16107 74TH PL W.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII5952
16107 74TH PL W
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: W l���� ow O 1 C) G C
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): q 0`l JtJ�
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: -1! CMWU lA aC 7/ 1 2 ( b IV S)
CRITICAL AREAS: 7 7. DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑Study Required Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHEC:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DA
SEWER LID FEE $: ' LID #: C:�? l U
SHORT PLAT FILE: �! LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: Vo2
GEOTECH REPORT DATED: ZZ�gZ�
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: it -.2 U
OTHER:
LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
4.
pop'
Io 2(a >Ik �1.�00o e T
\N (00
STREET FILE
II `'
o o1.
LAI Z
' 0 2 y
cc w
34 . ROpf w
t
OIL
m
-
�, '+
a 2
_ —
S�3 Fa
9
S
3ILI,Flu
l
AIGHO `'
. h
V / E
�.14 ��T
iut
j tt o 's
•
F
q
.. .. ...
,
^!V
r�
91
94
Oo
.. tU-..T
ENV: � ,.,�,$� � A/�3 . _.. r> ` - �- �;•- l ��,�'�..._.==-�.
�7Y r,
.r
145 .
44 f
�.l,
`��i;b19`�t T}y,yy�� � ��**�}.j fy &t' "�'�,o,�t,",�,�/h ' .ti�,�'¢.�t.� '�. 7�.��yi�' �T^ ��'`r'�{µ'�{�•.,.'f,p"yby+cyicy.F. , �> .r war^ �, °f�,�q�y
¢'`` �-.f3fi`FTt'YweF3� 'B4fi F w'�"+'/ t17i T tr ��' 'i%>S �,`.✓,M� '�tti��� . t ^R"' �'.�• �'
r
-f_ CITY OF tMEMFILE SIDE SEWER PERMIT
,89p.,t 9qz - - PERMIT 6112 8420
Address of Construction:
Property Legal Description (Include all easements): RECEIVED
n -oyo - no nb NOV 1 8 1992
PUBLIC WORKS DEpT.
Owner and/or Contractor:
State License No. L
X Single Family
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units )
❑ Commercial
❑ Public
IAZN)C- (0VV)JG4Y11/ L (.A(LW.S
Building Permit No. 931
Invasion into City Right-of-Way:y No ❑ Yes
RW Construction Permit No.
Cross other Private Property: Flo ❑ Yes
Attach legal description /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.
Dat
* CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800=424\5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
:OFFICE USE ONLY
* FOR INSPECTION CAL4. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Permit Fee: -?d • , �6 771-MIssuged By
Trunk Charge: rs ' Uv Date Issued:��2--
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.:
Lid No.:
Partial Inspection: Date Initial
Comments
Reason Rejected: Date -Initial -
Final Inspection Approved: Datel I-01V Initia
** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE **
White Copy: File, Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3.190
Side Sewer Drawing w
The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO. _. -._-"_-_-_.-"-----------------------------
NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ❑ LID NO ................... .ASMT. NO, -____-_._...__----
OWNERCONTRACTOR-----------------•------•--------•-•-----------•-------------------------•-------- PERMIT NO.
JOB ADDRESS ..,..1-U._-- ----` T----C.'---`-.-_,__ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO- ------ ------------------------------- BLOCK NO. -------------------------•---.------
w
t
cnCD
O i
to cq C
c: n
p
Qn ; cr p
- -3c:
sna 9: ;
TNi��.a
� El
to �. s
' c:
i C` r
PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78)
NAME OF ADDITION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t Nrv�%
—1L i 7L.
Approved: DATE ` L..G �J._ /... B
i Y ---
Site Information
�• 4PRECEIVED
C rkica. Areas C hec kHst APR 2 4 1992
PERMIT COUNTER
Project Name:�rL,��( �acnJZt Permit Number: 2
Site Location: %Q0,V
L07 10 Lz2i� � Property Tax Account Number:
Approximate Site Size cres or square feet): �`o
Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? �C�
General Site Conditions
1. Has the site been cleared or logged? Date of most recent action:
Soils / Topography
2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? rcx -
3. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5 feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a
horizontal distance of 66 feet.)
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise
of 10 feet of horizontal distance.)
_Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site.
Comments
1H ydrology/'Vegetation
4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: 0
5.
6.
7.
8.
Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: N 0 Approx. Depth:
Site is in the floodway ND floodplain )�,�of a water course.
Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? N_b flows
are year-round? Flows are seasonal?
Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed
9. Obvious wetland is present on site: Mr)
10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site:
11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site:yC�
............... ......_.. _ _ .. _ ....__.........
....... ...__........
. Use :Only ---------------___------------ _ :or �--- - ,_ _Y_ __
STUDY. REQU.IRED:_Critical areas study is required.
--
Z
4,6105 ccsmp aA_ waaiM1e�l
111111W
1. , 4
699-19y
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Checklist
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on
this form is to be filled out by any person
preparing a Development Permit
Application for the City of Edmonds prior
to his/her submittal of a development permit
to the. City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable
City staff to determine whether any potential
Critical Areas are or may be present on the
subject property. The information needed to
complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or
data available at City Hall (Critical Areas
inventories, maps, or soil surveys).
An applicant, or his/her representative, must
fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and
submit it to the City. The City will review
the checklist, make a precursory site visit,
and make a determination of the subsequent
steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
With a signed copy of this form, the
applicant should also submit a vicinity map
of the parcel with enough detail that City
staff can find and identify the subject
parcel(s). In addition, the applicant is
encouraged to include any other pertinent
information or studies in conjunction with
this Checklist to assist staff in completing
their preliminary assessment of the site.
I have completed the attached. Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant:
Name
Title
Street Address .
City, State, ZIP Phone
Signature Date
Applicant Representative:
Name
e�LAJ N
Title
Street Address
��6' 0/4 2Z G 7-7,-�
City, State, ZIP Phone
y `�r2�
ii a Date
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OW ER NAh1E/NAME F BUSINESS
,� ¢ (LURM Liz P_-A
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPFfJ JUM &co
4..L10 WA 23OI 1 ``��C �.
NAME
L) ADDRESS 1059 q - A,t,z
a CITY
ZIP TELEPHONE NUMB3ERR
•)
?/
USE —KRMIT
ZONE '? 11 �J UMBEI
ADDRESS / (_) / /; I _
A �
-
9205. 31
SUITE/APT p
LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION 1py5'jj) LID N
tx- F,�, - /- 1"9 2 ()
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑
RW Permit Required ❑
EXISTINGREQUIRED DEDICATION Street Use Permit Req'd ❑
PROPOSED 1 I� �(7 ', � >>1rer,- Inspection Required
Sidewalk Required ❑ C
REMARKS B
�•G• WI61n1
f-'I y4AL,. Niel6e4 I NL f • IZ(Z ►!� .
„f"�^ ENGINEERING MEMO DATED 12 R VIEW By
ADDRESS _j2l6v ILL)
I4ETER SI� !�-,.., ,BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE NG OF FIXTURES
CITY TELE fM ..
REMARK /
v �qp
sT It^MGE9li �� �O C71 i^
Legal Description of Property - include all easements
0-
0-
51
OF —
W
W
0
� Property ---yam9 Tax Account 0Z4+ CM — D1 D —OOO
Parcel No. !
NEW RESIDENTIAL OLUMBING
ADDITION COMMERCIAL I
REMODEL ❑ APT.BLDG. - I*
G DIN FENCE
REPAIR CYOS. ( X _FT)
DEMOLISH O S VE 9WIAh�ddL
❑ INSERT WALL/
. HOT TUB/S144
GARAGE RETAINING
CARPORT ® ROCKERY RENEWAL
Z _.
O
a (TYP USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
f it L.
2
wNUMBER OF STORIES JNOF
o l-T-j',�� DWELLING QN'�
m /'� UNITS
O
0 DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN)
SIGN AREA
SEPA REVIEW
AD NO.
ALLOWED PROPOSED
co,EXEMPT
�).
. /3 4
EXP `
SHHHO% ELINE a
/ / 4-
VARIANCE OR Cu
PLANNING REVIEW BY
8 7' ATE
(V_ 15 y_1Z
� z-
SETBACKS - F
HEIGHT
LOT C�OJVER GE'
FRONT' e) SIDE t:.,/
REAR
/" 7� _
ECK D �� TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION COD
SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY
REQUIRED GROUP
VES
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305
S0/45 RoPv, 45Y /CX91'-J CX-
5rA1mr4a1AV ray 61sr rgVAF v
FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED,.
VALUATION,
PLAN CHECK FEE
BUILDING
HEAT OURCE:
GLAZING
2da-70 O/D
PLUMBING
Plan Check No. 0
MECHANICAL
GRADING/FILL
This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY.
Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidew?Iks,
-driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission.
STATE SURCHARGE
Permit Application: 180 Days_'_,
Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days .
STORM DRAINAGE FEE
ENG.:INSPECTION FEE
"Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and
successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials,
employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of
whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance
of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to
modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance
nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
provision."
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the
information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly
authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and
state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz•
ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor
Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa•
ATTENTION
THIS PERMIT
AUTHORIZES
ONLY THE
WORK NOTED
ATTENT ON
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC
CHAPTER 3.
INSPECTION
DEPARTMENT
CITY OF
EDMONDS
CALL FOR
INSPECTION
771-0220
HEIGHT
OCCUPANT
LOAD
/
a
3
z
Z
Z
Q
(L
0
Z
s
5
m
YI�i✓ �. 98 . � _ ,
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until'
signed by the Building Official or his/,her
Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is
acknowledged in space pro)if'ded.
TE
01
RIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector
PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor
• ��� ��� fit-/ Pz
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
' ° ' ° Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
• ' • ' ` and
' Environmental Earth Sciences
11
IJ
LJ
1
`� � R A:IN ��-
.�
Project T-840-5
January 22, 1992
Stephen R. Sullivan AIA
The Sullivan Company
7215 175th Street SW
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Derry Residence
Lot 10, Lorian Woods
Edmonds, Washington
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T-840-1
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57
Lorian Woods Approved Construction Plans
Sheets 1 thru 6, by Dowl Engineers
Preliminary Plans for Derry Residence
by The Sullivan Company
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We understand the Derry residence will be constructed on Lot 10 south of the existing Anderson
residence, as shown on Sheet 2 of Dowl's Lorian Woods drawings. The stability of this property was
discussed in the referenced geotechnical report. In our opinion, the probability of earth movement
on this lot within a period of 25 years most likely is less than ten percent and the lot therefore is
suitable for residential construction. This risk of earth movement will be further reduced by
improvements to subsurface drainage afforded by the residence's foundation drains, and by removing
from the lot a weight of spoil that exceeds the weight of the residence.
The preliminary plans we have examined are consistent with the intent of the referenced
geotechnical report and are therefore acceptable. In our opinion, 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 residence's foundations are constructed and backfilled, the
potential for soil movement should decrease, for the reasons noted above.
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777
' f
The Sullivan Company Project T-840-5
January 22, 1992 Page 2
The preliminary plans indicate ground floors at Elevation 99 feet, which is below present grades on
' the site, except at the southwest comer. As explained in the referenced geotechnical report, the soil
at Lorian Woods is landslide debris, which may provide relatively poor bearing conditions for
conventional footings. To explore subsurface conditions on Lot 10, we excavated three test pits to
' elevations a few feet below the proposed footing bearing grade. Figure 1 shows the approximate test
pit locations and the residence's ground floor footprint. Logs of the test pits are reported on Table
A
' The test pits encountered both silty and sandy landslide debris, as expected. No free groundwater or
excessive organic material was observed in the pits. Caving of the pit walls did not occur during the
' brief period the pits were open.
Based on the test pits, it appears that conditions generally satisfactory for conventional spread
' foundations will be exposed on the bottom of the proposed excavation. However, bearing conditions
worse than those observed in the test pits may be present at locations not explored, or may result
from rainfall or from adverse groundwater conditions that may be present at the time the excavation
' is made. Bearing conditions are most likely to be satisfactory if the excavation is opened during the
dry summer season. In any case, bearing conditions should be examined before footing forms are
constructed. Unsuitable materials, if present, should be removed to firm ground and the
' overexcavations backfilled with quarry spalls or washed gravel, or with compacted pit -run gravel.
Alternatively, pin piles of two -inch -diameter steel pipe driven with a jackhammer could be used, if
needed, to compensate for unsatisfactory bearing conditions:
' To reduce the risk of foundation settlements due to possible uneven bearing conditions, we
recommend proportioning footings for a maximum bearing stress of 1200 pounds per square foot and
' using extra steel reinforcement in the footings and the foundation walls. In addition, we recommend
combining any interior footings into strips and connecting them to nearby foundation wall footings.
' The east perimeter foundation walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid weight of 50 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf), plus a uniform stress of 100 pounds per square foot. For other walls that
support lateral soil stress, the 50-pcf equivalent fluid weight can be reduced to 40 pcf. Where the
ground floor is below outside final grades, perforated drainpipe and free -draining backfill should be
installed outside the basement walls and connected to the storm water catch basin near the southwest
corner of the lot.
' In order to construct the lower ground floor at Elev 99, a cut to depths about ten feet below present
grades must be made for the east foundation wall. In our opinion, a cut this deep is acceptable on
' Lot 10 because the backslope east of the excavation rises only a short distance to level ground.
There is virtually no risk that the excavation might endanger either the Lorian Woods driveway and
utilities or the slopes east of the driveway.
' Nevertheless, care should be taken in making this excavation. Because the landslide debris is loose,
it may stand only briefly on steep slopes. We recommend trimming temporary slopes more than
' about four feet high at approximately 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. If groundwater is encountered,
flatter slopes may be required. The water level in the observation well we installed in Test Pit 2
should be read before the excavation is opened. Excavation slopes will be most stable if the
' groundwater level is below the proposed bearing grade, as it is at the present time.
The Sullivan Company • • Project T-840-5
January 22, 1992 Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to review your preliminary plans. We expect the City will require that
our firm review the construction plans submitted for permit. We will be pleased to provide this
service after the plans are prepared. In addition, the City likely will require that a completed
Environmental Checklist be included with the submittal package. The checklist can be filled out by
yourself and the Derrys. Please call if you have any questions concerning the checklist's few
geotechnical questions.
Sincerely,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC
W-. W 1; #4":-��Jl
William
il m Bailey
Project Manager
WB/mp
enc: Figure 1
Table A
cc: Bill Derry
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE A
LOGS OF TEST PITS
Test Pit No. 1
Depth, ft Description
0-1.5 Slash and topsoil.
1.5-4 Brown silty fine sand, wet and loose.
4-13 Fractured silts on uphill side of pit, brown
silty fine sand on downhill side of pit.
Some light caving, no seepage.
Test Pit No. 2
Depth, ft Description
0-1 Topsoil and slash.
1-8 Stiff brownish gray silt. qu=1.5 to 2.0 tsf.
8-9 Brown silty fine sand.
9-13 Tan -gray mixture of sand, silt and pebbles.
qu=1.5 to 2.0 tsf. Becomes tan -gray clayey
silt with hard chunks, wet. qu=1.5 to 2.5 tsf.
No seepage, no caving. Groundwater observation
well installed.
Test Pit No. 3
Depth, ft Description
0-10.5 Gray -tan silty clay, wet, with hard chunks.
qu=1.5 to 3.5 tsf.
No seepage, no caving.
Derry Residence
Project T-840-5
1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
930200 0475 'ok,
TREIT Rk PF8 11 40
COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS 4
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State
Building Code,.incorporating amendments promulgated by the City
of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building
permit for the construction of a residential structure and
attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do
hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows:
1. Description of Subject Property. This; covenant -
notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract
of land at the street address of IGIC37 -7 yi-EL 7�cE (insert
street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and
legally described as:
VOLUME I
WE�n-D-s OF
�c i D 4"" -7'�l oL4 o00 - o I O - Ocxb
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
i
associated with development of the site have been evaluated by
technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a
part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject
site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of
WSS52079A/0006.040.034
WSS/klt 02/08/90
the risks associatedwith development are contained in building /
permit file number _`7 2,053 (insert number) on file with the
City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or
prohibitions on development may (have been imposed in accordance
with the recommendations of the consultants in the course .of
permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions
may require ongoing maintenance, on the part of any owner or
lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth
stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated
changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and
conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer,.
geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby
incorporated by reference from th'le contents of the file as fully
as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or
any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest. in
the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of.
the file and.the City urges review of its contents. The file may
be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at
the Planning Department, City Hof Edmonds, 505 Bell Street,
Edmonds, Washington 98020,
3. I_hdemnification 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, its11officers, agents and employees
e
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -2-'i
WSS/ klt 02/08/90
arising from and out of such development. In addition, the
OWNERS on behalf of themselves,l, their successors in
b interest,
heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold
harmless the City of•Edmonds, its officers, agents and emp
loyees
from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature
to persons or property either on or off the site resultingfrom
or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arisingfrom m or
out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of
the site, or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading,
or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their
employees, or
professional consultants in the course of issuance
of the building permit.
