;.item,, on page 4;recommends test-pits_ori "lots _ where poor beanng soil is expected ,,It is not'clear why test'.pits:were not excavated`on'.this lot; since up to about 30`ftof;slide debris may be present.. Without test pits, can'.Terra,conclude conventional -foundations are acceptable or, as noted in item ' on page 4, should piles or piers be.considered? Lastly;'Terra's' October �8, 1997 supplement' notes the_probability'of earth movement is likely;je'ss than 10 percent within 25 -years.,:, However, Figure 5 in'Terra's 1989,report shows ,that a portion of the building,site'fallswithin a 30 percent. probability zone. ,The significance of.this is not discussed by,Terra. 2 - - The , geotechnical engineer , should "provide, recommendations for placement and compaction of _ structural" sill materials; including gradation requirements. and compaction specifications; requirements for, i mderslab fill, and gradation requirements for "free-drainage"'material; as called for in the construction -plans: To :address the test pit'and'pile/pier question, 'Terra need's -to either ,1)'excavate test pits and describe . foundation alternatives or, 2) clearly explain why test.pits are -not needed and why conventional.foundations,. are.acceptable. The last point about probability of earth movement is relatively minor, but the owner should_ be aware that'a portion of the property has,been mapped with a -higher percent probability of movement: CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS Landau Associates' •'review of the Construction. Plans, Sheets: • - through 13, indicates that th6y.. generally conform to the requirements and recommendations of Terra's referenced..geotechnical.reports.. The ` following summarizes Landau, Associates' _review comments: Terra's 1989 report indicates a possibility of�debris avalanche slope�failure occurring on the, steep slope to the east, of the residence, though'Terra'states hatno debris avalanche has reached'. the, lower'slope in,the last 30•-years due".to impedieut: by the dense vegetation:' With 'continued. development;` the vegetation on "the slope toahe,east could be removed- or thinned appreciably such - -that it,may be possible in for for a -debris avalanche to impact the house. (Note: The presence of woody'debris in boring no. ,2 suggests that.debris avalanches have reached this far in the, past.) . If a debris,'avalanche reached"the house, the elevated entry (structureI. .would likely provide'protection of the' main part of the •house by deflecting the debris to the north-aroundthe ` house and to the south into the"garage:; The debris entering the garage may have'enough energy to impact the west-wall",of .the garage; w'llhich is ,shared by bedroom numbers. 2 Arid 3. '. We recommend that the, architect, and/or geotechnical engineer "evaluate; the'need for= any special•, measures -to protect the• structure] especiaIly bedrooms, from a debris avalanche The General Structural Notes; Sheet 1, reference a lateral earth pressure of 50 pcf for use is design - of,restrained,walls. Terra's"October 28, 1997 letter.recommends a lateral earth pressure; of 40 pcf -for unrestrained wallswith an.additional uniform pressure of:100,psf to. account for, -a restrained wall condition: We recommend, that the geotechnical engineer confir wthe design earth" pressure'" for restrained walls., :>f it differs from the SO.pcf used:in design, then the structural engineer 'should verify, and.modify if necessary; the retaining wall design: " • . The,Site Civil and. Grading Plan; Sheet 3, does not provide spy requirements. for -;installation of onsite utilities, (Water" sewer and storm), such as pipe"materials;. pipe bedding requirements, :' trenching,"backfilling; connection to' the public facilities, inspections;' specifications; .etc. We " recommend that the necessary -requirements be included on the drawing.- Also, we recommend that' the number and location of cleanouts for the foundation .drainage system be specified on Sheet 3— • The Foundation Notes on Sheet 9 indicate a 2,000" psf,bearing pressure. "The -General -Structural notes on Sheet,l,'the'structural'calculations and Terra's October 28", 19971etter indicate a bearing pressure of.1;200 psf. We' recommend''that-Sheet 9 be correctedto'show,the p'r`opei- foundation bearing'pressure; provided Terra confirms the use_ of -conventional foundations: d .V . JUINQ TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.: L.... .. 199' Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth.Sciences SPEET. FILE October.28, 1997 Project No. T'-840-3-1 Mr: Ronald .D.. Johnson 19601 23rd Avenue NW Shoreline; Washington 98.177 Subject: Chung Residence, Lorian,-Woods,-Lot 3 Edmonds, Washington - References: Geotechnical Report, Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57, Prepared by Terra Associates,' Inc., , dated'June 6, 1989 = Plans for Chung Residence, Lorian Woods, -Lot 3, Prepared by Ronald D. Johnson Architect,. September 1997 Dear Mr. Johnson: As requested, we have reviewed .the, building plans for.. the proposed. Chung Residence. • The purpose of our review was. to verify that the design has incorporated the recommendations presented in, the referenced geotechnical report and.to state the risk -of damage to site development and the probability of earth movement, after the site.development.. The building plan drawings we reviewed included: • Site plan/grading plan • Elevations and building section plans e floor plans. :. • Foundationplan details. e Structural notes 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 •.Phone,(425) 821-7777 Mr. Ronald D. Johnson _ October•28, 1997 Our review'of those drawings, indicates that the design generally. conforms -to the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report,. In our.opinioii the risk of damage to the proposed residence. and to adjacent' properties from soil movement will• - be minimal.subject,to the 'conditions set forth. in .the report. Once the foundations of the. residence.'are.c'onstrUcted and backfilled,.;the'potential,for soil movement should be reduced ,due to improved site drainage and unloading excavation of the site. :The stability of -this property was discussed in the referenced geotechnical report. In our, opinion; the probability of earth movement on;this lot within 25 years -is most likely.less than ten. percent, therefore; the lot is, suitable for the; proposed.construction: This risk of earth movement will'be partially•mitigated by -improvement of subsurface - drainage using• 0Lindation drains; and by unloading excavated,materials from the site - a.weight of fill-in excess . of the weight of the building. Our review of the.Elevations and Building Section sheets indicates that the building will be supported on spread footing foundations wiih,ground floors at Elev.. 112 feet and Elev: 124.5 feet, respectively.. ;The Foundation Plan sheet shows that a.bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) was used for the spread footing design on the native soils. The Details sheet shows that an equivalent' fluid pressure -of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) was used to design the basement retaining wall. As explained. in the referenced geotechnical report, the soil on this lot .is landslide debris. Jt may provide relatively poor conditions for.conventional.spread footings. Previous test pits in the project- vicinity, as described e technical report, uncovered buried vegetation unsuitable for su ortin .foundations. Similar* in the referenced g o p g• pp g materials'were -also. observed in,utility excavations and resent in'.the: ro osed buildin site. The excavation h P P P. g made during construction, should, be carefully examined. before footings.are constructed. ' If unsuitable materials are present; they should be e"xcayated to firm ground and the overexcavations should be backfilled with clean crushed rock or compacted pit -run gravel. To reduce the :risk of foundation settlements` due' to possible uneven .:bearing con itions, we recommend .proportioning the foundations for a maxi urn bearing stress of 1,200 psf, as. indicated 'irt the Structural Notes sheet.'. The basement retaining'wail Is cari be designed for.an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf for unrestrained walls. If restrained walis.are used, a uniform pressure.of 100 psf should be added in the design. -We trust this information is sufficient for your .current needs'. If you, have :any questions. or need- additional information,. please call. Sincerely.yours, TERRA ASSOCIATE B UP9 Rungi Wang, -Project Engine �. Anil Butail, P.E. :President EXPIRES 12/Q/ q 7� Project No. T-840-3-1 Page No., 2 . ^ City of Edmonds Building Dept. 250 5th AVE. N. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 771-0220 RE: Chung Residence Lorian Woods, Lot 3 Edmonds WA. Gentlemen: October 30, 1997 RV'LINNO NOV - 6 1997 ARCHITECT DECLARATION STATEMENT: I have reviewed the geotechnical report, understand it's recommendations, and have explained to the owner the design recommendations of the report, and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the report. 19601 23rd. NW. Shoreline, Wa. 98177 546-2288 qlt4tfi /4�98 4 . STREET FILE REED AND ASSOCIATES 144 RAILROAD AVENUE SUITE #206 EDMONDS, WA 98020_ . OFFICE (425) 778-2793 FAX (425) 775-2073 November 3, 1997 City of Edmonds Building Department 250 5ch Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 RE: Chung Residence Lorian Woods, Lot 3 Edmonds, WA. To whom it may concern, 2.01-03,1114 Nov - 6 1997 Engineer Declaration Statement: I have reviewed the geotechnical report, understand it's recommendations, and have explained to the architect the design recommendations of the report, and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the report. Thank you, Wendell Reed PE, CBO 9BLL WASh��o,�� h y :r 6T 3 771 ��;S1pNAl Ea j/-(o - 9 7 I X a 6 llql?, 5 � �uwmu�� STREET FIIE NOV - 6 1991 April29, 1997 To the City of Edmonds: This statement is to certify: • That the accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by the applicant/owner in a form which relieves the City and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusions shall be those of the applicant/owner and their design professionals (EDCD 19.05.030). • That the applicant/owner understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils, and • That we will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures on the site, of the slide potential of the area (ECDC 19.05.040C). DONE this � day of C , 1997 OWNERS: By --- State of Washington, County of ►4 BY: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �TL-'�) C ht3k � P4004 A 0 KtA�(r signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this statement. DATED My commission �J City of Edmonds Building Dept. 250 5th AVE. N. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 771-0220 Gentlemen: NOV - 6 1991 BEET October 30, 1997 This letter is to accompany plans for Mr. and Mrs. Chung residence, to be built on lot 3, Lorian Woods. This is to notify your department that I am the lead professional as well as the architect for this project. I will be responsible for coordinating and incorporating recommendations of other design team professionals. All plans have been prepared in accordance with geo tech and structural engineers recommendations, and measures have been established to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage from any earth movement. Architect 19601 23rd. NW. Seattle, Wa. 98177 546-2288 o,�azf 110e, oOy -Wd Pl uJ Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. October 6, 2004 City of Edmonds c/o Gurnee Company Builders P.O. Box 3446 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Subject: Final Geotechnical Report Chung Residence 1'607=71 s''P1 W: ' Edmonds, WA Geotechnical/Civil Engineer 1RECEIvED GEC 0 2.2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections for the addition project for the Chung residence at 1607 71 s' PI. W. Edmonds, WA. REFERENCES: • City of Edmonds approved plans • Previous geotechnical inspection report and photographs INSPECTIONS: This engineer performed onsite geotechnical inspections with regard to the following aspects: excavation, sub -grade verification, slope stability, subsurface drainage, backfill and compaction, and final grading. All geotechnical inspection aspects were properly performed, inspected by this engineer, and are geotechnically approved. SUMMARY: • All geotechnical aspects for the Chung addition project have been inspected and are geotechnically approved. �15 M. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. #,a,, �' E7. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer '.17 'ktgV o S-JONAU EXPIRES SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL ce. 1t (I .Do k P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 Hpr 21 04 08:58a Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Mkt L. 02 t l . a004 M. .E , M.B.A Geotechnical/Civil Engineer �S '0I/o ;LAC Acs" C� L t)A-ttS �vc T EOTtFCEf L-ov ES �4L k4�tT(O�0k CNuNG k pt.FoIIM Eb �t: - -r67' N[C of L CCdJ G DES . N LORt PrN Uvoob s poll -rN6' SMALL (/4'P�RoX. `7 x l I 3A--rHfto�l �ia �tTraN . SLoC-rk3L1' • �OVN��T{o!v S 0,66%1{LF -'`Act PouNAA-rrodu voRMvJ0AK 1 1�E -� � L'o111C��T� � %� e!T"`� '� � • ��'>P�avEb TLI}llls /q'Nb 1NN1jF4 rro I19 _ •,Xk-AtNA6C IAIS-7' lt,��: Rao �owNsi�o�-rs. ARE 7�'ptPoR�R.ltr )Zod?6D pf.oPE'R L7' . AJ© PR-013LEMs• 4�,ti'��•N G • G�aTECff�! c�G L�' � P p�av �#� . - SOILS • FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN 8 our P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, :Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX owms RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 PERMIT COUNTER S TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Mr. Ronald D. Johnson Architect 19601 - 23rd Avenue NW. Seattle, Washington 981.77 Subject: Proposed Addition Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods .16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earthwork Observations No.980447 Chung Residence Lot 3, Lorian Woods 16004 - 73rd Place SW Edmonds, Washington Letter dated October 16,1998 Dear Mr. Anderson: D JU I - 16 MEW SP-B\11CF_S of-VELOP OF 5)MONE)s . ciV r May 12,1999 Project No. T -840-3-2 As requested; 'we-haye reviewed the location of the, proposed addition to the Chung. residence at 16004 - 73rd Place SW. Our work was required. by the City of Edmonds. We previously reviewed the. mass excavation and vservado! . is . i r, 'd letter. The foundation con'ditpris for ithis house'.and pi."es.