4. Insurance Reauiremente In addition to any bonding which
may be required during the course of development, the Community
Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required
the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability
coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in or � der
to provide for the financial responsibilities established through
the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above:
��HIS ��QVl2�r-(BUT MUST- '3� Co7-i
o f �N42 �2cxjA L L i�-t-Tc��
[ insert insurance' re `� �1Ux�S �'�` • Z'7 . Z
quirements and time pe¢iod,
if any --if no insurance required, so state.]
Q
WSS52079A/0006.04.0.034
WSS/klt -3-
02/08/90
S. Coll", v ant to Touch and 'Concern the Land. This covenant
of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and
concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding,
obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs,
successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring
an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This
provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or
lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss
nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above
required.
DONE this c�g day of r� , 199-
OWN
By.
By:
By:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss:
COUNTY OF
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that l signed this instrument and acknowledged'
Q
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -4-
WSS/k1t 02/08/90
9 3 uz ® 417
Qa
it to be
(his/her) free and
voluntary act for
mentioned
in this instrument.+''
DATED
thisY of
19 921�da
.ej
NOTARY PUBLIC
,T
My commission expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss:
COUNTY OF
)
I certify
t at I know or have satisfactory
evidence
that 6j-%114h1
E. errU signed
this instrument and
acknowledged
it to be
(his/her) free and
voluntary act for
the ur
mentioned in this instrument.
DATED this 21f( day of
NOTARY UBLIC
My commission expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF ss:
)
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that signed this instrument, on oath
stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the (title)
of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument
was executed) to be the free and, voluntary act of such party for
the uses and purposes mentioned in this ins
I
DATED this day of
WSS52079A/0006.040.034
WSS/klt 02/08/90
, 199_.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expi
I d
N O
�? w
o <.
'*1 r rl
-�
fV
7 o
it? c.1sW3
EO
X
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Mr. William Derry, President February 24, 2006
Lorian Woods Homeowners Association
16107 741h Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Dear Mr. Derry:
In response to a recent localized slide, City officials conducted a site inspection on January 31, 2006
and observed slide damage to have occurred on private property west of Sequoia Ridge Lot 3. Debris
from this slide extended downslope onto Tract A and near the base of Lot 2 undeveloped property itl
the plat of Lorian Woods. Accompanying City officials was a representative of Landau Associates, the
City's professional geotechnical consultant. Landau, Associates conducted a site reconnaissance and
subsequently prepared a report (copy enclosed dated; 2/17/06) that describes the observed slide. The
purpose of this letter is to alert the Homeowners Association of the current situation as we know it, so
that the Association may take whatever action deemed appropriate.
The City recommends that Association representatives visit the site with a professional Geotechnical
Engineer for an independent assessment of Tract A property to provide recommendations about any
possible site restoration that may be advisable to undertake to protect this property. If your
geotechnical engineer requires restoration, slope mitigation or improvements, an approved permit from
the City is required in advance, pursuant to City Ordinance #2661, which regulates the Earth
Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of North Edmonds.
Please note the slide debris from Sequoia Ridge Lot 3 also damaged portions of the existing City
drainage facility along the slope of the Lorian Woods plat. The City's geotechnical consultant is
recommending that restoration of the drainage system not be performed at this time pending further
evaluation. If you have any questions about the City drainage facility contact Public Works Director,
Noel Miller at 425-771-0235.
Please contact me should you have any questions regarding permit requirements or other concerns at
425-771-0220 extension 1226 during normal City business hours.
Sincerely,
oloft4^7�
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official, C.B.O.
Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
° Incorporated August 11, 1890 °
Sister City - Hekii an, Japan
N
X
February 17, 2006
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5`h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Don Fiene
Assistant City Engineer
RE: BOSCH PROPERTY LANDSLIDE
16116 72ND AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Mr Fiene:
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
REk !.7y� F
>t
FEB f 00�1�
This letter provides a summary of our observations and recommendations related to a landslide
observed on the northwest side of the Bosch residence at 16116 72"d Avenue West (also known as Lot 3
of the Sequoia Ridge Plat) in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our services was to observe the site
conditions and to provide recommendations to the 'City of Edmonds (City) Building Official and
Engineering Division staff related to our assessment of landslide conditions and the potential for an
imminent hazard to City -owned facilities, the general public, or the private property residents. Our
services were requested by Don Fiene, Assistant City ,'Engineer, on January 31, 2006 and confirmed by
Task Order No. 06-01 under Landau Associates' On -Call and Emergency / Disaster Response
Geotechnical Engineering Agreement with the City of Edmonds.
BACKGROUND AND OBSERVATIONS
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer; Ann Bulls, Assistant Building Official; Damon Roth, and
Dennis Stettler of Landau Associates observed the above -described landslide on the afternoon of January
31, 2006. The landslide was viewed from below, looking up from 73`d Place West, and from the top,
looking down from the yard of the Bosch residence at 16116 72"d Avenue West. Mr. Bosch spoke to us
briefly during our site visit and provided some background information. Our observations were limited to
brief visual observations. No measurements were taken and no attempts were made to closely examine
the slope or slide debris, other than what could be readily seen by standing at the bottom or top of the
slope.
We understand that the landsliding was observed by a resident of 73`d Place West on Monday,
January 30, 2006, at about 4:30 p.m. The landslide was preceded by over a month of unusually wet
weather with precipitation significantly above typical winter rainfall levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL ( GEOTECHNICAL ( NATURAL RESOURCES
130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 77&0907 • Fax (425) 778-6409 • ..Iandauinc.com
SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND
The landslide occurred at the top of a steep, northwest -facing slope immediately west of the
northwest corner of the Bosch residence. The location of the current landslide corresponds approximately
to the location of a previous landslide that occurred on about February 13, 2005, as documented in a.letter
by Landau Associates to the City dated February 22, 2005.
On September 16, 2003, ground cracking was also observed by Landau Associates and City
personnel at the top of the bluff at this approximate location. This ground cracking was documented in a
Landau Associates letter to the City dated September 25, 2003. The previously observed ground cracking
had been noted when Landau Associates and City personnel were onsite observing a landslide on the
same slope that had occurred about 200 ft north of the current landslide location.
Following the observation of ground cracking in' 2003, sections of heavy tarp were reportedly
placed over the ground by Mr. Bosch and secured in place by driven steel rebar. At the time of our
observation on February 14, 2005, the heavy plastic tarps were still in place, but the ground beneath the
tarps at the location of the previous ground cracking had failed and slid downslope. At the time of our
most recent observations on January 31, 2006, the plastic tarps were still in place over a portion of the top
of the slope.
The 2005 landslide created a headscarp that was estimated to be approximately 8 to 10 ft from the
northwest corner of the house and about 5 to 6 ft from a porch. The upper portion of the 2005 slide
formed a steep scarp area, which flattened to a slight "bench" about 20 ft below the top of the scarp. Soil
exposed in the upper portion of the slope appeared to be relatively dry at the time of our 2005 site visit.
At the slight "bench," seepage and wet zones were observed in 2005 with seepage flowing downslope
through the recent slide debris and ultimately emerging as surface water drainage that was intercepted by
catch basins along the edge of 73'd Place West. Slide debris in 2005 had been deposited or flowed into
the area at and below the "bench" and was mixed with the trees and undergrowth on the lower portions of
the slope.
The extent of the current landslide as observed on January 31, 2006, appeared to be within the
general boundaries of the 2005 landslide. The top of the 2006 landslide did not appear to extend to the
top of the 2005 headscarp and as such there appeared to be little to no additional loss of ground from the
top of the bluff. Some of the material involved in the 2006 landslide may represent landslide debris and
colluvium that had accumulated mid -slope on the "bench" observed at the time of the 2005 landslide.
The 2006 landslide debris produced an accumulation of soft, wet soil mixed with organic material near
the base of the slope on Lot. 2 of the Lorian Woods subdivision. Seepage was observed coming down
lower portions of the slope and emerging from the base of the landslide debris at the toe of the landslide.
The 2006 landslide destroyed a drainage structure that formed a portion of the City's landslide
drainage system in this area. Remnants of the dislocated drainage structure (including a large diameter
2/17/06 \\Edmdata\projects\074\133\Fileroom\R\BoschL. dslide_ltr.doc 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
corrugated metal pipe that formed the collection structure) are present near the toe of the landslide debris.
Segments of black, corrugated pipe was also observed near the base of the slope. This pipe material did
not appear to be a part of the City's drainage system. Mr. Bosch indicated that he had previously
observed someone (thought to be the property owner from Lot 2 in the Lorian Woods subdivision)
working on the slope to apparently try to intercept some of the seepage and springs emerging from the
slope.
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We offer the following comments and assessment to address the City's questions on whether the
landslide and present condition pose an imminent hazard to City -owned facilities, the general public, or
the occupants of the Bosch residence and downslope residences. This assessment is based on a limited
observation of the site conditions and our experience with similar landslide conditions, and not on a
detailed evaluation of the site conditions. Our limited assessment for the purpose of assessing imminent
risk should not be construed as a replacement for a detailed geotechnical evaluation and recommendations
developed by a licensed geotechnical consultant retained by the property owners to address the longer -
term risk posed by the landslide hazard.
The location of the recent landslide appears to be consistent with the general location of a
landslide in 2005 and ground cracking observed in 2003. The 2006 landslide involved only surficial
materials and there was no evidence that the landslide represents a larger, deep-seated failure. The entire
bluff in the Meadowdale area is a known landslide hazard zone. The observed landslide is consistent with
other naturally occurring landslides along the Meadowdale Bluff. Springs and seepage emerge from this
slope above the Lorian Woods subdivision and the slopes above these springs are subject to repeated
landsliding and slope movement as the landslide headscarp continues to retreat. The landslide on this
slope last year had removed the vegetation and exposed the soil on the upper portions of the slope to
rainfall and erosion. Landslide debris from 2005 that had accumulated near the midpoint and lower on
the slope had the opportunity to become wet from the recent heavy rainfall events and the rainfall was
apparently sufficient to reinitiate the landslide at this location.
The observed landslide was likely caused by the heavy precipitation over the last month or more,
possibly combined with natural groundwater seepage zones that are present in the steep portions of the
bluff. The seepage zones and the observed landslide are located well above a City interceptor drainage
system and the landslide debris actually flowed down and destroyed a portion of the drainage system.
The purpose of the City drainage system is to capture some of the localized surface water and water
emerging from springs on the slope that would otherwise infiltrate into the ground below the drainage
system. Implementation of the drainage system and other drainage improvements in the Meadowdale
2/17/06 \\Edmdata\projects\074\133\Fileroom\RNBoschLmdslide_ltr.doc 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
area is thought to contribute to the overall increased stability of the Meadowdale landslide complex
located downslope from the location ofthe interceptor drainage system. The interceptor drainage systems
do not reduce the groundwater levels in the slopes above the systems or reduce the seepage from these
areas. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the observed landslide was not caused by or related to the
presence of the City's interceptor drainage system.
The landslide, has impacted and destroyed some of the City drainage facilities located on the
lower portion of the slope. It is our opinion that the presence of the landslide debris and the recurring
slope movement at this location make restoration of the City drainage system impractical at this location
at this time. We suggest that this situation be re-evaluated for possible maintenance or improvements
during drier weather in late spring or summer.
The landslide occurred on private property and extended into adjacent private property.
Therefore, the general public traveling on public rights -of -way would not be affected by this landslide.
With respect to the Bosch residence, the 2006 landslide has not materially changed the slope condition as
compared to the condition following the 2005 landslide. Landau Associates provided comments and
recommendations in our February 22, 2005 letter following the 2005 landslide and the 2006 landslide
does not alter the general findings or recommendations of that letter.
The debris from this landslide extends into an undeveloped lot within the Lorian Woods
subdivision. The owner of this property should be advised of this condition. Mudslides and landslide
debris from the bluff above can impact any development on the property below and any future
development plans should consider and address this issue.
This letter was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to
0
the evaluation of public safety concerns related to the Bosch property landslide. Within the limitations of
scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional opinions and
advice included in this report.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds. Please call if you have
any questions regarding this letter or if we may be of further assistance.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Principal
DRS/rgm
2/17/06 \\Edmdata\projects\074\133Tdil oom\R\Bosch La dslide_Itr.doc 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
loc. 1891,
SET FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
February 24, 2005
Mr. William Derry, President
Lorian Woods Homeowners Association
16101 740'Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Dear Mr. Derry:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
In response to a recent localized slide, City officials conducted a site inspection on February 14,
2005 and observed slide damage to have occurred on private property west of Sequoia Ridge Lot
3. Debris from this slide may have pushed onto or near Tract A and Lot 5 property in the plat of
Lorian Woods. Accompanying City officials was a representative of Landau Associates, the
City's professional geotechnical consultant. Landau Associates conducted a site reconnaissance
and subsequently prepared a report (copy enclosed) that describes the observed slide. , The
purpose of this letter is to alert you of the current situation as we know it, so that you may take
whatever action you deem appropriate.
Since you may be unaware of this condition, the City recommends that Association
representatives visit the site with a professional Geotechnical Engineer for an independent
assessment of Tract A property to provide recommendations about any possible site restoration
that may be advisable for you to undertake to protect this property. If your geotechnical engineer
requires restoration, slope mitigation or improvements, an approved permit from the City is
required in advance, since all work must comply with City Ordinance #2661, which regulates the
Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of north Edmonds.
Please contact me should you have any questions regarding permit requirements or other
concerns at 425-771-0220 extension 1226 during normal City business hours.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official, C.B.O.
Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
February 22, 2005
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 50' Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
RE: BOSCH PROPERTY LANDSLIDE
16116 72ND AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS `WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
BUILDING
FEB 2 3 2005
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
This letter provides a summary of our observations, assessment, and recommendations related to
a landslide observed on the northwest side of the Bosch residence at 16116 72"d Avenue West (also
known as Lot 3 of the Sequoia Ridge Plat) in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our services was to
observe the site conditions and to provide recommendations to the City of Edmonds (City) Building
Official related to our assessment of site conditions and the. potential for an imminent hazard to
City -owned facilities, the general public, or the private property residents related to the landslide. Our
servi.ces,were.requested by.Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer, on February 14, 2005 and confirmed by
Task Order No. 05-01 under Landau Associates' On -Call and Emergency / Disaster Response
Geotechnical Engineering Agreement with the City of Edmonds.
BACKGROUND
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer, Ann Bullis, Assistant Building Official, and Dennis Stettler
of Landau Associates observed the above -described landslide on the afternoon of February 14, 2005. The
landslide was observed from 73`d Place West below the slide and from the top in the yard of the Bosch
residence at 16116 72nd Avenue West. Mr. Bosch spoke to us during our site visit and provided
background information. Our observations were limited to brief visual observations and no
measurements were taken and no attempts were. made to closely examine the slope or slide debris, other
than what could-be.readily seen by standing, at the top of the slope.
We understand that the landslide occurred on Saturday, February 12, 2005. Periods of heavy rain
occurred_ sporadically _.on , that day, but otherwise the period preceding the landslide was a period of
relatively drier than normal winter precipitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES
130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com
SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND
r
6
The landslide occurred at the top of a steep, northwest -facing slope immediately west of the
northwest corner of the Bosch residence. The location of the landslide corresponded to the location of
ground cracking observed by Landau Associates and City personnel on September 16, 2003 and
documented in a Landau Associates letter to the City dated September 25, 2003. The previously observed
ground cracking was noted when Landau Associates and City personnel observed a landslide on the same
slope that occurred about 200 ft north of the current landslide location.
Following the observation of ground cracking in 2003, sections of heavy tarp were reportedly
placed over the ground by Mr. Bosch and secured in place by driven steel rebar. At the time of our
observation on February 14, 2005, the heavy plastic tarps were still in place, but the ground beneath the
tarps at the location of the previous ground cracking had failed and slid downslope.
The landslide formed a steep slope with a headscarp located about 5 to 6 ft from a porch of the
Bosch residence. The headscarp was estimated to be approximately 8 to 10 ft from the northwest corner
of the house.
Soil observed in the upper 3 to 5 ft of the headscarp area appeared to be similar to fill. Mr. Bosch
indicated that his recollection of this area prior to the house construction as compared to the present
topography suggests that some fill may have been placed in this area. According to a letter dated October
31, 2003, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. (a geotechnical consultant retained by Mr. Bosch in 2003) also
interpreted the near -surface soil in this area to be fill. Below this fill layer, a soil that appeared to be very
dense, gray, fine sand that formed a smooth surface was exposed in some areas of the landslide scarp.
This exposed, gray soil appears to be sand of glacial origin that is typically found along the bluff in this
area. The sand is typically underlain by fine-grained silt and clay along the slope and groundwater
seepage typically emerges on the slope near the contact of the sand and the low -permeability silt and clay
below it.
The upper portion of the slide formed a steep scarp area, which flattened to a slight "bench" about
20 ft below the top of the scarp. Soil exposed in the upper portion of the slope appeared to be relatively
dry. At the slight "bench," seepage and wet zones were observed with seepage flowing downslope
through the recent slide debris and ultimately emerging as surface water drainage that was intercepted by
catch basins along the edge of 73`d Place West. We suspect that the seepage zone corresponds to the
location of the silt and clay layer that is present along the. Meadowdale Bluff. Slide debris had been
deposited or flowed into the area at and below the "bench" and was mixed with the trees and undergrowth
on the lower portions of the slope.