�,,nt6d.a.su'r�r;-iary.of.OLtr ob the reference purpose of this 'letter is: to comment on the geotechiiical aspects of the Proposed addition., We understAnd that it is currently in the -plan to.a,:dd.an area measuring approximately four feet by six feet to an existing bathroom on the s6uthern.portion 'of the house. The addition will extend, the footprint of the house out approximately four feet. This! Addition is on. the middle.floor'of the house. :...Th6 adjacent footings are, -relatively shallow and the contractor has proposed, excavating new footings to support the 'addition. Further,thereis an option of cantilovering the new addition off -the existing foundation. This second optionwould not require any new footings. -1.2525 Willows Road, Suite .1 01, Kirkland,. Washington 98034 Phone-(425) 821-7777 -Tax (425) 821-4334 * terra'@terra-associates.com Mr. Ronald D. Johnson May 12,1999' The footings for the new addition must be at an elevation that is the same as the adjacent house footings. The new footing should bear on undisturbed native soils and may be proportioned for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,200 pounds.per square foot (psf). The new footings and stem wall should be pinned into the existing footings and stem wall. . All' drainage facilities in the area of the proposed addition will need to be rerouted to accommodate. the new addition. We do not. recommend spanning the existing drainage facilities with* new structural elements. All footing excavations should be observed by Terra Associates, Inc. to verify that the footings are at a suitable elevation, and that the soils have an adequate bearing capacity for.the new footings. Regardless of the option chosen, the proposed addition should not increasethe risks associated with the construction on this lot, provided the recommendations contained in this and our prior letters are incorporated into site development plans. We trust this letter is .sufficient for your current needs. If you have . any questions or require additional information, .please "call. Sincerely yours, 6`1 z_- 1 TERRA R RA A SSOCIATES, Inc. �;' ►; ►� ' ' ` Consultants in Geotechnicai Engineering, Geology ' and Environmental Earth Sciences 9� 3 ha©D4 73IL 1 Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Robert and Joann Anderson 7370 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Report . Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57 Edmonds, Washington Dear Dr. and Mrs. Anderson: We have completed the geotechnical studies you authorized for your property in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. The site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The tract, referred to herein as the Anderson property, includes Lots 54, 55 and 56 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach and most of Lot 57, We understand that you intend to subdivide this property into approximately ten lots for single-family residences. A final plat has not been developed at this time. The purpose of the present study is to assess landslide hazards on the property and provide general recommendations for site improvements, and for grading, drainage and foundations for residential construction. The work completed includes 1) a review of soil reports and other information in City files, 2) examination of air photos of the site vicinity, 3) a visual examination of the property, including shallow soil explorations made by hand, and 4) exploration of subsurface conditions using test borings and test pits. This report describes our findings and summarizes our recommendations. After the property has been subdivided, the City may require a geotechnical evaluation of the construction proposed for each individual lot. Such work is not within the scope of the present study. SUMMARY The existing site topography and a possible plat with ten lots is shown on Figure 2. The property slopes downward from east to west. The central portion of the site includes a relatively flat bench. The steep slopes at the east side extend beyond the property line. A' lower bench occupied by several residences lies beyond the west property line. 15301 N:E:-.90th--Street—`Redn;und, Washington 98052 • Phone (206) 881.5570 • FAX No. 869-9173 Mailing Address: P U:.Bc��.:i:i3F3 • Redmond, Washington 98i�73- Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 ' Page 2 The Anderson property is part of a large ancient landslide. The area that failed extends along 75th Place West from Meadowdale County Park southward to about the 165th block and from the bluff on the east to the shoreline. The original landslide probably occurred several thousand g ears ago. Parts of this landslide have been active into recent Y ` times and possibly are still active . The records indicate that landslides occurred in Meadowdale during the winters of 1946-47, 1955-56 and during the 1960s and .1970s. Local residents report that no detectable earth movements and no building damage occurred on the Anderson property during any of these events. In 1979, the 40-year record of landslide events in the Meadowdale area was studied by Roger Lowe Associates Inc and the landslide hazards were evaluated. Several possible landslide categories were identified, based largely on topographic features existing at the time of the study. A map that identified the landslide hazards and estimated failure probabilities was developed for the entire Meadowdale area. The Lowe study identified three categories of potential landslides on the Anderson property, as summarized on Figure 3. Most of the property where the subsoils are believed to be ancient landslide debris was classified as previously failed material susceptible to renewed landslide movements. On the central bench, .the probability that landslides of this type (4A) might occur within 25-year periods was estimated at 25 percent, the lowest rating given any area.believed to be located on the old slump material. This relatively. low rating. was given because no landslides have occurred on the bench during historic; times. , The western slopes below the bench were rated at 35 percent, only slightly higher than the 25-percent rating given the bench. Because areas on the Anderson property at the northwest and the southwest corners were believed to have been affected by three major landslides since the 1940s, The Lowe report assigned these areas a rating of 90 percent. However, because residents on property adjacent these corners of the Anderson property report that no damage to buildings and no perceptible earth movements occurred during these events, the rating of 90 percent assigned these areas likely was unwarranted. The steep slope east of the bench was mapped as generally undisturbed materials susceptible to shallow debris slides (3B) and to avalanches from further up the slope (2C). A relatively low probability of occurrence was assigned to landslide events of these types. The Lowe report recommended groundwater control as likely the most economical measure for landslide risk reduction. Consequently, in 1980 through 1985, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains were installed around and within the Meadowdale landslide. Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B were installed on the Anderson property at the locations shown on Figure 2. Since that time, a lowering of the groundwater table throughout the landslide mass has been documented. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 3 In 1985, GeoEngineers, Inc evaluated the effects of the improved surface and subsurface drainage and concluded that the probability of landslide occurrence had been reduced in much of the area believed to be most susceptible to failure. On the Anderson property, the estimated probability that the old slump material might move again within a 25-year period was reduced by a factor of about three. Based on our test pits and borings and other available information, we conclude that all the Anderson property below the bluff is underlain by landslide debris, mostly loose sands mixed with silts, clays and buried vegetation, including trees. The depth of the debris probably exceeds 60 feet under the central bench and likely is in the range of 30 to 40 feet at the west property line. Figure 4 summarizes our conclusions concerning generalized subsurface conditions on the site. e Figure 4 also illustrates ground water conditions on the site observed during our field work, which was performed during winter months. The water table appears to be about five to six feet below the ground surface along the west property line but near the ground surface on the slopes to the east. On the bluff, springs were observed where sandy soils outcrop above fine-grained materials. Based on these observations and our professional judgment, we agree generally with the landslide hazards assessment in the Lowe report. Figure 5 summarizes our assessment of present landslide hazards on the Anderson property and shows landslide occurrence probabilities consistent with the latest evaluation by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our opinion, Figure 5 is not adequate for assessing risk at individual residential lots. Firstly, the probabilities appear to apply only to the large-scale slumps that were the Lowe report's primary concern. In our opinion, while the low probabilities presented for the areas on the eastern slopes are believed to be suitable for large-scale slumps, they may underestimate the average occurrence intervals of the small-scale slides and avalanches that typically occur on steep ground. Secondly, available evidence suggests that most of the residences within areas supposedly affected by the landslides of record withstood those events with little or no damage. Consequently, probabilities of landslide occurrence, as presented in the Lowe report, probably exaggerate the risk of landslide damage to individual residences. Figure 6 presents a risk assessment that we believe is applicable to individual residential lots on the Anderson property. The probabilities presented are intended as measures of the risk of landslide damage rather than landslide occurrence. On Figure 6, the 30-percent ratings on Figure 5 at the northwest and the southwest corners have been reduced, reflecting the reports of local 'residents that the landslides responsible for the 30-percent ratings caused no perceptible earth movements on the Anderson property and no damage to residences adjacent these areas. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 4 In our opinion, the present risk is low enough to justify development of the Anderson property, provided the design and construction procedures used do not impair the present stability, and provided also that future property owners are properly informed of the landslide hazards that exist, as required by the City's Ordinance 2661, and accept full responsibility for them. In order to develop the property without increasing the risk of landslide damage on adjacent property, and without unreasonable risk to the proposed residences, we recommend that certain measures be incorporated in the construction proposed for each — lot. These include: 1) Homes should be adapted to the present topography, using split- and multi -level construction where suitable. 2) Where slopes are steeper than 15 degrees, fill should not be placed under the building footprints. Ground floors above the present grade should be framed over crawl spaces. 3) Slab -on -grade ground floors may be used in cuts, and on fills placed on slopes flatter than 15 degrees. 4) Basement cuts should not exceed about eight feet in height. If deeper cuts are required on steep slopes, the basement should be stepped and the excavation terraced. 5) Basement walls and perimeter foundation walls should be designed for lateral soil stresses suitable for the backslope angles. _ 6) Because landslide debris may provide relatively uneven support for foundations, buildings should have conventional wood -framed construction supported on reinforced concrete foundations. Concrete masonry is not recommended 'and brick veneer should be used only in small panels. 7) In general, conventional spread foundations may be used. Home sites where _ landslide debris is expected to provide poor bearing conditions should be explored with test pits before final plans are prepared. 8) Setbacks from both ascending slopes and descending slopes should comply with the requirements in the Uniform Building Code. 9) rile and pier foundations may be considered as a means for improving foundation performance where soils are poor, and to satisfy setback requirements. 10) Landscaping should preserve the existing topography to the extent practical. Fills should not be placed on slopes steeper than 20 degrees. Fill slopes should be graded not steeper than 25 degrees. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 5 11) Cuts should be limited to heights of about eight feet. Cuts up to four feet may be supported by rockeries. Higher cuts should be supported with reinforced concrete retaining walls. 12) Site drainage should be 'improved by installing drain rock bedding and perforated drain pipe in the trenches with all new storm sewers, as was done in the LID 210 storm sewers. 13) Home owners should improve drainage on their lots by diverting surface water into the storm water system. Perforated drain pipes tightlined to the storm sewers should be provided around all perimeter foundation walls and basement walls and behind all retaining walls. Rain gutters should discharge to the storm sewers in tightlines different from those used for the foundation drains. The following sections of this report discuss our findings and present our conclusions and recommendations in greater detail. Our report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is intended for the exclusive use of yourselves and your representatives. Our work has used methods and procedures consistent with local foundation engineering practices. We provide no other warranty, expressed or implied. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. SITE SURFACE CONDITIONS The project site is located south of North Meadowdale Road and east of the 74th Place West right-of-way in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The Anderson property includes Lots 54, 55 and 56 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach and part of Lot 57. In plan it measures about 350 feet by 650 feet and includes approximately 5.3 acres. The Anderson residence is located on Lot 55 in the west center of the site. As shown on Figures 2 and 4, the eastern third of the property is a slope that gradually steepens toward the east. The upper slope climbs steeply to a bluff with its crest -near Elev 250 to 300 off the site to the east. At the time our study was performed, two small surface sloughs were noted on these steep eastern slopes. The central area of the property is a bench about 100 to 120 feet wide covered with grass, ivy and scattered trees. Grades on the bench vary from about Elev 120 in the north to Elev 150 in the south. The Anderson residence and a shed to the south are located on this bench. Several firs up to 47 inches in diameter and other large trees, straight-trunked and vertical, are located just south of the house. To the west the bench slopes down to the 74th Place West right-of-way. The grade change from the bench to the west property line ranges from ten feet at the north to about 50 feet at the south. Typical slope inclinations are in the range of 20 to 25 degrees with local areas as steep as 45 degrees. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 6 In 1984, as part of the LID 210 work completed by the City, Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B were installed on the Anderson property, approximately as shown on Figure 2. At the time of our study, many areas of the property, especially the east slopes, were wet from snow melt, rainfall, seepage and springs. Surface water not collected by the interceptors descends to the bench, runs downslope in watercourses around the Anderson home, then continues on to catch basins and other drainage features. The central bench on the Anderson property extends off the site to the north, where it is occupied by single-family residences. Other residences are located on a lower bench west and south of the Anderson property. All of these structures are supported on the slide debris that is part of the Meadowdale landslide complex. We understand that prior to the construction of the Anderson residence in 1965, six cabins and a house had been present on the Anderson property for many years. When these buildings were demolished in 1963, none are reported to have showed any evidence of landslide damage. REVIEW OF RECENT LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY The original landslides in the Meadowdale area are believed to have occurred several thousand years ago. The area involved extended from the bluff to the shoreline and from Meadowdale County Park on the north southward to about the 165th block. Landslide activity in this area has continued during historic time. The most readily accessible records describe the landslide activity during only the most recent 40 years. The records may not be complete. The landslide records indicate that much of the ancient landslide south of the present wharf was active in the winter of 1946-47. The same area is believed to have been active again in the 1960s. The area affected extended more than 400 feet east of the railroad. These events explain the 4A90 hazard rating the Lowe report gave the southwest corner of the Anderson property, as shown on Figure 3.- However, residents near the Anderson property during these landslides report that no damage occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during either event. During the same winter of 1946-47, a slide that blocked North Meadowdale Road did occur in the road cut on the Anderson property about 70 feet east of the present driveway. This slide probably was not related to the other landslide activity that occurred that winter. In the winter of 1955-56, landslides were reported at two locations north of North Meadowdale Road. The Lowe report concludes that during that winter the active area probably extended over most of the ancient landslide north of the wharf. These slides explain the Lowe report's 4A90 hazard rating shown on Figure 3 for the northwest corner of the Anderson property. 'However, residents near the Anderson property report that no damage occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during that winter. Robert and Joann Anderson June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 7 Numerous other smaller landslides have occurred within the past 40 years, most of them at the toe of the slope near the railroad. At least two larger slides were reported. In 1970, a slide just north of the wharf crossed to the east side of 75th Place West, causing minor pavement disruption, which recurs periodically. In 1973, a slide near the 158th block adjacent the railroad extended upslope to the west edge of 75th Place West. On the Anderson property, the ancient landslide mass has not undergone perceptible movements during the 40-year period of record. In addition, only minor sloughing has been observed on the eastern slopes since the Anderson home was constructed in 1965. Since that time, no avalanche debris has reached the toe of the slope at the east side of the bench. We reviewed stereoscopic air photos that show the property vicinity during the years 1947, 1955 and 1970. Pavement disruption on 75th Place West west of the property, due probably to the 1970 slide noted above, can be seen on the 1970 photos. The 1955 photos show bare soil on the eastern slope above Lot 57- off the Anderson property. This scar probably was part of the residential construction going on at that time above the slope crest. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field work on the Anderson property was performed on February 14 through 17, 1989. Subsurface. conditions were explored by drilling two standard penetration test borings to depths 50 and 69 feet below existing grades. In addition, six test pits were dug with a backhoe to depths that ranged from 12 to 19 feet below existing grades. The borings were made by Drilling Unlimited Inc of Olympia. A skid -mounted drill rig was used for one boring and a truck -mounted rig for the second. Continuous flight, hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes. The test borings and pits were located by measuring from site features shown on the survey plan provided us. The approximate locations explored are shown on Figure 2. Ground surface elevations reported for the locations explored were estimated by interpolating contour lines shown on the survey plan. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firma A log was prepared for each boring and test pit. The soils observed were classified in general accordance with the system described on Figure 7. Logs of the borings and pits are presented on Figures 8 through 15. These logs report our interpretation of the field logs and reflect the results of laboratory examination and testing of the field samples. In each boring, standard penetration tests were performed at selected intervals by driving a sampler with a two-inch outside diameter using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The results of these tests are the N-values reported on the boring logs. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 8 Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory where they were again examined. The field moisture content of each sample was measured. Field visual classifications were checked by running Atterberg tests and sieve analyses on selected samples. All the test results are recorded on the boring logs. Ground water observation wells were installed in both borings. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The locations explored on the Anderson property are shown on Figure 2. The following discussion is general in nature. For more specific information regarding conditions observed at the locations explored, refer to the ' logs of borings and test pits, Figures 8 through 15. Boring 1 at the south end of the central bench was drilled to a depth 50 feet below existing grade. The soils observed are mostly loose silty fine to medium sands mixed with clays and silts. . Based on the relatively low N-values in Boring 1, as reported on the log, and the mixed appearance of the material, we believe that all the soil is landslide debris derived from the Esperance and Whidbey formations exposed on the bluff to the east. The base of the ancient landslide is at an undetermined depth below the bottom of the boring. Boring 2 at the north end- of the central bench encountered about 30 feet of loose sandy soil with chunks of clay and wood debris, similar to the soils recovered in Boring 1. Below the 30-foot depth, silts and clays were encountered, generally very stiff but becoming hard within the final eight feet of the borehole. Subsurface conditions in Boring 2 are similar to conditions reported by Lowe for a borehole about 150 feet northwest of Boring 2. The upper 30 to 50 feet is slide debris. _ The deeper clays and silts are believed to be part of the Whidbey formation and may or may not be part of the ancient landslide. All the test pits on the Anderson property encountered slide debris: loose silty sands with chunks of stiff to hard clays and silts. Trees buried in slide debris were uncovered in Test Pits 2 and 4. No stratification similar to that in the undisturbed Esperance sands near the _ top of the bluff was observed in any of the pits. Test Pits 2 and 4 through 6, which were excavated on the eastern slope, encountered _ ground water at shallow depths well above the toe of the slope. The sidewalls in Test Pits 2 and 4 collapsed as the pits were being dug. - A ground water observation well installed years ago by the City is located near the southwest corner of the property. A log of the borehole is not available. We understand from discussions with the geologist who installed the well that the depth of the boring is in the range of 24 feet and all the material drilled was landslide debris. At the present time, the water level in this well is five to six feet below the ground surface. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-.1 June 6, 1989 Page 9 With the possible exception of the Whidbey hard clays in the bottom of Boring 2, intact native soils were observed on this site only at fresh exposures on the bluff at the east margins of the property. Figure 4 shows a generalized profile of the native soils and the overlying landslide materials. Near the toe of the bluff, both native soils and ancient landslide debris are covered with slope wash and avalanche debris deposited since the original landslide. As noted above, in Test Pits 2 and 4, trees were observed buried in debris. The Whidbey formation iS exposed on the bluff above the debris. In some areas near Elevs 170 to 190, the Whidbey soils are pebbly silts and sands. Further up the bluff, the Whidbey soils are finer, mostly silts and clays with seams of fine sand. The Esperance sands of the Vashon glaciation lie above about Elev 220 to 230. There are springs at the contact between the Esperance sands and the underlying Whidbey clays. PRESENT LANDSLIDE HAZARDS The Anderson property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowdale landslide studied in 1979 by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The purpose of that study was to assess the various landslide hazards present in different areas and evaluate the risk that a landslide event might occur. The Lowe report classified three categories of possible landslides on the Anderson property, as summarized on Figure 3: 1) avalanches of debris from the steep slope at the east side of the site (2C); 2) landslides on the' east slope in material that has never before failed (3B); and 3) renewed movements of the ancient landslide materials beneath the central bench and the western slopes (4A). The first two categories were considered to have relatively low risk, only a two to five percent chance of occurrence within a period of 25 years. The possibility that a failure in the third category would occur within 25 years was estimated to be about 25 percent on The 1\^.??ah and 3'5 t^.".`. ^.? on ..!\" �ti':: ^? �.�< �t�:. ��:_ '.��J ??�o'C?r l�n��.��.� 'h.2: occurred in 1946-47 and in 1955-56 were believed to have extended onto the Anderson property, small areas at the northwest corner and the southwest corner were assigned a 90 percent chance of failure within periods of 25 years. The Lowe report concluded that a reduction of ground water levels in the landslide complex likely was the most effective means of reducing the risk of additional landslides. Consequently, during the early 1980's, the City installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and subsurface interceptor drains at various locations on and around the Meadowdale landslide. Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B were installed on the Anderson property at the locations shown on Figure 2. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 1 Page 10 In 1985, GeoEngineers Inc evaluated the effects of these new drainage facilities and concluded that the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in many areas that had high risk. Landslide occurrence probabilities of 90 percent in 25 years were reduced to 30 percent in 25 years. Similarly, ratings of 25 and 35 percent.in 25 years were reduced to 10 percent in 25 years. Our explorations on the Anderson property disclosed subsurface conditions generally consistent with the landslide categories described in the Lowe report (see Figure 3). However, when applied to more localized areas, these categories are not always descriptive of the landslide processes actually occurring or most likely to occur. For example, in the steep areas on the bluff where undisturbed soils occur, the Lowe report distinguishes between slumps (3A) and more shallow slides (3B). However, on the old - landslide debris west of the bluff, all the recent and the anticipated landslide activity was classified as renewed slump movements (4A) although much of the recent activity was recognized as having characteristics of relatively shallow earthflows or debris slides. Figure 5 presents a landslide hazard map for the Anderson property. that we believe better describes the slope movements that could occur. It retains the general features of - the Lowe report map but has been adjusted to better fit local geology, topography and drainage conditions. On the steep bluff at the east margin of the property, the Lowe report indicates that slumps (3A) may occur in the exposed Esperance sands, but are unlikely. The probability of such failures is low because the springs on the bluff provide much better drainage for the sands than existed at the time the ancient landslide occurred. Nevertheless, the overly steep face of the bluff is constantly being loosened by weathering and plant growth. Shallow surface slides result from these processes. They usually are small in area and of little consequence for construction further down the slope since downslope movement of the debris commonly is hindered by vegetation on the lower slopes. On Figure 5, to distinguish these shallow slides from more massive slumps (3A), we have used the Lowe report category 313, debris slides in material that has not previously failed. As shown on Figure 4, the Whidbey formation is exposed on the steep eastern slope below the Esperance sands. On Figure 5, this area is the second zone west of the east property line. The Lowe report indicates that shallow debris slides (3B) are expected as weathering and plant growth gradually loosen this material. This zone is also at risk due to avalanches of debris from the Esperance sands above (2C). A massive slump (3A) is also possible. However, for the present drainage conditions and bluff topography, a slump would likely be confined to the overlying Esperance sands. _ The third zone from the east property line is below the zones where undisturbed native soils are exposed, but upslope from the ancient landslide debris (4A). The near -surface soils are colluvium from the bluff (see Figure 4). Due to surface water from the springs on the bluff, the ground water table is near the ground surface. The landslide hazards in this area are shallow slides in steeper, wetter zones of colluvium (4B) and avalanches from slides occurring higher up the slope (2C). Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 11 The fourth zone from the east property line on Figure 5 is the lower slope at the east side of the central bench. This zone and the remainder of the property to the west are underlain by ancient landslide debris. The east boundary of this zone approximates the - trace of the old failure plane on the present ground surface (see Figure 4). The landslide hazards include avalanches off the slopes to the east (2C) and renewed activity of the old slump debris (4A). There is an additional risk of shallow slides in the old slump debris or in colluvium that has accumulated since the ancient landslide occurred (4B). These latter _ failures are most likely to occur on the steeper slopes to the north during unusually wet winters. The remainder of the site includes the central bench and the slopes to the west. The major landslide hazard in this area is renewed activity in old slump debris (4A). In addition, the east side of the bench may receive avalanches from the slope to the east (2C). There.is little chance such an avalanche would carry across the bench and down the western slopes. However, the west side of the property has locally steep debris slopes where shallow slides (4B) may occur during unusually wet weather. The west corners of the site are classified in the Lowe report as having the highest landslide risk on the Anderson property. These areas also have risks due to landslide hazards other than renewed slumps, as shown on Figure 5. A numerical probability of occurrence is presented on Figure 5 for the multiple hazards in each of the various areas. The probabilities shown are consistent with those in the Lowe report, as modified by the 1984 assessment by GeoEngineers, Inc. In our opinion, the landslide occurrence probabilities shown on Figure 5 for the central portion of the property are reasonable considering the historical record of fairly large-scale landslide events. The 10-percent rating has been assigned arbitrarily to areas where renewed movements of the old slump material have not been reported and are not believed to have occurred within historic times. The bench on the Anderson property is such an area. Applying the conclusions of the Lowe report elsewhere on the Anderson property presents some difficulties. Firstly, the 30-percent rating was given the west corners of the Anderson property because these areas were believed in the Lowe report to have been affected by landslides in the 40-year record. However, downslope neighbors of the Anderson property who lived through those events report that no perceptible slope movements occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during any landslide of record. Consequently, the original 90-percent ratings, and the current 30-percent ratings, probably are too conservative, based on the available evidence. Secondly, with regard to the eastern slopes, landslide occurrence probabilities in the range of only two to five percent, as assigned by the Lowe report (see Figure 3), are understandable only as elstimates of the chance that a large-scale event in the native, undisturbed bluff soils might occur. We agree that the probability of large-scale slumps of Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 12 the bluff is low, as predicted by Figure 3. However, we believe these low probabilities underestimate the frequency of small-scale landslide events in overly steep ground caused by weathering, erosion, and excessive ground water. Such events, although small in scale, could cause significant hazards for residences located on the slide area or, in the path of an avalanche. A third difficulty in applying the Lowe report to residential lots is that probabilities of landslide occurrence may not represent the risk of damage to residences, which is the primary concern of home owners. The historical record at Meadowdale indicates that few homes have actually been damaged by the landslides that have occurred. If all the homes within a defined landslide area were not damaged by the landslides that occurred, the probability of residential damage must be less than the probability of landslide occurrence. Unfortunately, the relationship between landslide damage and landslide occurrence cannot easily be evaluated and varies from place to place. Moreover, the probability that a landslide will damage homes will increase as the density of homes increases, even though the probability that the landslide will occur remains constant. A qualitative risk assessment that incorporates the considerations above is shown on Figure 6. We recommend its use for residential lots on the Anderson property. In our opinion, the risk is lowest on the central bench, which we do not believe has experienced any landslide activity during the 40 years of record. Following the argument above, we believe the probability of landslide damage likely is less than five percent in 25 years, base on a landslide occurrence probability of ten percent, as shown on Figure 5. On the western slopes, the risk is higher than on the bench, due primarily to the influence of locally steep slopes, and to the proximity of downslope areas with higher landslide occurrence probabilities. The risk at the toe of the eastern slopes, in our opinion, is also higher than on the bench, due to the threat of small slides of overly wet slope debris and to avalanches off the steeper slopes to the east. Slides in the debris on the lower slopes apparently have not occurred during the 40 years of record. Due to the recent drainage improvements, and to the additional drainage improvements that will be effected by future home owners, the frequency of occurrence df such slides is not expected to increase. Slides off the upper slopes that might cause avalanches on the lower slopes apparently are occurring with an average return period of ten to 20 years. Due to their small size and to hindrance by the heavily vegetated lower slopes, no avalanches have reached the lower slopes during the past 30 years. In our opinion, residences located on the upper slopes would be closer to potential small-scale landslide activity and thus would experience greater risk. Because these areas are -comparatively inaccessible, they are unlikely to be selected as home sites. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 13 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Figures 5 and 6 and the preceeding pages describe the landslide hazards and risks present on various sections of the Anderson property. The hazards can be separated into two general groups: 1) large-scale, relatively deep-seated slope movements caused by renewed activity off the ancient landslide; and 2) small-scale, comparatively shallow slides. These latter slides may be avalanches off the oversteepened bluff at the east margins of the site, or slides in colluvium that have accumulated below the bluff. Within the past 40-odd years, large-scale activity has not affected the Anderson property. Moreover, the drainage system installed by the City under LID 210 has improved the large-scale stability and reduced the risk that a future large-scale event will affect the property. At the present time, the probability of occurrence of a large-scale event is believed to be less than 30 percent in 25 years everywhere on the property, and in the range of 10 percent in 25 years on the central bench, the western slopes and the lower eastern slopes. In our opinion, the probability of landslide damage is significantly smaller than these estimated probabilities of landslide occurrence, as illustrated by Figure 6. The risk of a landslide activity, both large-scale and small-scale, is now low enough to justify development of the Anderson property. This applies to all the lots shown on Figure 2. Some lots have higher risk than others, but on all lots, the risk is small enough to warrant development. On all lots, residual risks exist that cannot be eliminated. As required by the City's Ordinance 2661, future lot owners should be fully informed regarding the residual landslide risks, both large-scale and small-scale, and their purchase agreements should require them to accept full responsibility for these risks. While efforts to further reduce the risk of large-scale landslides, in our opinion, are not warranted, the risk from' small-scale slides may be either increased or decreased, depending on the construction on the individual lots. Lot owners should be held to construction and maintenance standards that will reduce their risk as much as practical. The paragraphs below in this section of the report describe recommended measures to reduce the risk of small-scale landslides. These measures, however, will neither entirely remove the hazard nor eliminate the risk. Residences constructed most everywhere on the Anderson property will be supported on old landslide debris. In general, conventional spread foundations may be used. However, our test pits indicate that on some building sites bearing conditions on the debris may be relatively poor. Building supported on such material should be expected to experience small settlements. Consequently, in our opinion, the Anderson property is best suited for wood -framed construction with stiff exterior wall sheathing. Concrete masonry walls, which can develop cosmetic damage with only small settlements, are not recommended. Brick veneer should be used sparingly. Lot owners who wish to reduce the risk of cosmetic damage caused by settlement may consider supporting their homes on pile or pier foundations. _ Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 14 Working conditions on the Anderson, property may be excessively wet during the winter months, especially on the eastern slopes. We recommend scheduling all site work for the drier months from April to October. Site Improvements In order to subdivide the Anderson property, only limited site improvements are necessary. To provide access to the interior lots, the existing driveway must be extended, approximately as shown on Figure 2. Either concrete or asphaltic pavement may be supported on the landslide debris on the Anderson property. In either case, the subgrade _ should be proofrolled to atsure it is firm and unyielding. The uppermost twelve inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of its ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density. Site soils may be too wet to achieve this level of compaction. In that case, a clean bank -run gravel or crushed rock should be imported and a subbase constructed at least twelve inches thick. Asphalt pavement should, have a base course of crushed rock at least four inches thick and a surface course of asphaltic concrete at least two inches thick. Concrete pavement - should be at least five inches thick. It may be placed directly on the subgrade, provided the work is done in dry weather. A base course of crushed rock a few inches thick may be needed in wet weather. We recommend extending the storm sewers to the end of the new driveway. This will provide an opportunity to install additional drainage at the toe of the east slopes and provide a place where lot owners can discharge their foundation drains and roof gutters. The storm sewers should be tightlined. To pick up ground water seepage intercepted by _ the trench, drain rock bedding and perforated drain pipe should be installed in the excavations, as was done with the LID 210 storm sewers. The drain pipe should be placed at the lowest invert practical. The trench should be lined with filter cloth and backfilled with pea gravel, except within two feet of the surface. Other utilities should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with AWPA standards. All utility trench backfill should be at least moderately compacted. Under pavement, backfill in utility excavations should satisfy the proofrolling and compaction recommendations above. • Residences and landscaping should be designed to fit the existing topography. Homes on the relatively flat central bench may be conventional construction. If desired, fills up to about three feet in depth may be used to raise grades. Foundations and slab -on -grade ground floors may be supported on properly compacted fills. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 15 Homes built on sloping ground should be multi- or split-level, as suited to the present topography. Basement cuts into the slope should not exceed eight feet in height. Deeper basements should be terraced. Fills should not be placed under homes on slopes steeper than about 15 degrees. Ground floors above present grades should be framed over crawl spaces. Cuts and fills in landscaped areas should be minimized. Cuts up to four feet high may be supported by rockeries, provided high maintenance and a risk of failure is acceptable. For higher cuts or where better performance is desired, reinforced concrete retaining walls should be used. All retaining structures should have backfill drains near their footings connected with tight lines to the storm water system. In general, wood -framed residential construction may be supported on conventional spread foundations. However, because most of the property is underlain by landslide debris, bearing conditions at some building sites may be relatively poor, especially on the _ lower eastern slopes, where our test pits uncovered trees and other vegetation buried within the debris. _ Preliminary building plans, once prepared, should be reviewed to evaluate likely foundation requirements. Following the review, exploration of the building site with test pits may be recommended. Where needed, the pits should extend several feet below the intended footing bearing grades. To provide suitable bearing for footings, unsuitable materials, if found, should be removed to depths at least two feet below the footings and replaced with compacted gravel or rock fill. Where buildings overhang slopes or are located close to slope crests, the foundations should be stepped down to bear well below present grades. Setback requirements, as described below, should be satisfied. Where conventional foundations for such applications are not practical, pier or pile foundations should be considered. Since these piles likely will be supported entirely in debris, careful attention should be paid to estimating design capacity. Buildings supported on landslide debris may experience settlement due to the excessive and variable compressibility of the debris. Home owners who wish to reduce the risk of poor foundation performance may consider using pile or pier foundations to support their residences. The use of these deep foundations will reduce the risk of damage caused by _ settlements due to unsuitable bearing materials present at shallow depths. However, deep foundations likely will not reduce the property damage if a future landslide occurred on the site. Consequently, deep foundations should not be viewed by property owners as a means of reducing their risk of landslide damage. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 16 Setbacks From Ascending Sloes In order to provide protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures, the Uniform Building Code requires that buildings be set back from ascending slopes. Residences constructed on the central bench well away from the steep eastern slopes will be exposed to very little risk of this type. However, building sites on the eastern slopes may have only minimal setbacks and thus higher risks of damage caused by these potential small-scale failures. UBC requires a minimum setback of 15 feet. On slopes not overly steep, this requirement can be satisfied by excavating a bench behind the residence and supporting the low cut with a retaining wall. On steeper slopes, the code's intent can be satisfied, in our opinion, by constructing the foundation wall adjacent the slope to a height where the top of the wall is 15 feet from the face of the slope. Since these small setbacks are catchment areas for, debris sliding off the slopes above these homes, where the setbacks meet only the minimum UBC requirements, the rear walls of the buildings, in our opinion, should be designed to withstand debris impacts. Setbacks from Descending Slglw For setbacks from descending slopes steeper than 18 degrees, we recommend complying with the UBC requirement of 40 feet or one-third the height of the slope, whichever is less. The slope height may be measured to the next lower bench of significant width. Where it is desired to construct within the normal setback zone, the intent of the code, in our opinion, can be satisfied by lowering the foundations. Where the slopes are high, pile or pier foundations may be necessary. Basement and Foundation Walls Because homes on the Anderson property will be supported on old landslide debris, foundation bearing conditions may be relatively poor. Building settlements that vary from place to place should be expected. In order to reduce the risk of poor foundation performance that may result from these variable settlements, we recommend using only cast -in -place concrete foundation walls and basement walls, properly reinforced. In general, residences on sloping sites should be stepped to fit the present topography. Basements are recommended since they will assure that many of the foundations will bear well below finish outside grades. We recommend limiting basement cuts to a maximum of eight feet. If a two -level basement is desired on a steep site, the basement should be stepped to fit the slope so that a terraced cut can be made with each terrace not more than eight feet high. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 17 All basement walls and foundation walls should be provided with perimeter footing drains. The drains should consist of a perforated pipe within an envelope o washed stone, all enclosed by filter fabric. The walls should be treated with dampproofing. A drainage course should be placed outside the wall and connected to the footing drain. This wall drain may be either free -draining gravel backfill or a manufactured drain attached to the wall after the dampproofing has been applied. Soil lateral stresses for structural design of foundation walls and basement walls will depend on the steepness of the backslopes and other factors and should be selected specifically for each building site. Site Drainage At the present time, surface runoff, rainfall and seepage from the bluff and near -surface ground water are collected on the eastern slopes by Interceptor Drains lA and 1B. These recent improvements have significantly dried up the Anderson property. Some water undoubtedly passes under the drains and reaches the ground water. Since the water table presently is well below the ground surface at the west property line, the present large-scale stability of the Anderson property, in our judgment, is adequate to justify subdivision of the property. However, measures to improve site drainage can be obtained at little premium cost by incorporating them into any storm sewer extensions that may be needed, as discussed in the Site Improvements section above. r To reduce the risk of local, small-scale sloughing of steep slopes due to excessive surface water and high ground water, other drainage measures should be installed as part each lot owner's construction. Each lot should be landscaped so that all surface water is collected and conveyed into catch basins connected to the storm sewer system. All basement, foundation, and retaining walls should be provided with perforated footing drains, as described above. The drains should connect to the storm water system with tight lines. Cleanouts should be provided. Rain gutters should be connected to the storm water system using tight lines separate from those used for basement drains. Stability During Construction The present stability of sloping sites will be disturbed by construction activities on the individual lots and the risk of slope failures will be highest at that time. The risk is mainly to builder's operations close to the disturbed area. Builders can minimize their risk by using good construction practices. Surface water should be diverted into catch basins and the site dried up prior to making any excavations. Excavation sidewalls should be sloped back at safe angles or supported with temporary shoring. Where excavations encounter ground water, perimeter ditches should be constructed to control the water. Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1 June 6, 1989 Page 18 Excavations on the individual lots may create hazards on adjacent lots, depending on how the buildings are sited and on the construction sequence for adjacent buildings. Problems of this type are unlikely, but should be considered on a lot -by -lot basis. Since a slope failure in landslide debris initiated by an excavation on the Anderson property would not progress upslope into native, undisturbed material, temporary excavations will cause no risk for neighbors of the Anderson property. Excavated materials stockpiled on steep slopes would place neighbors downhill at risk. Excavated material for use as backfill should be stockpiled on gentle slopes where adjacent property is not endangered. Surplus material should immediately be hauled off the site. In our opinion, the development of residential construction on the Anderson property will not have adverse impacts on the landslide hazards that affect the Anderson property and the neighboring property. Implementation of the drainage measures recommended herein will lower the groundwater table and reduce the current risk of landslides on the Anderson property and on the property downslope. Construction on the Anderson property will not affect the stability of the bluff and thus will not adversely affect neighboring property to the east. ` I Maintaining healthy vegetation on slopes is important for controlling erosion and reducing the risk from small-scale landslides. The existing vegetation on steeper slopes outside construction areas should be preserved to the extent practical. Trees that. might topple onto the buildings should be trimmed back but not removed. Catch basins and storm drain lines should be kept clear of debris and free -flowing. During construction, stripped soils should be covered with straw or otherwise protected to reduce erosion. All landscaping around the residences should be installed as soon as practical after the buildings have been completed. CLOSURE The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data obtained from test borings, test. pits and visual observations of soil exposures. However, subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site may differ from those observed at the locations explored. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident before construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. _ Robert and Joann Anderson June 6, 1989 Project T-840-1 Page 19 The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figures 8 through 15 Vicinity Map Exploration Location Plan Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report 1979 Generalized Geologic Cross -Section Landslide Hazard Map Residential Risk Map Legend for Test Pits and Borings Logs of Test Borings and Test Pits ._ We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please contact us whenever we may be able to assist you, and please call if you have any questions concerning our report. Respectfully submitted, TERRA ASSOCI TES, INC Charles R. Lie Engineering Geologist W i�� w► i' �„Q , William Bailey Project Manager Anil Butail, PE President .,'/I'\� BUT '- w A S oy yOd id GIST sS10NAl.�i�l1 LAEBUGTf W�ARyyr`� �F¢tSITE'' < 11ST S f SM. < > I+ NOILA l f Z Il/IND PL 3" a 6' = k I fir. a $T $WRfN L .( I ; . W. _' p I43ROI 3 ST SW Z $;, :"i s: 164TH ST x i rs. ',�> , Iri I ^S ice• `, ::; �; � aJU •i I y o h't a',z� 8 • t. Sr 1. `?`� rilr t';ii;, 'I,; ' - r' sw $ay�:'7-�-55S5� svr: 46TM �% fill s —�' r 5'n S' T<,3"'� �;ri PL � Sw ''x arni f» - ': ;♦__ a, .. L51$T_ � I � Q r.. / Tr$ S'N l i ISOTH +✓,9 z i t xrk w 3 _xk `f k c• of ,..1 .. 152N0 ST fie S''v i 7l K PL l,Ai 1 .ti • I T i' '•I: ._ r' �` s 3 1 AD STz; ^,w.., ,5:'•L ,-IJ `C y P, sr, G PL sw 777.37l S'nit'i',1:. Q 1`c 4vE I Q s ,. I 1$7T 11•$1 MCADOWDALf Z•- -_L-- -'� �, $r.i'. • ; ICOUNry % f ISrr:, Y. J; !'• .. � I PA/?A ;• i Q Mf�l $ ,nnrnzrL sly ;I 9 uiSir�iL w I I I g I VW 7 I Pt I p ,'r1a Ie1ST III.SYY rP y Ij I3 rr, D'+ S Iiw V IO M jZ S� ' 1 ST Sw CC �TpTbH.<' A. �I S. ...:�;>;. I 3164TH- I T $w64 ' " ESN - I' '<i lS g Nb'. •.• > .I ! •:c�', Ji:T'w•3l.fj'.•� NVU:G Y ,/�y 3 iW`��}°3 h 'r' F' /gin j`,•L' r•/ _ - zl II qa' ;:r�'�'US,,,� jia �}e %• •r- D.r; J. rl� p;a S �Sw' 1le,l "^ �''.j68TFi'ST �4i7Ls. ,,.t�•,.:.��:., � , MEADO OA/;t',:a',1�°,'1Y!.v:.•�i I - pp �[•'p r ' I i ••� .T C ✓!`,f�•r{ r .y'.l "p 00 ly v�u_agl•<rt o t r �T*1�. i1C47'Sf "Nrr-.y^� 7; 4: _ , ,_ .. !•� :lrN..�Sf 1 t11 �'., I": 'S 4 1^ Tr>or„ �} k'r H' .sN�l>�'ir17_ 'i yjy,l i:.l ' 7 _1C�. S.h, 1 W .170T P 1.yy.. (U �T • v. , �•,� 3 '.. �"•<"I f � 'X,:•: � _• I' S :N 3 \� I �7�, ) �li.�;''h'r.• 172NO�ST,SW; -'�".' < ^� - 1#w'•1,>is`, ,,: ?•:]i . r hti. r - 0.h • 6v w f, .rgTr .� f .j ��SCt�' .:,i -': v� `l ,nP �:> sr B ICti 'n°D C''r � 'mD r r 172ND�•61 17zN ='�1 b1 •.PL�SW'' �9; ;(, `yf•1}-;�•:��?i.:= ••' �°o v'v cr1 0,,/ rror .,f �%, -v �'1✓I•'v flrv� ;!> I .�: a:: •;� , �: - OZ PD i s �,L�y; �Isv: - ti; i o.a sI�i+s� 'S �i•'f',. 7�R0.R�+�r.�' ii3•4 pF" _ .7T ;i� f L�r 0 ;� ✓ _.r.. 5: 5y/a' \e'1 L Sw,, �"�•v' �! ..;..;�.,y�.y; ^. -� '='�•dltd +Y ,r,! ♦ c F�PE�JER�C_;Z I•�� _ r.; .� s, :yi �C' f r, EL 'r dJ':i# Oc �l 4�,.,^•.f j fr J ,.err N� Sf it ;n6�>I ti.• �, �,n�y7"�" r I v'-' :f • 513 n i`a9� Z T LI p 1 � at 7,��.•�� Ll� ''`�_--_tT; -•-,_- S� ii "aF x�if•"� �•7,/•.luJ `-ti�(;� t', N rr COVNTY �i i V^ ,' _ -$ 0 0 /SM�:.a. 5� ..l•J, 2 rvr� xl�j., L" I> 3 071,1 5 :)5. P'- Sv, _ y.,l� •ram:: ......i. •N. 'N�' _Qp- _ PARK PROPfRTY.:� .Q1=%1• r I, �•r•. "�.BF_"a. 14.E I` 3 aJ S �'BTrt, ST $t.'a.�J,' `l� 1/,AS'i� t�` T %.L•� .:Yv S.::o x .- 3 ! s• sw ,.. �. CL11:1•-• \ C r _r• TBTH S .� 179TH PL •� �•.•--•,-r (••r 4.ii_ ^ w 1731 .I L S+' S w ; ' '' ' Z - "9 f g t > 1 k' ` „' ' > `', 2 -' T n P W 1't• r,Q\G l�!iE`i`Is`_ �R:1Sr Sw 1 T _5T! w �` cyya :99TH ��' •KU S alµ"P.'SW� ! fPl C� ,C• f� p31 ! 1 S* r ® T r�� Si i 181 <ST•$W. i5 A, 16154,.,Liw"', 4 1�7}iD;STr:oST�'S I NO P ;N > J .jr �7 • l I�r� I �.r r' r >�a m T% 'r r—^Id 7P7r., +•'t'_.":= ;stw� Pr �1 _I 'u,, ,l .-: ' ! I • : / � ,NT � ' e_i.•''a l+�'.. qy r I W' a I I Y/ f•ai, 1 �r✓ M• "r^ ,w'@% P n-- s `� EI 7£'{rS•¢r N 'fj YJ �- t • , L . �Js (o l . �. ° { Syr. , I '7 't yl -? I 1 -D' :f 4::9 ` `t:•J,S`, T16iT 188 FH- SLI SV87 I. Z. 1 ,•) Iz ;Sir �•87a1-i,F6 �' •.