02/22/05 S:\WPROCkO74\129\BoschLandslide—itr.doc 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
ASSESSMENT
The location of the recent landslide appears to be consistent with the location of ground cracking
we observed in 2003. The ground cracking was an early indication of slope movement and failure at this
location. The heavy tarp protecting this area from rainfall infiltration was probably effective for a period
of time, but ultimately the steep slope with ground cracks was going to fail. The landslide that occurred
at this location is relatively consistent with other landslides that have occurred along this slope at various
locations. The top of this steep slope or bluff forms the headscarp of the much larger Meadowdale
landslide complex.
The bluff in the Meadowdale area is a known landslide hazard zone. The observed landslide is
consistent with other naturally occurring landslides along the Meadowdale Bluf£ Springs and seepage
emerge from this slope above the Lorian Woods subdivision and the slopes above these springs are
subject to repeated landsliding and slope movement as the landslide headscarp continues to progress back.
If fill had been placed at the top of the slope as a part of the house construction, that condition could
reduce the stability of the slope. However, even without fill at the top of the slope, the steep slope in this
area is subject to landsliding.
The observed landslide was likely caused by natural groundwater seepage zones that are present
in the steep portions of the bluff. The seepage zones and the observed landslide are located well above a
City interceptor drainage system. The purpose of the City drainage system is to capture some of the
localized surface water and water emerging from springs that would otherwise infiltrate into the ground
below the drainage system. Implementation of the drainage system and other drainage improvements in
the Meadowdale area is thought to contribute to the overall stability improvements of the Meadowdale
landslide complex located downslope from the location of the interceptor drainage system. The
interceptor drain system is at and below about elevation 180 ft on the slope east of 73`d Place West. In
comparison, the top of the bluff on the Bosch property at the location of the subject landslide is near
elevation 255 ft, about 75 ft above the highest point of the interceptor drain system. The interceptor
drainage systems do not reduce the groundwater levels in the slopes above the systems or reduce the
seepage from these areas. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the observed landslide was not caused by or
related to the City's interceptor drainage system.
The landslide has encroached into the yard adjacent to the northwest corner of the residence and
left very little room between the top of slope and the house. Left alone, we would expect that this
oversteepened landslide scarp would continue to fail and progress back so that it would eventually
encroach into the northwest corner of the residence. Landsliding along this slope (and Puget Sound bluff
slopes in general) typically produce landslide scarps that extend back from several feet up to 10 ft or so
back from the top crest of the slope during each landslide event. The time period for the slope to
02/22/05 S:\WPROC\074\129\Bosch Landslide IV.doc 3 LANDAu ASSOCIATES
encroach back to the house is very difficult to estimate, but could conceivably occur over a number of
months to many years.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the owners of the house retain a geotechnical consultant to evaluate the slope
condition in detail, assess the present and future risk, and develop specific recommendations to protect the
house and limit the potential for additional landslides to damage the house.
We offer the following comments and assessment to address the City's questions on whether the
landslide and present condition pose an imminent hazard to City -owned facilities, the general public, or
the occupants of the Bosch residence and downslope residences. This assessment is based on a cursory
observation of the site conditions and our experience with similar landslide conditions, and not on a
detailed evaluation of the site conditions. Our limited assessment for the purpose of assessing imminent
risk should not be construed as a replacement for a detailed geotechnical evaluation and recommendations
developed by a geotechnical consultant retained by the property owner to address the longer -term risk
posed by the landslide hazard.
The landslide occurred on private property and extended into adjacent private property.
Therefore, the general public traveling on public rights -of -way would not be affected by this landslide.
From the readily available vantage points below and above the landslide, it was not possible to determine
if the landslide debris extended far enough downslope to impact the City's interceptor drainage system
number 1-A. Surface water carrying silt and fine sand was observed emerging onto the pavement surface
at 73rd Place West and may require maintenance activities to better collect this surface water at the
roadway location and to maintain clean and functioning storm water catch basins. It does not appear that
the landslide threatens any other City -owned facilities.
The oversteepened landslide scarp could continue to progress back until it eventually encroaches
on the house foundation. The time period for this to occur is difficult to predict. We have not examined
the building plans, but we understand that the house itself is supported on deep piles. The porch,
however, may only be supported on spread footings. The pile foundations provide some protection to the
structure and, therefore, provide improved life safety as compared to a structure supported solely on
shallow foundations. However, additional slope movement or landsliding in the future could progress
back to the house foundation and damage the pile foundation, ultimately damaging or endangering the
house. We expect that landsliding of the scale typically observed on the bluffs in this area (typically
extending back from the top of the slope a distance on the order of several to 10 ft for each landslide
event) could damage the pile foundation. However, a landslide of this magnitude would be unlikely to
pose an immediate life safety issue for occupants of the residence.
02/22/05 S:\WPROC\074\129\Bosch Landslide Itr.doc 4 LANDAu ASSOCIATES
The debris from this landslide extends into an undeveloped lot within the Lorian Woods
subdivision. The owner of this property should be advised of this condition. Mudslides and landslide
debris from the bluff above can impact any development on the property below and any future
development plans should consider and address this issue.
This letter was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to
the evaluation of public safety concerns related to the Bosch property landslide. Within the limitations of
scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional opinions and
advise included in this report.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds. Please call if you have
any questions regarding this letter or if we may be of further assistance.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
�Q`S .2 ov,.n o!�
Dennis R. Ste{£,
Principal
Steven R. Wright, P.E.
Associate
DRS/SZW/ccy
No. 074129.010.011
02/22/05 S:\WPROCkO74\i29\BoschLandslide—itr.doc 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
lnc.1891
January 9, 2002
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0226 • FAX (425) 771.0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
Mr. William Derry
President Lorian Woods Homeowners Association
16107 74th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Dear Mr. Derry:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The City is in receipt of your letter dated December 30, 2001 to the Development Services Director.
You requested a number of actions from the City. The City has the following responses.
In regards to the issue of stopping work on all construction within the Sequoia Ridge short subdivision,
at present time we cannot comply with this request as we are unaware of any facts which would legally
support our taking this action at this time. We have taken corrective action relative to violations of
permit conditions on the Bosch residence within the Sequoia Ridge development.
Until the wood debris has been removed from the slope, the City maintenance workers cannot perform
inspections, repairs or maintenance to our drainage system. You have received a separate letter from
the City requesting removal of this debris. - The City is not responsible for maintaining private drainage
systems and will not do any work on these private drainage systems.
Based upon the information from the City's Geotechnical engineer, it appears ,the landslide occurred
due to natural forces related to heavy rainfall at the time of the landslide. Surficial earth movement is
an inherent characteristic of the landslide mass.
The City has designated me to be the contact person for all matters related to the landslide, please do
not hesitate to direct any written correspondence to me as I will assure that the appropriate City staff
person will respond to any and all inquiries.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
Cc; Dave Gebert, City Engineer
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan. Janan
890-19C.-
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N.. EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering
March 5, 1993
William and Barbara Derry
16107 74th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
Re: MEADOWDALE ORDINANCE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Lot 10, Plat of Lorian Woods
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Derry:
Your request for a waiver from the public liability insurance
requirements of Chapter 19.05.050 of the Edmonds Community Development
Code and Ordinance #2866 was brought to my attention on March 4, 1993
by Jeannine Graf, Acting Building Official.
After consultation with Scott Snyder, City Attorney, and site
inspections by personnel from both the Engineering and Building
. Departments, as Community Services Director I have exercised the
authority given me under Chapter 19.05 and have determined that it
would be appropriate for the City to grant your request for a waiver.
Decisions such as this are based on site specific conditions and made
only after review of the potential loss, to both public utilities and
private property which could be attributable to your development. In
the case of your development it was determined that in the event of a
landslide, or similar earth movement, damage would be negligible.
It was fortunate that, due to the conditions of your specific site, the
City was able to arrive at a decision that has enabled you to proceed
with was
final approval on your project.
Mrs. Derry, it was a pleasure meeting you. If I can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
gaw
Paul Mar
Community Services Director
cc: City Attorney
Acting Building Official
Fi le
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
0 ICE
TO PERMITTEE AND/OR OWNER
STREETdRik, TIAL APPROVAL
❑ VIOLATION
❑ CORRECTIONS REQUIRED
❑NO PERMIT — STOP WORK — REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN
PERMIT AND MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH BUILDING LAWS.
❑CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS
AND PERMIT — STOP WORK. MAKE EXISTING WORK COMPLY WITH
APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT OR REMOVE IT.
❑ STOP WORK — UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY INSPECTOR.
❑CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE BEFORE WORK CAN
BE APPROVED.
❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED.
❑CONTACT INSPECTOR AND ❑
ARRANGE FOR APPOINTMENT. RECALL FOR INSPECTION.
cJ .
THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED WITHIN
DAYS OR PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW MAY BE APPLIED.
FOR INSPECTIONS CALL:
r BUILDING DIV.
SPECTOR / 3 PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF DATE ❑ FIRE DEPT.
EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-3202 �14
RCW_-197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: New Single Family Residence
Proponent: William.& Barbara Derry, 19825 95th Av N.E., Bothell, WA 98011
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16107 74th Pl. W.
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.
XX 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 .1992.
Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson
Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division
Phone: 771-0220
Address: City of Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Date: Signature: '
XX You may appeal this determination to RobgrtChave, Planning Manager, at 250 Sth Avenue
North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than JJ✓Cy / 3 , 1992, 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 Posted on JUL� 2— . 1992, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds
Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies along with a copy of the Checklist.
Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist:
XX Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
XX Applicant: William & Barbara Derry.
19825 95th Av N.E.
Bothell, WA 98011
Page 1 of 1
(((FILE #)))EN/(((DATE))).SEPA _
XX Agent: Steven R. Sullivan
18596 76th. Av. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Attachments
PC: Building Permit application plan check # 630
SEPA Notebook
Robert Chave, Planning Manager
Page 2 of
(((FILE #)))ENI(((DATE))).SEPA
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION
250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
TO: JEFFREY S. WILSON, AICP
]PONSIB FILIAL
FROM:
John Bissell, Code Enf. Tech
DATE: July 1, 1992
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL, DETERMINATION FOR DERRY SINGLE-FAMILY
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AT 16107 74TH PLACE WEST,
BUILDING PLAN CHECK NO. 630
I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist , and
geotechnical report prepared Terra Associates. A copy of which are filed in th
for this permit. e official file
Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I
recommend that a Determination of Nonsignificance.be issued.
Review by Responsible Official:
I concur
Comments:
I do not concur
Jeffrey S. Wilson
Attachments
Pc: BUILDING PLAN CHECK NO. 630
Robert Chave, Planning Manager .
c4�
Date
B630ENn-1.92.SEPA
LANDAU BUILDING,
A ASSOCIATES, Jum 2 5 1992
INC.
Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies
June 24, 1992
City of Edmonds
250 Fifth Avenue, North
Edmonds, WA 98020
ATTN: Ms. Sharon Nolan
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED DERRY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT 10, LORIAN WOODS SUBDIVISION
16107 74TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Nolan:
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates, Inc. has completed a preliminary
review of the geotechnical aspects of the submittal associated with the proposed project. This
review was conducted using the requirements of City Ordinance No. 2661 and the Uniform
Building Code as a standard for comparison. Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1
to this letter.
Our review of the documents indicates that, in general, the submittal is complete.
However, some minor issues associated with the proposed residence require resolution in
accordance with City Ordinance No. 2661. Our specific comments are as follows:
1. Grading quantities are not presented on the grading plan, nor is a
driveway slope profile provided. Grading quantities should be requested
to determine if a conditional use permit will be needed. Since most of the
home's access is already in place, it is our opinion that a driveway profile
would add little to the present submittal.
2. Temporary and permanent erosion controls are not called out on the
plans but are mentioned in the Environmental Checklist. Requirements
for temporary erosion control during construction should be provided.
3. Although the geotechnical declaration (reference 1.d.) is stamped, the
reviewed copy of the geotechnical letter (reference 1.c.) is not. Since the
January 22, 1992 letter contains engineering design parameters, it is our
opinion that the letter should be properly sealed by a licensed engineer.
4. Terra Associates' June 6, 1989 report for the then -proposed subdivision
notes that basement cuts should not exceed about 8 ft in height. In Terra
Associates' June 22, 1992 letter Terra states that the proposed lower floor
elevation is at 99 ft, which Terra states would result in a cut of about 10
ft. The final plans, however, show a basement floor elevation of 96 ft. By
lowering the home 3 ft, the planned excavation cut will go to about 13 ft
(based on Terra's 10 ft estimate with the lower floor at Elevation 99).
Terra Associates should comment on the appropriateness of a cut of this
P.O. BOX 1029 • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020-9129 - (206) 778-0907 - FAX (206) 778-6409
magnitude, and on the need to step the basement or terrace the
excavation (as noted in their June 6, 1989 report).
5. For the benefit of the contractor, the footing drain detail on sheet 2 might
be better shown in the manner of sheet 7, rather than referencing the soil
report.
6. The owner should be advised of the need for periodic maintenance of the
drainage system.
7. It is unclear whether the 100 psf uniform stress recommended by Terra
Associates applies to walls other than the east perimeter wall. While it is
reasonable that it does not, and this is the assumption of the structural
engineer, it could be more explicitly stated that this is the case.
8. Along a portion of the west side of the existing access drive, supporting
soil has been cut to a slope steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Unless some form of support is provided, eventual failure of the road
shoulder is likely. Whomever has responsibility for maintaining this
drive should be notified of the current situation, and be made aware that
eventual improvements in the form of a rockery or retaining wall will
probably be needed.
9. The geotechnical report does not state the date of the test pit explorations,
which is important, particularly in light of the lack of water in the pits on
a site which might be expected to have some groundwater present.
10. On page 2 of Terra Associates' January 22, 1992 letter they indicate that
an observation well was installed in Test Pit 2. If this well meets the
definition of a well per Chapter 173-160 WAC, the owner should be
notified that the well must be either: 1) properly decommissioned by a
licensed well driller, or 2) protected during and after home construction.
We recommend that the above concerns be addressed by the appropriate design
professional, with a resubmittal to the City. Landau Associates would be pleased to review the
responses provided when they become available.
Should you have any questions concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned.
DMW / WDE/tam
74039.10
06/24/92 EDMOND6\DERRYGEO.RPT
OA
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Dean M. White, P.E.
Project Manager
William D. Evans, CPG
Senior Geologist
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
REFERENCES
1. Project Manual - assembled by the Sullivan Company, Inc. and containing, among other
items:
a. Landslide Hazard Vicinity Map - excerpted from 1984 GeoEngineers report
b. Environmental Checklist - signed by Stephen Sullivan on 4/28/92
c. Geotechnical Letter, Project T-840-S, dated 1 /22/92 by Terra Associates, Inc.
d. Geotechnical Declaration, Project T-840-S, dated 4/29/92 by Terra Associates, Inc.
2. Project Plans - cover plus 13 sheets prepared by the Sullivan Company, Inc., dated
4/27/92; sheets 2-S, 7, and 11 sealed by Cornelius D. Vanden Ende, P.E.; sheet 13
sealed by James R. Conner, P.L.S.
w
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Project T-840-5
?� C?s � April 29, 1992
Stephen R. Sullivan AIA
The Sullivan Company
18596 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Derry Residence, Lorian Woods Lot 10, Edmonds
Geotechnical Engineer's Declaration
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T-840-1
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57
Letter Report, Project T-840-5, January 22,1992
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have examined the construction drawings for the Derry residence and the environmental checklist,
which we understand are those that will be submitted for permit. In our judgment, the final plans are
consistent with the recommendations in the referenced geotechnical report and letter. In addition, we have
examined the earth section of the environmental checklist and take no exceptions to the answers provided.
The geotechnical report discusses landslide hazards at,the Lorian Woods development. In summary; in our
opinion the probability of earth movement on Lot 10 within a period of 25 years most likely is less than ten
percent. The lot therefore is suitable for residential construction, as provided by Ordinance 2661. 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. 'Some mitigation of the landslide risk will be afforded by the
residence's foundation drains, which should improve subsurface drainage, and by the basement excavation,
which will remove a weight of spoil greater than the weight of the residence.
This residence will be constructed in an area of known landslide hazards. The risk of landslide cannot be
eliminated. Property owners assume all residual risks. The geotechnical recommendations and declarations
associated with the project do not provide a warranty, either expressed or implied, against loss or damage to
persons or property.
We appreciate the opportunity to examine these documents. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC
Willi(4 ai1 f.