••��7'ii�yi$:D�r PL S�+' JI'f.. - �,• ,� 189 TH P li > > > rp �� LYNN C* P V(• T -n t �Ls<�SY2.. I O < C gI:JrNR, r IP:_SV� - r0 LC.. - PENNY.LN�K•legTl.3�_ ST SVl fgl rrl I r^ L.r 4�9• vc �c 37 i89rH: DL Sw: r• I z _ r c 3 ;j> 3 +it r.•... ;i'_` 9 u' .mi? 'a�- F` S" t5 S g: o s,r•�: ,5 sr, �7 / ..3iSOTH� . B r.... 'bal;,. a�fw 191 ST•P SW., 4'. r+if,191ST. .�,,,fKT-_ •r ,L . >122 iF _5.__. `SNI.�l_�.->>::.iL. ST, '!,�.P:3:lip 7o z� ST:SW. Rp:'17.•*•.;�� 19, PT tr' �. L1s Ik :i•. \4'• 1 . ,f P..'i:. Si:,j i :5)'vL Sw,; ' 1:6 �� S: •> _ r'dL- 7 _ S /.I � SCRIBER r.r..P ,b;;..< - f �� rp::.. a P S1 �•k t. rvrf. ='1' EXC �t S'h PL SW �, I JS•1TH• :1 i ,< 1' :41ri. >� �' I '3' ti f 1� •� ; 5 1 �Lf i �A F,> Z / S.r I;. 196TH ST I S 9�5 _H ST 1 z m > J 9srN k4'->� �'SW l 1 S�1"I':•< ' L} ��a f;_<z O '' 9� r0 :rli��g,_ 16TH - •r 52. 'Gnfo <S Sv.n i� a`+?i;_53:L 'pries SiSA(I!z. 44 .r71 iv�/ ,tr3S. it iLS i.`;' v of > 7X f ! r /51 o - •.%f ►: �- •r�,r�:Ct:S`5T7: TZ,.7•,.._� "aft�r ',.. f7 SJ a2 .� • I -: F• s a > , I I : � � Imo,.. This figEre copied from THOMAS BROS MAPS, Snohomish Canty, Washington, 1987 - TERRA VICtNrrY MAP ANDERSON PROPERTY ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 Figure 1 o. z 0 0 of cD T 10 (0 N r m m m z stf �u ..I fa bE'- fG is N. MEADOWDALE RD. 1 •., — e'. • .3d•. w ,fin t� �� '1��1111, 1i 1111i;;;, 1l 1111' II„�r •'•gyp' I 1 ,11'l l',' ..�I4�'•r'�� ' I `ill' 11•�,�,'; �II11" i II ,il lr �N •.�i, •1� I r 11 �� I1;1 1j1�,1 11 '11r I I 1 / ��I,, •illli il�i�pi�#�;;�; � � • fF l 'Inn�''ry�., • .•1 1� 4 . ,1•rr�..:• I lid �; l /1 •� � � I �.��-�:;� �; � � � (1 � ► I � � ,: • •� � �,(// I ! I Il•,�� 'fir •, Rf;?•" , \ !� I ; I �I I� �� / �ll� \\�.� ,.',� �►I� ICI ��I �I�, I r I � �� .\ �. ,• . III � �l I �, I; it LANDSLIDE HAZARDS 0 1t 4A Renewed movements in old slump material �I I ?I 1 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material I .,�� , A f ' ..j , •" , � � I, .� .g � 3B Dcbris slides in materials that have not previously failed The two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period .; I l' ' 3 02' — t 350, This figure copied from Figure 5 in �;� `�., _ _ the final report on the Mcadowdale 4 2: Area Landslide Hazards Investigation by Roger Lowe Associates Inc, 1979 4 g0 20 �4A 1 t•. .r dq o� J� ... - 3802 ;I 1 :A '� ' 4`` rJ f ^ ,4A 35 E ANDERSON PROPERT I tit / 4A25 4A 2 t�; \.'•` ( '\ .�� ; Scale: 1 "= 300'•` i I r 3B02 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT TERRA ANDERSON PROPERTY ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Geotechnical Consultants Prof. No. ;* 1 Date . 3/89 Figure 3 280 240 200 Q� F 160 ApproAnaie present grand water W 9-1 (offset) ? / 1 120 City Piez (offset) SUM debris from ancient landslide Probable ancient failure plane Los This figure is for illustrative purposes only. The subsurface conditions shown are an interpretation of the conditions observed in test borings and pits, and other available information. Variations may exist between actual conditions and the conditions shown. Ground lost since the ancient Fardside Present ground surface / VASHON DRIFT Spring line Sari : Esperance Clays WHMEY FORMATION Pebbly sands and sits �- Possible seepage zone buried under colluvium Colluvi rn with buried trees (avalanche 8 slide debris) TERRA ANDERSOP ASSOCIATES KAEADOWD� BE RO'Geotechnical Consultants I Prom No. 840-1 Date N 3A.: r SOT tQ' LOT��_� LANDSLIDE HAZARD 3A Slumps in materials that have not previously failed 3B Shallow landslides in oversteepened slopes that have not previously failed 2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material 4A Renewed movements of old slump material 4B Shallow landslides in previously -failed material The trailing digits indicate the estimated combined probability of occurrence, in percent, during 25-year periods Site S—ev by Groun Four. Inc Job No 88-8020 LOT 4 w I \ f _._LOT � . -'%''� - � •�'. _� _ _ . �`. _.. _ _ __ _- r _ r, .....,. LOT 6 f I TERRA 1` ASSOCIATES = Geotechnical Consultants LANDSLI ANDEM MEADOWDAL Proi. No.840-1 Date SOS S]' y -- - - _ pi a - -_ - - -_- - cal `QT'tQ :LOT E. 3 ,Low , = LOT3 LOT 7 / LOT: / ; �a .• cam'-.-.]. �'/ :; �_ \ � i LOT 4 - - - -- _ — ' LOT 6 ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF LANDSLIDE DAMAGE WITHIN PERIODS OF 25 tr YEARS _ RATING PERCENTAGE - Lowest Less than 5 LOW Less than 10-- Moderate Less than 15 Highest Less than 25 Site Survey by Group Four. Inc Job No 88-8020 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants RESIDENTIAL ANDERSON P MEADOWDALE BEAC Proi. No.840 -1 Date 5/ SOIL rI QVQTCAA MAJOR DIVISION SYMBOL SYN OL TYPIC/-'.L DESCR.1PTIOt,; GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW ::o i:o':'' Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, J : little or no tines. GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures. O More than 50% of (less than �n � nt CUafSe IfaCIJOn 5% fines). Illtle or no flues. Gravels GM Silfy gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, U N is larger than Uj in ro W No. 4 sieve. with fines. non -plastic lines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. <i E plastic fines. Cr 0o h o SANDS Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, to 0 W Sands little or no tines. SP Poorly=graded sands or Gravelly sands, a ° More than 50k of (less than r Y Z 5% fines). little or no fines. Q d C coarse fraction SfV� : Silly sands, .sand -silt mixtures, U � E is smaller than withfn es. non -plastic lines. SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, No. 4 sieve. plastic fines. SILTS AND CLAYS ML norgantb silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silt or clayq fine sands or cl1 silts with °' o Liquid limit is less than 50°�. v.ayey CL Inorganic clays of low to.medfum plasticity, clays, sandy clays, silty lean E N llavelly clays, OL Organic silts and organic clays of low LU aR ° Z o plasticity. ^' SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or dialoaceous rrr tCU V " N fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity; fat clays. LLl > Liquid limit is greater than 50%. o OH t t Organic clays of medium to high plastico.y, " N �' ' ' organic sills. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT ^-•-•''�•• ••�•� Peat and other highly'organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS I 2' OUTER DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING,-tsf r IL 2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER qU PENETROMETER READING, lsf P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPLE 'NOT RECOVERED PCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot LEGEND FOR BORING & TEST PR LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj, No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 I Figure 7 BORING NO. 2 Logged By CRL Date 2/16/89 ELEV. 120± Graph us CS Soil Description Depth Sample p Blows W quo tsf (It.) Ft. (%) Concrete slab ml/ Grey silty fine SAND and clayey SILT, 4 26 sm some orange Rain 6 Grey silty fine SAND with clay T 5 33 10 Same, with some organics 3/15/89 = 5 24 16 Same, with hard clay chunks & wood = 13 46. 20 sm Grey silty.fine to medium .SAND = 10 19 26 No recovery = 21 30 ml Grey sandy SILT = 12 31 36 Grey SILT = 22 31 40 ml/ Grey clayey SILT with sandy zones = 17 37 2.5 46 Same I 31 24 3.5 60 ch Grey ' CLAY = 24 38 3.5 66 Same = 25 36 2.5 80 Grey CLAY, thin bedding = 35. 35 4.5 86 CH Same LL=75; PI=43L = 95/9" 23 4.5+ TERRA BORING LOG ANDERSON PROPERTY ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 Figure 9 Logged By CRL Date 2/14/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 6 10 16 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev. 147± W Soil Description cl 9" duff and topsoil Mixed brown and grey sand, silt and clay Grades to CLAY chunks, soft to hard, with numerous logs 38 sm Grades to gray silty SAND with organics 33 Test pit completed at depth 14 feet Ground water seepage at depth 4 feet and below Sidewalls collapsed e TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical - Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No, 840-1 Date 3/89 Figure 11 Logged By CRL Date 2/15/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 5 10 15 20 TEST PIT NO. 4 Soil Description Elev. 153± W N 18" duff and topsoil 43 Grey silty fine SAND with numerous sm trees, loose 33 Test pit completed at depth 12.feet Ground,water seepage at depth 3 feet and below Sidewalls collapsed TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj, No. 840-1 I Date 3/89 1 Figure 13 N Logged By CRL Date 2/15/89 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 6 10 16 20 TEST PIT NO. 6 j Soil Description Elev. 14 2± W N 12" topsoil 35 sm Grey silty fine SAND with zones of soft clay and chunks of hard clay, loose 33 Test pit completed at depth 15,feet. Moderate ground water seepage below depth 6 feet TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS ANDERSON PROPERTY MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS Proj. No. ;;71 FDate 3/89 Figure 15 f-' Ay d 3. USE ZONE. %'� PERMIT CITY OF .EDMONDS.. NUMBER . CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB j /' j SUITE/APT4 OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS: S� � UO LEGAL DESCRIPTION.CHECK'S DIVISION NO. LID NO. cc w MAILING AyyO SS - PUBLIC-. IQA, T OF:.WAY' PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑;; CITY ZIP' TE EPHONE NUMBER ''+a vw;:_ - RW Permit Required 1V(M .�� ,E%ISTING. REOUIREDDEDICATION A . y (� f,`I •1 S 7.� - p InspStreection Permit dY4jV� NAME(. _ d- PROPOSED. )O) '�'1 V � � �� Inspection Required yFr�❑' . Sidewalk Required 'mil (�l7 ¢. i." ': ty .METE SI�E _ •L)NE $IIE NO OF FI T,URES PRV.REQUIRED Lu AODRE S _ !% // YES' NO ❑ .3 f•• '/J� �'j'y,�' J� �' +tom U L ✓{W/ N V�J REMARKS Z a CITY, ZIP TELEPHONE NUMB / E / r u NAMR Z. . • E7 jU /%lQi�/ �p %/ / vC1 . 8 Re- 4% ADORES ,v4 w ieIA1l -';EQD cc UENGINEERING MEMO DATED? odd I D . Y: f Q CITY IP' ,! TELEPHONE ''NUMBER / / I 1, O1 "JA F AQ yq_- - �FIRE'MEMO-DATED .' REVIEWED ,w `�wlo U ST E'LIACtE ENUMB PIRATIO E �f a VARIANCE OR CU ADB i SHOEp' Legal Des ription of Property '='include all ease ants" SEPA REVIEW SIGN'AREA.. HEIGHT Z CO P%C TE. EXEMPT ALLO ED PROPOSED ALLOW D PROPOSED a Diu :. h 1 17 1 LOTCOVERAGE REQUIRED'SETBACKS'(FT) :_PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT) t; ALLOWED PROPOSE FRONT SIDE "REAR FRONT;" L/R:SIDE. REAR a Property ! t7. I' z f Tar Account _ owl ��'I�QjAREA NN ,T n. . Parcel Na (�(J EJ��J i Uv s� REMARKS ; -Fi NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGIMECH z� 1; r• l COMPLIANCE OR ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE S/t L3 REMODEL APT. BLDG. SIGN G IN FENCE CHECKED/' BY -TYPE"OF CONSTRUCTJON> -"_ COQ�� ' OCC a! REPAIR CYDS.. X _FT):: %A1114.ACL f� � : GRO a WOODSTOVE DEMOLISH HOTUB/SPA e INSERT'SPECIAL-INSPECTOR y r3: OCCUPANT REQUIRED LOAD v :CARPORT .,.. .. RO KIERYG' WALL/a RENEWAL REMARKS YES' J Z. (TYPE (OF. USE. BUSIN s OR ACTIVITY), F�.PLAIN: PROGRESSINSPECTIONS PERgUBC 108.479a(r,414L Ay 0. w NUMBER L NUMBER OF CRITICAL' ;50��1-YtlIQDACT 6.Y C 'OF r DWELLING AREAS :STORIES �+� � 1' UNITS NUMBER S lea -' 'DESCRIBE WORK TOV DONE ATTACH P T. PLAN) 2 ' fINAL1NSPECTI U,I . N REARED.' 'VALUATION' FEE FEE =PLAWCHECWFEE .tor a?e u 4 PAD* BUILDING: HEATS E GLAZING PLUMBING r Plan Check No. '"t MECHANICAL This Permit covers'work,to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL54 Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE 14,5 Permit Application:180 Days 'Perinit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Do STORM 'DRAINAGE FEE 10 YS "Applicant; on behalf.of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE :. ; -_2 n successors in interest, agrees. to indemnify, defend and';hold' W harmless the City of. Edmonds,..Washington, its officials, m employees, and agents'from any and all. claims for damages of uT «G/ whatever nature, arising. directly or indirectly from the Issuance: of :this 'permill. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT o modify,U ,r' fob Waive :or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance. :r nor, limit in any way the City's'ability to enforce any'ordinance ; TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." hereby. acknowledge that 1 have read this application- that the Information:.given is correct;':and that Lam the owner,'orthe duly ATTENTION' APPLICATION APPROVALI authorized agent of the owner. I agree';I comply:With city and THIS PERMIT °state laws regulating, construction; and In doing -the Work `authoriz ' AUTHORIZES This 'applicafion- is;; not:a;•permtt until ed thereby,.no•:person.will be employed' in:.violation;of the Labor:. oNtY THE si.gnedby.',the,Bulding':Official or'his/her i Code;of the State of Washington relating'.to Workmen's'Compensa-:; ;WORK 'NOTED' Deputy and';fees are paid, .and'receipt'is: 'tion.lnsura RCW 18:27.. - scknodWleed SIGNAT OWNS AGENn INSPECTION g In SpaCl? provided. O )ATE SIGNED .DEPARTMENT CITY OF OFFICIAL'S SI ATURE. DA E-1 7 EDMONDS 1 _CALL FO R ElE D Y ATT'ENTION': INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO'USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING `O'R, STRUCTURE UNT.It :A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR: 771 -MAOU ORIGINe� — File YELLOW'— Inspector• - A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC r` SECTION 109 1 ; i; 102e7' `i PINK Owner GOLD - Assessor 41 EXHIMY7 RECEIVE® M W - 7 2003 —WiMNG DEPT. PARCEL B FND REBAR & CAP (TRACT "A��) -- LS#18737 ORIGINAL 3 'o 00 LOT LINE 0 i7 _ � 43 f 60.00 v� ,+n �o 2 �J ORIGINAL LOT LINE 0 /n z PROPOSED LOT LINE h 2 FND REBAR & CAP LS#18737 PARCEL A (LOT 3) LOT LINE SCALE — 1" = 20' 1 LINE TABLE 1 LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 1.31 N16'59'17"E L2 1.31 N16'59'17"E L3 3.50 S73'00.43"E L4 3.50 S73'00'43"E V . si Bcc '• E V Q' r of xi NOTE: - 14 `�� THE LOTS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO THE . QISTE�.••• tr tI s/pN�` i^NOg� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE LORIAN WOODS PRD AS FOUND IN THE RMES 11114I()q- CITY OF EDMONDS FILE NUMBER WmammmWmmmuupmn,mr - PRD-1-89. 2-lo--p3 Tri-County Land Surveying Company 4610 200th St. S•W. Suite A Exhibit A �� Lynnwood, Wa. 98036 (425)776-2926 Fax:776-2 WODIb Nam• 6 121,.53' Iw i uo tit 4 i lob M� - �011 {agyld �lt� � t Cmttara '�{tH 118�_ a �j 't�tb4w wi t4e K _ U kRb A k a IbeL2, �. I Veit t Ito _ \ 10•� ' �1�� 1145� t� Mii�! i 122 �t% LULOWIo Uke Y ` __Iat,Lsr, to ee Dt�N�Jt U� � \ � � �•�\ I \ � I -- '7YM4`A -- - . 1'—� ME. to WT :o t �y u!E , — — -- Itt � �� _ —• 9aoc'M• - 5, IId 39 1 112 L4W .\Ilb 105 110 �Atmlai N4VG I \ \ Nt�kIK Gws 1�4,0' + 114,5' + 110l5 111,0' IIID matte. MAw,11�e11t = 116•o't15= l9'30' \4 1 itt I� SIT? r�NW LOT s,Y i►Jcwni►Jra LA►Lscnp►O • _.._ �.ot�IhN INt7ot�s . — - tJfp. k�`�tbENttAt. I 'ISn :... � �_ _: r .Lots gt, ss, 5�1 51 I tif� �u't OlZ'1t-} ` - 5 i aZi1°�Kthf v RECEIVED s b2 M vFIAUep U wltdtw Om, AVE", { P041.uld --w/ swaa�x eew cuo►,o eon., . _ _ NAwt f Porn A sm-. -_ kyP ace to bc Lqr A$- FwkP Oc �14mN6 WtE; &, TWS evik Notw AS to WO/s fotouto Must- I be Rat MASS ffm,Nw fats CAvse!s t9(VLbaues to �qw' OL ;ab Wgub SuR�u3e hmwt b # R fuvcw 10 ru• s i STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM - 1` WORKSHEET ' .OWNER Pfl-MU- `'°`" Z ADDRES bO1 °''V �• Uj- ��G 9 �G CALC BY: Z PHONE: 20 5U47- 2� DATE: - < <(7 Iq 7 ,t.06"tr" *****DESIGIV DATA ?%ERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA PIPE LG x 4072 V FINISHED T �_DCTENTICIN.PIPF' _Et:GTH LOCKING LID (TYPICAL) _4L MINIMUM UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFICE MEASIUREDEFROMCTOP OF .OPE CONC BOX OR RISER '0 OUTLET OUTLET CONTROL MIN, ORIFICE CONTROL CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 2'X2'X6' DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL FROM CONTROL CB 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK EXISTING GRADE FROM CONTROL OUTLET I' WASHED ROCK i OUTFLOW TRENCH MIN 10' LONG. PERF PIPE TO F LEVEL 1 I PERF PIPE W/ END CAPS TRENCH SHALL BE LINED WITH M1RAF1 RIPRAP OUTLET PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF WASHED DRAIN ROCK RUNOFF SPREADER TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM. NOTES. 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the ' responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper'operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. �jGlf APPROVED BY L-LbI fd DATE NOTE: SIDE SEWER MUST BE TIGHT UNE ( GLUED OR GASKETED) APR , 2 •►d:1�3 NU I I V EXCEED 100' BETWEEN CLEAN LAMPHOLE COVER (OLYMPIC FOUNDRY CO. 5931 OR EQUAL I (1) 8" RISE oop 3/3/4" AS (INDICATED HT. 1/8" 0 o a TYP CLEANOUT UNDER ASPHALT I (1) 2" WIDE ---i �� ,c BORDER io.I ig ._ �� 5/8 12"- 4 2 7/8" 1 /8 BEND METAL OR PLASTIC EXPANDABLE PLUG 17'\ z a w ;ti, _;: ,:; • WATTER 1 lo" H TIGHT 6" RISER FIBER JOINT PACKING 6" WYE & 450 1 /8 BEND I 4"OR 6" SIDE SEWER 6" CITY STUB or :�— PLUG TO BE SEALED IN -`-Zzz-� SAME MANNER AS MAIN SEWER JOINTS CITY REVISIONS APPROVED AS ,I a OF EDMONDS ENpIVNSIONNG STANDARD DETAILS SEWER CLEANOUT DATE: I I I .. I SCALE: NTS I. DNG. NO: RIGHT OF WAY FINISH GRADE ROCKWELL G METER Q CVlti: o > SEE O 6 CL a: ' o C A� CONNECT TO EXISTING SERVICE A .CEMENT UNED DJ. WATERMAIN D FOR VACANT LOT WITH TYTON TYPE JOINT FUTURE USE .:MATERIAL LIST' A ALL 3/4" OR 1" SERVICE TO BE TYPE K SOFT COPPER TUBING. B BRONZE CORP. STOP WITH CC THREAD INLET AND COPPER OR OUTLET. C TYPE K SOFT COPPER TUBING OR HIGH MOLECULAR PLASTIC IRON PIPE SIZED 11/2" OR LARGER; HIGH PRESSURE AREAS WILL BE COPPER TUBE. TRACER WIRE TO BE INCLUDED FOR ALL PLASTIC PIPE, D BRONZE CURB STOP WITH IRON PIPE THREAD., E COPPER METER YOKE, MUELLER OR FORD. YOKE WITH LOCK WING . APPROVED AS Rcd -: CITY OF EDMOND-S --ENGINEERING DIVISION REVISIONS STANDARD DETAILS WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION DATE: I I I I I SCALE- N.T.S. I DNG. NQ i BLIND FLANGE A BLIN[ FLAN CAPPED CROSS 900 BEND THRUST BLOCK TABLE MIN. BEARING AREA AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL SQUARE FEET 22 MIN. DIST. PIPE SIZE A(FT.) B(FT.) C(FT.) D(FT.) E(FT.) b(FT.) d(FT.) 4^ 3 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8• 4 4 2 1 1 1 0.5 S. 7 u' 4 2 1 1.3 0.7 10" 11 10 8 3 2 1.6 0.9 12• 18 14 9 5 3 1.9 1.1 W 29 25 18 8 4 2.6 1.4 1. BEARING AREA OF CONCRETE THRUST BASED ON 200 PSI PRESSURE AND SAFE SOL BEARING LOAD OF 2.000 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT • 2. AREAS MUST BE ADJUSTED FOR OTHER PIPE SIZES, PRESSURES AND SOIL CONDITIONS 3. CONCRETE BLOCKING SHALL BE CAST IN PLACE AND HAVE A MINIMUM OF 1/4 SQUARE FOOT BEARING AGAINST THE FrMNG 4. BLOCK SHALL BEAR AGAINST FITTINGS ONLY AND SHAG BE CLEAR OF JOINTS TO PERMIT TAKING UP OR DISMANTLING A JOINT `.. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BLOCKING A )EQUATE TO WITHSTAND FULL TEST PRESSURE AS WELL AS TO CONTINUOUSLY WITHSTAND OPERATION PRESSURE UNDER ALL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 8. BLOCKING MAY BE REDUCED WRH USE OF RESTRAINED JOINTS ADJACENT TO FITTINGS CITY OF --• REVISIONS DATE: B B PLU1 TEE TEE BLIND FLANGE OR SMALLER b SIZE PIPE :..a B C ... ;. C CAP Lei 45° BEND D 22 1 /20 BEND E d 11 1 /40 BEND CROSS APOPOR `VLD AS 4� EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION STANDARD DETAILS CONCRETE BLOCKING SCAM: NTS I DNG. NO: 32b Standard Plan No. 283 15 S Complete legal description of property and dimensions A, B.C. and D that show the size and location of the house are mandatory for issuance of permit. 1. All house plumbing outlets must be connected to the sewer. No downspouts or storm drainage may be connected, except to a separate storm drainage system. 2. 30" min. distance from house, except for soil pipe connection. 3. 18" min. coverage of pipe. 4. 30" min coverage at property line. 5. 60" min coverage at curb line. 6. Lay pipe in straight line between bends. Make all changes in grade or line with 1l8bend or wye. 90°change with wye and 1/8 bend. 7 Standard 4" to 6" increaser. S. 6" sewer pipe --min. size in street, and elsewhere as directed. 21/" rrun arade, `:l1"I" rnn• g 4' Sewer pip!.,- `riin sitF nn property 211" min grade. 100"'0 (45") max 10, Tesf. •'T' with plug. 11. Removable plug 12. Construction in Street must be done by a registered sewer contractor 13. All construction shall be in accordance with current side sewer ordinances. 14 All construction requires a permit and payment of fee. Complete legal description of property and dimensions A,B,C and D that show the size and location of the house are required for issuance of the permit. APPROVED A NOTED APR Ref. Std. Spec. Sec. 7-18. Do Not Scale APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF lIC CITY OF SEATTLE Side Sewer l��j/ g �MAIRMAN ATTEST._ .. C ".HAIRTARY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Installation 3 Standard Plan No. 284 r 0 Actual Side Slope by Contractor - Ex. Surface Max. Po Wi h f r u u c 5 Excavation& Bockhll J — Y O V C ~ Z m Z L C Actual Side ID• u Slone by D. .=ontroctor a V -Ex. Surface Max. _!,gIy A a to ror v v E,CUvatlOn& Backfdl C c ALove Top of Rpe J _ C V a v O C u v Z F. z 0 L r '?' I D. & irnUliS Larger' w 5 a u wl o Typical Trench Section (Watermain) Ref. Std. Spec. Sec. 7 -10. Note: For Pevement Removal and Restoration, See Std. Plan 404a CI 0 aU" � t I.D. & Smaller > E 1.5 LG.• tom- - - t I.D. & Larger I w 0 Typical Wo Trench Section (Sewer) - Ref. Std. S ec. Sec. 7- 17. A^DA .wf D far THE B ARD OF PUBLIC WtntiKL: CITY OF SEATTLE f HnutMnr; DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AT TEST. _ APPROVED AS N v 1 W lypl!.C�I Trench Section ,4 Stunuuf u Aura Nu. —` ' S ring_L one 0 Class ABedding ='% Class Br Bedding (Conrrrte Reddina ) 111t\/ Bell / A Spn Line Class C" Bedding C lass"D" Bedding EmMineral Aggregate Per Std Specs.4-01 Type 9 for rigid pipe. lype 22 for flexible pipe. NOTES. I. For Trench Width, See Std. Plan 284. a=4" When "D"is less than i0" a =6" When ,. D.. is -, )" i,r more,. Por Class - D" Bedding, Excavnte for Bell. For Class - B" Bedding for Wnt.er Mains, See Special Provisions. Ref Std. Spec. Sec. 7-17. APPROVEDBY THE BOARD Or P4p.ur. �< K , CITY OF SEATTLE _ L-!h�;� CHAIRMAN ATTF.STD �t_C.RF?Akt DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Concrete Class 4 (1Z)(Min) Selected Native Material APPROVED AS — W &�98 Do Not Scale Pipe Bedding i Standard Plana No. 286a IuChie Iron watel-MOIn- -- �� I Cost Iron :votermam 011 w Less than `->` 0 I — Sanitary or Combined Sewer 'If vertical scpurutlonr, cannot be obtained sewer pipe ,hull be -on,tructed of ductile von pipe, With stundard watermuln founts and pressure tested for watertightness prior to backfilling PARALLEL INSTALLATION vYUti: rn'�: un (U L .1—Sanitary or OCombined Sewer If minimum vertical separations cannot be met, watermuln must be ductile iron pipe. CROSSING WATER OVER SEWER Sanitary or --. - -. Combined Sewer =ip Waterrnains 9=G' 9--O� Stundard 18' Nurnulai Length centered r__..._..._�._ at the point of. :: vaulg Provide adequate structural support for the sewer to prevent excessive deflection of Io its ;:nu settling on and breaking the watermaln p �.� CROSSING WATER UNDER SEWER AP ROVED AS �� &1) . G� NOTES. 1 Exceptions to the above must be approveC ^y the Seattle Water Department, Water Quality Division 2.0rdinance 97016 applies to Installation of Side Sewer:, relative to the locution of Waterrnains unu Water Services. Spacing & Clearances Between Sewers & Watermains Do not Scule /APPROVED BY THE RDOF -LgLI WORKS CITY OF SEATTLE Sewer & Water ATresT_7_1'L= ��: �1FJEC:!.CRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Spacing & Clearances /60D�t 73 I°�kl SIREE-Er- FLR,,E `Z ".,K "N" it j., lit, i zy: T. INV Ah,,Q.:x:' '!!!"n Al" kl, n, 5. Ad". a , Ann v n Wpm IF1 -ass", -4 A T__; f1 V..w r,., 1A.: RR J i ��Avlv HT lion Q=Q? QN11y man v, my A C .. K310"ITZ nv� too, 1'�Nl J P I -A gal Who Mi WWI z% j,"i 'F1 -Rom .01 W. RAI 0 J, It. . ... . ."Ply ?q! a '44 Nola"! r 'goy"v Ti , AV T g, 4. 5 7 I AW 0- WON axis A. .7 RAW, n'� A "o t i: Ttill -5&TAAM VIA emits - JAY Q I 0- logo I gas ;J:0 will rt, �t Abi. 7, F 44i, 41. z _W� . GION A i� :, F .:d oi, 'A�i t'S . 41> J, WON U ik '14 T.. J, :Jqa.,�11021 I. hKov": J VIM to 4- -T� =004 ill! VAJI. 7-jAftti .10 xa �W-VWTN Wq, Q.v ill? *Z VAN NOTE> : I Ail r 7 47 :I�' Wd. J g f 'Z 77�P d: A noon F: q�i A 4, OWN A Mv Wj F tin" sAd Ll� - " 1 0 lit it Ti, why. .Q till q— MOM mWi ;VU A "IN 0 TWO 'g, "to 1� tam ljf,�' V .1 '1%il Ang, it -xv '5i_ jai" k �� N� rff i[l2u, EQ-4, WIN 4 WHAWSM - VII - Tv K I Y1 I�. F: N_� Lit M R'"IM"M ARAW MO Mao,", OHIO gy- . . . . . . . . . . n. TO Eli lit illiciiii....V, 4 10 "A 2K 77777 Mgt Is .0 Ito y 4 t "I P-M." w, Way X T'. -�f J( 21 topics, WAIST I I Tax 10 its Sw TK. IVA 114", If "Mug 1 Z. _rqj., POP Kb) raw chi to� My; qg Mov W , iv� q 1"A "M ?54 0: G 1010 14 1;,:, "Ip"Of SAN MAN01, win, zq AT 1, -AMN _O� V,�jsn� A Not; 10 �v_ Nil Vol I I QQ b. . . . . . . . . . . If p ""40" on - Al Ivr 4. 0 TO �- *Aft ivy, a "flu , �s. 72, 77 1F, Q V� 113 May.. p. 31— U W, ar oil, v kit z 0 AS U7 A& AIR" SAW— :7 tAt v 0: Q VIM .-W-10"! ISM" A, IMV Ago a 3 RIF A OAK :owl t 47 :t 1� A.? "i, T . t�,. tv, 4 yam M - M IM Jgv N. Mr, MAP 'PLACE AT TIME OF T s v spy . i 041 LO LINE 814'� BE IN FOUNDATION INSPECTI04 V 44., 4. st, ni A: 'N V owl H IS It, U 'AM, IA a cft Mai a A, 0 WAIT "I' -I-A only,' 1,4 "0 41-tm; ,I W"I WH AW� J V.- A PICO, I it 4 fed's Who 0, it P1 "i. ok 4 t: A-4 MOW& one I pop :,�:Ii_e t`,, 4""4, 4� k W� 0A Whom v opt 421 MID 1W MW A WN A. ATWASHIS, QW04n its: �g 4L;*,1,TTJ 07" I 11_;U�.h -31 M 1i'P tbl _777`7 A T has q— ;"Mar, KIM- - !� !, —S. k'Ir WIt, 1A lit"�M �1'itil fi_4 - tv, N. R IV av T 10� 77 Lvi 4, ymov: Sol W too 10A. pig jut Joyn to Opp owl %1. " &- -1 1 WA WIN PT , ATH 4,,.Z_ 11!1.� Z C/uu�e-fdd /6004 73✓d �Glni S/TF P/�i✓ INN! 'Trim ANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SAT wool; 0: _0 Nil !707 !111!!� - 7 , -1�1 ---------- MOM 6 X "NPA 01125 , , . , I ; 0 COMO 49A ts, !!ahoy a, % �Tq ml,jymvlm� m 4, lots, AM yj -, , Alai oi. Sir; �a kNl MOWN 00 low WIT pro" 5 1 W� -jl y,i . . . . ". I " � - 0 :11:�� __:_ 4*�.' .." "YA h i!, ,,I �:t , . " "k," As F D q Amt Owl fit; 10 logo ly"; "cull i RU W& YOM 1� F" 1 HE A 1 INJ 1 A sm 14 how A., 1 cot 0 yyyyyynam"Iyal; a I d ON Moo I Von Q NOR i g�vlqt 7. VIM fix X IWA WONAMMEA10; it KAM Mv K., "ff- yj a vq qqv U 77�l i-.11JT1, qq :i. -�7 10 7r Vt. 44� lit. 110 FA Mw� IOWA. 7. q, 011 ma still "to w -00 Wm" Nov" % -T. ,,:if# vi %i :."R U, j: 4,11 Iv, too fay" it coo" As 4 5U 2 m ! Wjm�q a",: voice x5vad" 00 IN T OttoTA X. ProViddAhO hialhWn b `V �6dIrn6ht6t1bh 661166ti6h I JIM t m OAK 10 :`i ror dralhage,gystem�c:: heso ac IR168 ftl us e I Opera VMS ION 0 Q 1 :06. WWI - Ads I Y1. BE I 4 Am*- T Y, 10116i t6fisn �rq� op OAK0001j, V 7 �'malntalne dribl. d6h§tr168dh 6hci iihdibbbimd aro- 6btiipI6ted i t6 6166rifidAnd building Onary S, b KA Awn TAKE 2 lot 00 LOT , : : ME- N PtW - ION URI VIA" N I FO JNDATIO lob 77, U 0;� kill N ."mmq- A 110 4. �AMWW - q 00% Now r ",j 400 j,:1. lo 1W, I 00"I&M 4 Z �;'k' 0`06c, AIR lot fv,� Myl .... ................ Elk, If S Iig - HIAK . .................. 'V7 14 DeqW4 om n i Ux :4, ji img t -MAN -WOM 'h MAY 4 421 Instal! d�pjw..10,0,0 94 pa# ,�R win V A :5 5"N ti,6A' It kliv IL. V11 ts. '116 new.jobting rans ro "A dtaih.fr6rh. �totmftlh. §.y.d6ffi X'ij 1 71 t !- 7. yj� X&I mnq SAM- i fe klo 'd, MOT WIWI, Ki IE IR kt1w IV% 0 , rli All, *01� I Him, g. total 4 01" MW R Am tip U, V NIX% litX_ a, F: Od jqe JK A 7. �t�j! Tj; 0 dy".0 19 1. t 1. 1� "i'l1i JI'D 1-4-1-- . "T ROM j! 1L. � """ :� . , P..� , , - , , , , �i' a I '' ... -'�` .1 - . . .. ! , 11 ;. - , � i, t ii :.;, NINT 0— 0 � � -, f : q W,li 3', 44 N imp ail wag ANK, Vwx Put lip' A."'. Elf P; AMANY n 1 "N 11. �: ��- i ' t An Iva: Whu j —pow' Wh!t IMP Ai` 41 WIN Mal IPA WAR& NAIT, Y: J, Ilk PP[,0 ris VED Ad, Not 61 A I UP f. Y EN9�WNINd'�,il:' <1 _9 '6 Date: I- vgx- IS Mgt, 11A 4; JIM t f t 440f."AiW4 ubtf 11=600 TP Iry 146 Pei t4 ph &A 0 iitf6iAAkiafr mi F- im war my Icy q mft_S0pe.4-.dr-t0hrp ng- rpsjdt ; '': f 6t6l". i.,h aititAk egetAWH I _0 a y�y Vc ng x s romsma scalelan -dSk- '� hims"IT to ds" Md r6d ng!. r6a b0c a ii colled �s ", n ' rain.and. t1ohtlIN t -A _xA ysem "911_06 4d!d UNA Sm cot 601 to A" - IS RESPONSIBLE FOR @=ER1COI`MCTO on EROSION CONTRO ND DRAINAGE n T' M lot j"I nA kj M W loll �t ('00 Ti� j J'. �T. fr. QQ W74 P1 AWN" son V WAS A "A' T. �jmm j' &A" N" 4"ji play f 'J" MW Q4 AA EVIL TO CONNECT TO EXIST. SYST. APPROVED BY J�' GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS 4N.1 lit ii, A N, P tl Y% Mal W Sm" "Mot WAS Oft- YC Ag ;Vol. fly OMNI' Wre 101", ........... -ZONE eq -Aff, 84- M S K '6 whit "T - - ny N'� '-CEIVED-� It EIBAC k still oil. III Fl --yi- VEY; bm'� gep I ti PA4 41;1' P, A 114M.R k"A 11,11: 00- 1 V, - Lk viol 01 RAlf 1h NEE 01 VIKZP�� N0 A lit, fm p, 'mom, j)FRO N lot Jll: 'M 1091-11 REAR 4, 'If A I p VAM to 100THO jo, 4m-. - IT'00UNM Aim WWI PASS nj i �� i - tk z; a SIDE 10011' 17 20U&�,�,; 2 DRINK""" It HPGHT -to., rm, P W, too .0V J,4 10 t l: V cl) i. NP �47, PV v r,4 s,� V� vJ1 m , 4�,-L OWN Nvt WIS. " fin ISO Pm vm16 U T� 72" C3 ejn% 1 AZT 4" 'z, t oj_01, RE. �1 9 ......................................................... �__ Ae.