Proi'ecG%Iaaaaer
Anil BIj1,-RE
PiesideFit ya' �-
w� EXPIRES t 2/09/93
cc:
q
-',712525 W1[lows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 0 Phone (206) 821-7777
kTRUCTURAL DESIGN AS%CIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5630. 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366
LYNNWOOD. WA98046 PHONE: (206)775.7434 Fax: 775-7435
1�T
C
April 21, 1992
The Sullivan Company
attn: Mr. Steve Sullivan
18596 - 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
subject: Derry Residence, Lot 10, Lorian Woods, Edmonds, Wash.
- DECLARATION STATEMENT -
Our Ref.: Letters\91-362.rjh
s
i Dear Steve:
f
This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the geotechnica.l reports from Terra
Associates, Inc. No. T-840-1, dated June 6, 1989, and No. T-840-5, dated January 22, 1992.
The review indicates that the lot is in an area subject to ground failure. "...the probability of
earth movement on this lot within a period of 25 years most likely is less than ten percent...".
It is impossible to guarantee future slope stability, regardless of how well it is investigated or
engineered, and there are always risks associated with construction in a known hazardous area.
Among these risks is the possibility of the loss or damage to your property and life, as well as
the property and life of neighbors, public and private, due to soil failure.
:F '
L
Because of the unpredictable nature and wet condition of the soils, owners must assume
responsibility for the risks of .building and living in this known hazardous area.
The reports, recommendations, opinions, designs and specifications, associated with this
project are professional opinions only, and are not to be construed as a warranty, expressed or
implied, against loss or damage.
STRUCI'URAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGA1"1C>N
nlw rni_)Nf>AT10NS 0 RFTn�Nirlr�. o ?��:� • .. r.•-, • - o-r,'.r•„c"�:`- m ;,r.r•.
11
I
The Sullivan Company
Page 2 of Two
DECLARATION STATEMENT
To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans, submitted with the permit
application substantially incorporate the above mentioned reports' recommendation.
Careful and conscientious application of the above referenced recommendations during and
after construction will apparently not increase the risk associated with this site.
Respectfully submitted,
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
by:
Kase Vanden Ende, P.E.
president .
KVE/eve
�y
s.D.A- Lettm\91-362.gh
April 21,1992
i
7
•
SPREET FILE
I, Stephen R. Sullivan AIA, licensed to practice
architecture in the State of Washington_, have reviewed the
report by Terra Associates, Inc.
I understand its recommendations and have incorporated them
into the final design of the Derry residence at Lot 10,
Lorian Woods in Edmonds, WA.
E;
1 I have transmitted a copy of the report to Bill and Barbara
Derry, owners of said property, and have explained to them
{ the risk of loss due to slides and the responsibility of
i living on a steep slope site.
t
a
Done this .� day of
l
ARCHITEC
.: By '
Presid t, The Sullivan Co. Inc.
1 '
i� STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss:
COUNTY OF !� )
I �ertify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
_STly 10 X&-Zhow signed this instrument and acknowledge
it to be.,(.his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes
mention 1d:•in this instrument.
Dated this
day of 199,E
Not Public
My commission expires:
� •.;
•• t'�,.: . ,: of �-r a , -
STREET FILE
The undersigned owners, William and Barbara Derry, fully
warrant all information submitted in support of this project
proposal, located at Lorian Woods, Lot 10 in Edmonds, WA,
and do hereby promise to indemnify and "hold harmless the
City of Edmonds and its agents from any errors or omissions
located 'herein.,
Done this day of 19.
OWNER
By:
By:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
t COUNTY OF
)ss:
,540h-MIS14 )
I certify
t at I know or have satisfactory
evidence that
signed this instrument and
acknowledge
it to be
(his/her) free and voluntary act for
the purposes
mentioned
in this instrument.
ed /
o.
this day of
199
Notary Public
My commission expires:
/
STATE OF WA TON siqkEET F I
•)ss:
COUNTY OF
I certify hat I know or have satisfactory evidence .
that Arrq signed
this instrument and .acknowledged
it to be (his/her) free and voluntary -act for the, puVposps
mentioned in this instrument.
0
3
DATED this�daof f�.
NOT RY 146BLIC
MY commission expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)ss:
COUNTY 0
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that signed this instrument on oath
stated that h . _(he/she) was authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the.V�11�11117 �title)
of ......... . , 47 (name of party on behalf of whom instrument
was executed) to . he.free and voluntary act of such party for
the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED this,30 f�'day of 199
NO PUBLIC
MY commission expire7s,�:� 1E
WW%*
fib
S-TREET FILE
We, the applicant, Stephen R. Sullivan AIA, and owners,
William and Barbara Derry, of a proposed residence at Lot
10, Lorian Woods in Edmonds, WA, are fully aware of the
risks associated with developing in an area with potentially
unstable soils. We accept this responsibility and well
advise, in writing, any prospective, purchasers of the site,
or any prospective purchasers or residential leasees of
structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the
slide potential of the area.
Done this day of 199A.
OWNEI
By:
By:
APPLICAN
By:
Prpsifnt, The Sullivan Co. Inc.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)Ss:
COUNTY OF S�nhrrrnisl'� )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
1Lr�GtrcLrzt signed athis instrument and
acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for
the purposes mentioned in this instrument.
'fated this day of ► 199in
oZ
v 0 /(
NOTAR PUBLIC w
My commision expires. /
m
•
GREET FILE
The undersigned owners, William and Barbara Derry, fully
warrant all information submitted in support of this project
proposal, located at. Lorian Woods, Lot 10 in Edmonds, WA,
and do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Edmonds and its agents from any errors or omissions
located herein.
Done this day of 44z- i / , 199 Z .
OWNER(S)
By:
By.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
• )ss:
COUNTY OF w► )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence: tha.tr ,
r signed this instrument and acknow.]edge:: y,!�;c-:;'''=,;.
it to be (his/ r) free and voluntary act for the .purgoee'��.,,,;::' . r ;...
mentioned in this instrument.
a e• ::y . r,r
Dated this day of 199
Notary blic
My commission expires:
21
ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE STREET FILE
mosommilmommmummmmmmommommoomn
UNIT UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK ISSUE QTY COST TOTAL
I,>47jrx- 414ve_
2v
30
•
/l�td�� af�`.ry AtTAY05
3
2�ZJ
�'OYcdcE �l/�G t cs3
E�
/
(06 d
AGO
Qo�i,�„� /L"C.rs/� S�+w Pipes tCicL
G.�
Za
�3S
7Gm
8
lore/
7AI
27
/Z
3Z4
4,
ti�.mort Z'/
c,s
23
/4 376
,,o�
_Exhibit 6
TERRA .ASSOCIATES, InC,
• • • . • • AA Consultants 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) 881-5570 • FAX No. 869-9173
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 • Redmond, Washington 98073
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 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 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.
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 comers 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) 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 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 comer
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, comer
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 Project T-840-1
June 6, 1989 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 ofthe 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 1976 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
firm. 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
June 6, 1989
Project T-840-1
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 comer 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 central bench and 35 percent on the western slopes.. Because, major landslides that
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 comer 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
June 6, 1989
Project T-840-1
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 (313). 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 reportmap but has been adjusted to better fit local geology, to 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 (413) 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 (0). These latter
failures are most likely to occur on the steeper slopes to the north during unusually wet
winters. -
'Me 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 comers 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 estimates 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
June 6,1989
Project T-840-1 ,
Page 12
the bluff is low, as predicted by Figure 3. However, we believe these low prob calused
es
underestimate the frequency of small-scale landslide events in overlythough small in scale,
by weathering, erosion, and excessive ground water. Such events,
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 eto residences,
ces,indit icthis few
the
primary concern of home owners. The historical record
at horns 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
oof rland t e
he
probability of residential damage must be less t probability
occurrence. Unfortunately, the relationship betweelandslide o place. e and landslide
occurrence cannot easily be evaluated and vanes fromp
probability that a landslide will damage home
ndslll increase as ide will occur remaansrcons esity ant Dines
increases, even though the probability that the la
on
A qualitative risk assessment that incorporntial lots on thes the e
property.ations above is oIn our
Figure 6. We recommend its use for reside
opinion, the risk is lowest on the central bench, whichwe do Followingtthe argument Bve has ove, we
rienced
any landslide activity during the 40 years of record.
believe the probability of landslide damage likely is less as shown on Figure 5 an five* percent n 25 years, base
on a landslide occurrence probability of ten percent,
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, edebris and to avalanchesoff ribench,
due to the threat of small slides of overly wet slop
not
steeper slopes to the east. Slides in the debrison the lower slopes drainage improvementsarently sand to
occurred during the 40 years of record. Due to the recent
the additional drainage improvements that will be effected
d io ulcbrease rSlldes off the upper
home owners, the
frequency of occurrence of such slides is not expect occurringare with
slopes that might cause avalanches on the lower slop i s pip; re etla d to hindranby the
average return period of ten to 20 years. Due to their
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 e'1tPerience to be se%cted aseater lhome sitesse these areas
are comparatively inaccessible, they are unlikely
Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1
June 6, 1989 Page 13,
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
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
June 6,1989
Project T-840-1
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 15.57 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 Anderson
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 floors above not resent gradlaced es should be framed over crder homes on slopes awl
er
than about 15 degrees. Ground P
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.