-,` Nr -A�-W 7 /,,, 25;7 3 to 6 w W Z;i s d Q . 1„fflIl.YIIY7� MItItMYht �1/)Yi.lttflf� fM11fAYR1 + _ T, ISS37SLL 903 a 9SO96 u-176UNS M `pomuuFzz 4ANd' �J C t' 0. . a� Cif H Sou Z tj As alva NOISIA3b ON Q o LUz --� - - 110 � D --o L o- .. `r-_ y _ t1 a a r QNQ W �� old • U � �-� - � a? � az x N z,� S : �a2 r _ L • ___"' 3 MStr ,SS .LS , ��, shy 44. 3. 2 Q r _ �Y 15� w 15. 'ram � � � - � l '• �' r �e Q •i �. 1 .4, • _ T } ' T jFilij►ij)ttltl�t1111 ( a �' • } � j jJlli Ijjl�Itillt }}�il,,l , _ t t 11,1''trlli tilt Jill `k x �< i /II r 1 }rfrltttlti 1 tt ? / �¢ , to CA D w ttilt t {t tl K lilt 11 1 111 (1(l4(t 111,t It1��.,, j 1 rr ��`•`�tt t tt�\�`�`��11�111111 tir °�' M "�� z �0 0 /Ir'It1;t�� 1 t I l fi�il�i�it111tit(tt t� �� v U>✓ ,rJ►J111f�/ l� r/1 !j i1}1t1}i'i(1t11t Ate-.. Q ° t f/fill �� tip t rl t [ i tt)tthltltlt t _ ; 1 r J lil;1, it � , ► � (� � l (lttttfil }� l , � � � � � `�'¢ ` �`�>� ` , � [lr'f flt11111t �,�+�� r� r t 1 11 i t t3uj��l►1I�i ; ,,x • .. �t�irJ;'t; 1 i' JJi ! � l j I ilt'�E l�lj rt�i t�'JjIj1({�Jlltllft�r �, c.�� j�f {' i �I r 1 r i ►t Ir tr ® � � tltttl,t�i l l I11 i►a) 1t►1)u� t -- �o� . ,e.y� 't't'(1� t 11 t } t t 1 � 1) ,,1 f fl fl'� r N�- l f - � � `�•x � _��`'<'`'' �, ,t,,�t,t,11111�zffJ,Itt r �® lilt lIttt1 '1t II { l'tt rttif/ lllj'1 t t ti 1 � �x Ifill / Y to dint 'I // //l/ 1 � 413 of Cl JU �If'x t/l�il� I / / o I�f IL fill � Ijr fit/ CL co `IJ'Ifll _ a � a >L z 1i r J � 11 11 /r/ ! !%!/ �l / �/ / � t ! t ��,, • � ��, jr x � 1n U ct► fl t11 � 4 1L � _3 � � a �/j / lu IL I ttt t► , , , , , , l / ! � / ! 1 f Jt�►11 t I i 1 /Il,/` ��,/ / i r I. l t J / I i r r r I--, — /' ' // ,/ !, � •. ,,� '6�� V`1•/ 19 tt#t I .. 9 1 p 1 ! / ! '-v t rttlt�+ 1 /� f/// / ! / / 7,�� 1 1 1 ! / 1 %1' � • • /// � // r ill t 1 !, , / , ; /� 2 1 1 j / ,. �,/ i�� ,�•.� 91 .401, 1 _ ? i��// f/// / � / �� i' / �� %� t . � �� .r=a'��. •ram• • l4 � Ja / I fir, -v.. - y- 4' F Ilr � D e Qi�Gtsuv An CMDO 98-Sr-1 iti r As !my" iM2rtl.lifftfM /MttMNY71 rtttlttl7Mlftf7 UMUIfAtrftt ragvsu 903 @ 96096 um6umsm `PwniuuR7 VsAi "uA*V 9S WSW[ Mflol dROND r tJ 0 3 t t w Z As Uva 6nn� Co V co va I cc co . r _ go • U Nasln3a ON OP_.. ___.. _- _ _ _- - _ � � -- .. J !I `'''�� ('`t•� _(-ram}Mj%�/},r _ . _ 19 LU rl: CD Qua_ ' Z 4 tL A aa� �,� �Lu � j� •G 3 „SSi� .S� .LS S ��., s* 1: `i';` / -• rl i 3't �`jyo d• 11 ' t;1►'{111►;'t1lt'i s' t !,t/t}tljllt}tI1 1 t � 11� it tltijt�flt; � tiii t' k. "'� •� a I1 �lJl�4) 3lCl-f�i � 3 /Jr t 1 }}+rllll�fi t till ?' - � �N t 1///I t t t11+lt1{ t li � t1lJ t tt�t 1 )l'lll�l tl{�� t it ,► t l+1 t lilt) t} N� s t1�1 s ftJJ lltlll{rl{� ' � t- a� � V is �tit t��tt�t l { t 9 M1 I/ I - • 1,, • r t t' �� ll It t J / I til}ill�till l ! t l _, ttJ, t'It,J tr t11 tj�`t��tlf11 Q t�fill �r,J/f 't tt111;1 t (r ttfltt�l ,tit), 11 t, I l m �, _ xt �1I fit / itI't i t it t l �! {t{lllt1 111 1 ( N t �'�\ i t err t�l 1{ 1 i l I r t (tyttti,l +1 ' a �r'1i Ali tl ! I i tjutll't�tllr ��'� - � . �•` �'\ `` l 1 ! y t ! / J { t ! ► ( S' 1 t t lilt _ ♦ I x'_ /�'`�'si% F. - f - '��;1,� .. 1►�r� t�1t� 1� t i 11� 11 t1Jt1it111�1! � j I lii itrt trtr1 I� 1(rltllilrl/ �-3 tt j<t itC t ►� tt 1 r- t 1111 �� - � ,?��.� lttl�t ��'i i ill tltttt,`►it { �" <•x ��`'<'.� ttj`t� t ��i i i t t 1! -•� t J t,Ill r t � � ..;� �� y x tt'ili!'t;��iii�l��lttr 1r+ `► � o.� �,®. �' � . i,,rttl,r{ilJil 11rt t 1lrllt� t� �" � t ►� ltrr/ t � / tl t $, lilt jtt M /J/ j �rJl �t I Jii It tilt Hill/ If/ / In : T •f• / //!/// // /� / � �r.,t• � 1ll I fit ! /I / 1 1Ij j '� a �oJA ll t I �� /off! / 1 / Il /1'ts • r a • •:; % �t !!till `tip _ `n l t l t t t / / r r / I / // % j " / / / / / Ix ji( rtilRr,�il t t /I // / 111 of tJt r1 It��`J/I'!r 011 ! t r �►+tit t t tr t t /I / / ! / / / / / ! ,.11� j �/ It / I Jrt�llti l Pt i / 1 1 i 11 � 1 t 1 � c � �� / / / � ...- �•- s� 41 /� �ttltl t � t 1 It�i 1t t t �• / � J /l � � � � � ! ! I / , � tea • gY \4 # i. g .10 le 0 Yo . � .� �t�-Y r.C.: •;,. «s ., ,:•n� ?i: At� ..`s• is7t�.�i •F•�"`,<�rlkl �''" r.t•'G'��.a ;{!•ty � 3.s: • a •�..'� y `` a t. fs= t . thlifia'f��<ti>?� � �f {[ �-•" rye S Frr.� �' •vto,r`• '3ii r �{ O$ Al M w t �44, lu r IL 4Z i] �Z -P .. w 3 w. IN IL �. co JL=-11.Z� ��,Qa4a.tti o Inn >n >L �1 92 m3:IL i i , i t _ n �Z in � A z -'-- arm D pLu q PI • . "+ � Sri►• 141 lop do, lop f38 45 WAna tj x 7— if of 1 : / z� / ! / r / / I FFIr !r //1.Z/ all / / r / ,� t 1 I }i 1ft I t // -� " / /1 #(It( t, I jl/Ill! r fill, If fill!!!! f -OZx op JI ar sir ,r/ r/ r j / fljlf / # t /jif+11�! • °c�, � rrr r` �' �'/ / t // /� t � f i /I / rr it c�,!fI/ `zc,. f�f car 10 I J / t !I ! t 1 ! �' •3x , `G�- `o /j / a. x � � t .•.1. °, � — //// J11/� 1 t/ Ill J r f l '�� _ '� x; �`� .� ,•'` f •. ;• ' A � � / / / f t I 1 l fi t l / / f / jj/ l/ o i 'sir// /rfr/i ,211,11f m /fr//' /// !'i /•ram rl� lilyi I'/ vt ! / !/ F11`liE(jill�l //iilr1ttJiiit l Efij r t�ttt'it 1 �� :, a / ' a �1 �(j►11�! s 1 tt tt tiitt _�t 1 •� X, a —N i t t j � t t 1� 1 t t t�+it` io m tt '�►.,�.. s� If !11111 1 .1 � � � �fl►t it (� � I 3 } � i tt �I I I& + Jillt1f till [tttiill t ®s.. ®•� �� (t(j1 t(� t 1 ( 1 1 'i tttti�l / t t t f jr fll `Q'' ! , � Q.�/ •.,ram !tiljf/Ift } it t�l j; It Il[<<!r! �6 [t'fill t1' i t t;titift ti[ttiatt ��`�`��tt ttt Arq lift �1� I \ NA N ! }it i ttJlttfl�t litt(1 t!(i t ift�t1#iilJ}►1it { i Wfil1}ilJ#!lit;e J11 � j t ZI CD ` = i IT Ir it it s � 5 87 3S 4 r I >. sir a •� 3 ;> 7. N . <�O i a P > m 01a L1,�Z •p it 79 -'—< - i'F.�iaJl1 j /l /j�' �JS �,ls c '---�"r ✓ v� 461 L/ ..._ . _ f rj�(�yl�,j �L11 GtiJ . 4� NO. REVISION G �m N o z N 0 • _ _ :BER- - _ . SON ROUPFOBI , nc. - �� 4 C#> mo y — N y C m 0 fuRYttlMe i7{saw�esutrs >riAitMiMet 1Ruc♦Ess�alT 0 Q C f I N C; T O lei 04 vw DATE BY 7 0' lujtzf 1 ,q�,.; t�'.'.�� . 1 Y/ C � 9LT-,- 1 11- 10 1 COP" \� 0, r ¢ C6 ®WNERICONTRACTORRESPONSIBLE NAGE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND Ext a 90 c4l) or- pef. LEG Lill ...) �0) JL'--X(S7- Lo -r '= t @- (+Z,a` top IN'SPEOTION REOUIRED C c-A'sir1s MAR 2 7 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. ENGINEERING AIPI 1-1 AS NOTE6ITY OF EDMONDS 0 xv�'^`�.fi«.�Y�t�.l.'.�.,sv�.�d�ra�"�S�:.r.or'.�..r..r.fi w {�:.. ,. �'.0 j k,,r r x �F� i � '."�+•rzz : .. .. � l/�/^jj�'� ( ,pp�'��'crsrEr a0 © 5 D-1 resin MAR 2 7 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS f)cn (o ao xs alva NOISIAgU �'ON 020 a oz°��' . 0 0 ca ,. . co co � o 0 �.: 1ac.F�i�2i1•i2� -cam' �� 1 ' fi10 lk __.. _ ...... _ c n --1 - coo — W one O } bt >H {� CO __ J ,LLJ � � o ¢ Q cc �•�,�� o v IL IL OIL N s_ o W s i a a i0 C)o°co a>a� LLS 41 0.L 3A'i * a, Z� aS� .LS S ��y = x �Y LU .9 1 1 - _ •` � � r _ ems,. �� I < .vv cTz! SSEZa _ ----- --1 f� IL till# s _ — W A 0 W �l p11l1fI,ijll�ftJ€I11 ! _ a H v a 1 f 1s ► tit#} # }l t 1 t x 9, —' Q a a a v 1 1 l 1 Jt Ft€jj�J }Ft 1 i� � Es 46 �� f -J j t' .cam w v z w a} f# t jt}IJ}I}� ttJl� �`- N - ' 5;0w� ixlt 1}tt 1 �1(#€��4 .,�/ �� Q �'8 — t�t� � ; f tt � t#1FjJ��tttF i t � � ► �� }1 t 1 € €� �— °a W p ' u0 N } ' z w �wvQx:� t �tl� I Jett #1#`�Etl}#i �, ,, °§ �t 1� 11 t i t I r— F,�F,��a}�}t1ttl E., � �•• A^ "' C� Q v � '> > t� t t t 1 i i I t� � l I � v3 l � � H W az 0.1 \ `�A WWiA �aQ Q'� �titt��tf jttt�t `t1{1 tlt�t�11��tltti♦ stFr y� NIL IRt wQ zaAw ';itt�,��,��1tt� ii{iy#} w�wO pz� It►t�)'i�� ti�t�ltt��t��ltljttt#� � M .x tl{ , t t 1 11 t1 t 1l _ \ fill J fit} ill II (� Ir!!tlt►t jl f t t11j qI # # M �� 1�'!Il!% 1 J �, It F t l j 1ti ll �It t r%l "J li J► }S� ? , � l ; # J �l},t:t , � fill p, ,Et,,`€Itltl/ i�ttlttjJ}t►FI , ° �— '' /� i t% 1 l t I Ott J�ltl�� l l ,�` '-l9 F J t 11 II Jll 1�F ,o e t€ t�� t I 1 i j IF �t �� iti t i t J �i)tjl}t(�� { � 13 fill 1a1 ��t,i�i t� tiij�}all rt}1 t ® (/� •�� }ltl �tttt��t jlt+1 t1 li�rtr[j 03� � ` ®�� . •� � t�i1>>i �i� I�lj !!F 1 IIJIiJ � � 4!�? / i I ill tit%%i�/� i11'�1 ''tjtitt 40 If / if 0 �j p/l/lJj ! // /jIj j/I/ ttllk!/!i t / / / /; `j � � � �� ti !�f !IJ/i � � 1 � ! l 1 j Illl! � � 3 �"� � �► s � � � +c fI /I1:4,1f /it tttt/ 7;11/// lit/ // t • i li Jtt��i �// /i i I f 111� If % � � // * �' t ►{tFttrt,� ` � j /� j�l II r f / f � J � � i Ya t' / / / j • .� r`r�, wD *41/ /�.0, f f$ Jill, �+t1i I J !t �1 4� �tX / 'ft-.- l3I! j}irt Fi#Ittt I ! i t ! tJ#�fil! I / / It # J F it t 1 t f t 1 I I t 1 I S I/ 1J/1! } J 111111 Iit I i . f or / / /�,j/It {�i tJ}r 1 t ! / /�' !J II �, F; t J / / 4 ,/`� �� .1 >:- - 1 �oe / / /f df j I I ! t / / / f ♦ �' °'"" 1 �A Tr`iria..i( 10, I / {/M��1_j�r m.r}1�[jR/��f (,�j {/.�y��VJ.{fit arw L•�. 3 + u `L ai i 3 7 , aid ��f. /J� _: i1�{ Gj ,` :, —s a r 44'? zo 'Osso" E C E I V D -MAR 21--t" C E D MA 2 2Z" _T DEVELOPMENT SEFRiV�!;C_ES CTR. C[TY OF EDMONZ,"'z' rye 17 '1r►aaa I -74 :. Y �.KF• \Ilz \ \ 168 , Vt t „. _m i. v •• rf• IQ$ ,� �Imio �"•?' _.._-.. �1 a l4.4 �a :TYPE i C,iS 4g ` d MAa yl TAIL w. tt4_'A4 F.jV r>r^.......... \ GE+ f37 +� tits ;NV M.. s4 IN 14d '� , ` * t5 ftiC�7 TtSt' 17 „` \ \ �, 1 _..... �,.. - It5:5i. t�ls•r' ;nZ. - � r+l`.. �S �►''` 4 "�•i...y,_.._� .._... �.._ ' . [ .N..1. „ q \ b �.. \ " " tad 12 CF i2"4/`1P ~<, J tt.�a i �� « .�., k,tp e7s "L o 67 2 r,r . a C135 TO G 8 # ©©� !! ©�� -� l 1 'CS , 55,6 LF �� ,� y - , h 74Zt TYPE II CB _ ......_ _._... ..._ .__. Bt!. Za - roc I �ti , ti o ........._..._.... _ � ^ .y` P 72' ,,. ? I,nvF^c ' i'4 INV liel.t35 x t tNV ~' i54.:3tu H y " _ ` p , ./ c �•�*� 1 T&P - na.4� f , INV - 116140 _�JI fJ ` \\• �4' \ r` O I-OCAMAf To JE v z *\L \ \ , • ,y-•�jtrrf-�l�?�,♦ ` \ \ LU ,y v T xf�i:• .�lAl �V r GI \ \ `♦ �'.. 4� d .._ :. :. i I Z.01%. O `. �/)� ,y ; 1'E a 9;4") QW, t. elfAIV \ \.. a<''%�, K ' , C B # 7 TO C ;t 7 f ►4°� 1 �> OP !!V.It ~ • /lift+! ! i / r'; G T ti, b i ,,.." IK — .— 37 LF G/'rplP@ 5=0,0e54 ' 1 ' (NV-E$+!7r 1� 3 s >T N 1 Q......, ' .. 1Z .dr ........ b i f t ax13'fIN S.d.IIJY. , 1� i Y !WI 7111 ._. _ ... ..... ,,,ram :. ' t ' ' / ■ r 'di INV - Its.za 5 5 L F 1 2 s D � �� _..-�-'' • j •� J4 •-�'_ ,�a �. opt"".. � t ♦� ........... . ♦ : _.,, iT y � 4• , r�►� ICI , �Q �, \ ti ` ` Q\ . ♦ \ '" jG \ \ ♦ �\ r\� ^�J4 d • i"1i V�i►� ��j1 �/♦b I 4r _...., S` _.. \ r r 'TOP %20.58 :.. INV*?.'9 7. 72 (OUT) D` •r x •, ` TAP - 1 4,1 �N D � , ♦ � �„�,..,- ,, �; � i �� 3 •� /3� •- I4o 1p IJV -1�1•� l r e , s s n.l i 1 � m c > �t r t_ _ ._ .......� , 4/7 � ro .TYPE I CS...._.__ 4 '••••,. ... ..._.. ,, ...._.__. �, _ _....__ ._..._ ... `� tf Q \ l is , 0' IlVv - XID d3. :!„ �........ _ 13q .. _pp i 8 �Mr ♦ `: ........ �--� .:.. i ... ti .` wq \ .. _..... "2 _._.._ _ ...._. _.., ,_ • \ \ _. 7�ry ` ..... ... •„-Yam....,..._..-..-.._ .. ..,__ .. _ ' ...,,a . .. ...... ... ,.. lice .... ., e • Now ... ... -roe' `T' �• ___-- t0 ' Ad • \ x ...d,; \rd ` 1p� G I'3r W15Di.iD t.OGKIN4 61 TOP HS-84 3 8 , 100 y' INV 104-io& //D 2 0 () ••' a � � �IIIV / /¢ • 5'.a MN �„•r Y . ........ .__............... w Y �vL s, OUT TOP H0.35 ,ter► 96 >I INV ............. 94 A� �f I 1� R i bQ a • .,. a .... � OR 6.- - - Z: ^ -5,;, r 'TOP - R6.44- MILDIN q - _ __..... ................—__..........._ . 5 / 1 NIJE'T TDP - £5£1A � � \ 1 C ,+� 7•� ................ ................ INV 94,66Z IN V a 5 . kale. \. ! 4SM1► ` rop d1 _ �,.. STR CCC FILE FOR ADILI /�f'f/E/�r/I✓TS " �.1 -r.VAr 4AVEA . j RECORD DRAWING Ry: DATE: r„ 'Al ,y •,fir .'+.:;�.. „ .. �.. 1. .5. �, \ • S . ,`� •., ,d ".l'•. �' CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERS S146ULO 4:j Ito ......... . �r .., ............... DATE. E RECORD DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF FEATURES VISIBLE I THE SURFACE, AND ACCESSIBLE INVERTS. - ...__.._._... T-0 - •.. INEER NO CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED.LOR N rt >, r ai OF 1 s fro STREET AI�ID ,ST6 PLAN AND PROFILE nlLE-.$2 1-60, 5-7M _�o(VAI /W/ X21 / 1// 7,: � / � � - /�;;, a) �/ ' .. n..i 1 y v _. 1,.- - 1 _ ,.. .. , ._. ... � WItJu ItiN 11{'IF''1 I\(1�(•.LVV � tVV �•-�'� �..._ ( _ ` AVMoc�c �t - - -� -J.-_ { Mtl M Provide and maintain temporary sedimentation collection �,4 y 1` r , , facilities to insure sediment .laden water.does not enter natural } drainage system. These facilities must be in operation prior to clearingand building construction and satisfactorily l - -.----•-••. __.____.w �.�.._..__.�_. . g Y maintained until construction. and landscaping are completed --- -�- --?t _tbtit `iU i J' and-petept for on=site erosion has passed: � � f , -` ( I t, ' USA StA IM OK } � lob , co / Q .......-+• ..,.......... •� _ ' �'• „. t� o f 1`1J��a 1 4PA0 00 or 1 t` SUS UtzM lttJt'.G'ilfInZ,o (Fr* 1%011 !,�.,,, ..Gw.. .war ...✓ . \ , �-C , coo ( O I . ,11 I Y. e ® L 1 ltsfpI��' r�it tktrl , �� Ln x ► ! \ �11t)C��t'1 SEA. w. - - _..� �6�7, Existing footing drain from.storm drain systetn.t� property line. ('j ,SIC W o �1CtildtS' ti:f,,r po t �''° G,r'k, t t0 --� Connect new footing drains from house to this already existing �. N of � r4 ram, tightlined pipe. —� . Note. Tightline footing drains from house footprint to existing drain �. 1. ,pipe on site which has already been installed into the approved �9 ►� storm drainage system. j t�l°Attl t(i �. 9 Y a , (N.1 Cl t. %'r (Ull �, .5t(YY� cc 4-Al liv, Ii�+�E1r�,�0� 001 ,� \ 4 Note: All downspout drains are to be tightlined seperately from e es, o t� \ r footing drains. Run to the approved storm drainage system- S �turls .ut• ; � \ � \ _ already existing. VA L_ �'��°' y 1 rc� ilia 4177 Mk i�bl �4 1 5663 3�, \ R GISTERED 24 t - CHITECT r. RONA D JOHNSON e C �J i STATE 0 ,ISHINGTON 1 I :Note: Contractor to consult soils report for site stability during & p Y g G�lf1 after construction page 17+ of soils report project T-840-1. i v1='. Sj INS - for , � l si�trpt M� �� il✓ -Note:- Maintain healthy vegetation_on slopes for controlling erosion Sjt Mus cc \ .�d remaining �h /trot- 2H �, OK. � �c,�� ,��,,•' \�`\ ti,� sand reducing risk f+um small scale landslides. Landscape e g �'� (�G � ;lot area such as to collect surface water to a yard drain and tightline Su tu) lttm system f� U. � flit r�_� \ to storm sewers stem. �NE! - �X(.�U,�.�-l�(dc, ., \ Gaol lr� Whtty'j\'L��•�4_*As l • \ I 1�1 L.._. In1_. Ar�,Mhtliatlw PnLg*VfN1 .- a ` 0 m