'Foundations
In general, wood4ramed 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 bproperty 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 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
potentiatsmall-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 Slopes
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 ofa 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.
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 1A 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.
J
1
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.
Post -Construction Stability
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. .
Slope Vegetation
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 Project T-840-1
June 6,1989 Page 19
The following figures are included and complete this report:
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan
Figure 3 Landslide Hazards from Lowe Report 1979
Figure 4 Generalized Geologic Cross -Section
Figure 5 Landslide Hazard Map
Figure 6 Residential Risk Map
Figure 7 Legend for Test Pits and Borings
Figures 8 through 15 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,
TE ASSO TES, INC
Charles R. Lie
Engineering Geologist
Vi al
William Bailey
Project Manager
1
AnButail, PE
President
i 0
BUT
Q� w A SH y��
Q O
co
� W
O`�SFG
S.ONA% oo
,
plytill Z,6
r I/ !/ /1 /r/ / / /, „•// 1 ���} / ,/ // / f ! ' , \
.�Ii � Ili , '���•' • �:;a� ��� 1 � � , � �.:.
.90 V21 9ry11 .cti �'.1c:1 i ' /� . I !` / .. :�IIl ltl+f iIIt. 411�1
JIn 1• f8 � / / 77JJ J �- .l / I II•li � IIII``\r .�
' �Ila� 11"1 i � r 2• ��
,r/,1"0.p,°'iu" y...• �� ; I iIII�-.�IIII\ �,.j::
�1 ,.1 ,•1111'11, �11111, 1•I II (/
IIi� I•
111111 Iti I
'•••,.4 \ .1\II 111,11, gfx/g
p1 I
•-•lr��';•1 i'11i lli lh j1114 �' >? I I
; '.� ' III 1 uliiilil •1 , .. � I I' I1
IIII�ro—I 11'1 �� � S�y �'•.:1i .�•••.�I �1, II III I I 1
,�+1'.!�I�11111 I, tllll i� I IIf I� 1,// � ; �•�1Y/1�.."��,� ' 11
i 1111eIIt
rg1•''!1�1�� 1,,//,.'� F I l II J// / / `�.� \'I It' 1 / \
CM
1'•1y�1111 /'Il'11 I I l,• ,, i �,, �,!,,/, .•� 1 ., .,I ,�1\ :,,
l ; ;, / 11 � I I . J
1�.d41� 11 r'�'/"/'1�'il''' i � I�I I /y / / / "! /�� •` rrlmC 111,\ �1 `I�
iy Anal: i ���. � /ii� i� \' ! 1 t "� •� .�. afa / ' �� �
Ill / 'I•I/; r! ' ' / •�\\\ 1 I •��' 1. I d
1'llll''i 'i •••♦rI ♦// ♦ / iI I •,�)}� I 1 ./ r�e L. _..- •,4))� i
(1�1- 111'I •/;i /I/II/I� I . J;, � T I ' d / a
jI'/ill�lH�lin;ii�iL'iT/�'•��/� /� SI+.. / O � A � //lli
I,I;�,,,IIIUI I 17 i � i ♦ ♦'��. �;�4r ��f l4 .• A
, 11 l,,lll ,I�Ir 1111 I / ' 1 1 , I ♦ / / � � /
' •ii4Mi1'�i�'�ii i i! i � II '♦ Il I � `i,�: %: /� � t r,�F; A �'1�ItA•� !/:+
' /i % / 11 11111 � I II I / I ♦ i � • ' ♦'T � I � l i / r fft�5(/ • y, " / a
co
•±,%r .'f%�/YYI\• /��,.-a _;�yr�' \ n2! 31110MOOV3W 'N '�W11��
�hti "� i?i sa♦i �Igl J a a
Z ~ N
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS .1
\\ A25
4A Renewed movements in old slump material
2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material
3g Debris slides in materials that have not
previously 6iled9p O t ; + 1 -
Ile two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability , 3 02:•
of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period
i 35.
This figure copied from Figure 5 in
the final repots on the Meadowdale i
Area Landslide Hazards Investigation J " d •I;� ,I 1 �/ i
by Roger Lowe Associates Inc,1979 J tt 2�
2
is
31302
.r�4A�
ANDERSON PROPER
C:0\1�,_
Scale: 1 -300 J
� 1 �
4490`3B02 �l \
.� � � .' �-. ._ � li i - it `^ •
i'
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT
TERRA ANDERSON PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Figure 3
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 i
I
320
280
240
200
p�
F
a 160 Approximate present grand water table
B-1 (oNset)
? 7
120
City Piez
(offset)
i
r '
Slump debris from ancient landslide
80
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. failurs plane
Ground lost since
the ancient landslide Present ground surface
VASHON DRIFT
Spring OneEsperanoe Sands
/y.4 \\
VnyvQ
WHDBEY FORMATION
Pebbly sands and sits
Possible seepage zone
buried under colluvium
Coiluvium with buried trees
(avalanche 8 slide debris)
TERRA U1:Nt�`"t_t�t, ` MULU%;
ANDERSONF
ASSOCIATES MEADOWDAILE BEA(
loceotechnical
Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/1
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS
3A Slumps in inaterials 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 Survey by Group Four, Inc Job No 88-8020
Scale: 1'- eo,
.i.i�s.aL+aw
LOT 4:��. � � 3�� � ��,•. '
TERRA
Noceotechnical
ASSOCIATES
Consultants
LANDSLIDE
ANDERSON
MEADOWDALE B
proj. W.840-I Date 3/
—cr It 0
x co
IL
z III l�s' 'I' :/
V) uj
�om 2
13 UJI
w z
co 0 -4
w z
CL
ri
47
LU
0
< u
-7,57;5
-.:Xt
it < o
LL
1410W 1
co -IL4
Y,;p�.:''if�''"'Iln�piA' h' } e � 1 1 `I Js.. � `•\ '\1 � I III
I'll,, till,
Qv
w\V. iI
N.
1/ V
itrL' W A cd A CC
ev
2 22
CIO 1:4
q
in
0
co
CD
31VOMOOY3V4 N
ZO
Its 0 z
0 0
Cg
03
cqs LL
16. CL
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
LETTER
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
GRAPH.
SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIO
Clean
GW
IPIGRAVELS
:.o
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures,
J
Gravels
o.'' :
"
little or no fines.
GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures.
�
O
More than 50% of
(less than
0
m
coarse fraction
5% fines).
little or no fines.
Gravels
GM
Silty gravels, ravel -sand -silt mixtures,
C) °'
is larger than
w
z
H
y
No. 4 sieve.
with tines.
non -plastic fines.
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures.
<
E >
plastic fines.
CC
0
0
oo
SANDS
Clean
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
Sands
little or no tines.
f° N
More than 50% of.
(less than
SP
Poorly -graded sands or oravelly sands,
r z
5% tines).
.
little or no fines. .
Q
d C
coarse fraction
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures;
CSands
:
is smaller than
non -plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve.
with fines.
Sc
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures,
Plastic fines.
J
SILTS AND CLAYS
ML
Is, silts and very fine sands, rock flour,
silt or claye fine sands or clayey silts with
Cf)o
o
Liquid limit is less than 50°,6.
CL
Inorganic clays of Iow to. medium plasticity,
ravetly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean
Q
L11
E N
o
'
OL
Organic silts and organic clays of low
z
o Z
�i��i
plasticity.
CC CO
w N
SILTS AND CLAYS
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceou's
'sandy
!�
fine or silty soils, elastic.
V
�, >
Liquid limit is greater than 50%.
CH
.
Inorganic clays of high plasticity; fat clays.
111
z
y
OH
i
i i
Organic clays of medium to high plasticry,
'organic,
Lt:
i
i i
sots.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PTA
�-
Peat and other highly organic soils.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS-
I
2" OUTER DIAMETER
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
_._......
C TORVANE READING,-tsf
R
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
Q_
WATER LEVEL (DATE)
LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
PI PLASTIC INDEX
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
TERRA
LEGEND FOR BORING & TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. & l
Date 3/89
Figure 7
Geotechnical Consultants
BORING NO.
I
Logged By CRL
Date 2/14/89
ELEV.
1421
Graph
CS
Soil Description
Depth
Sample
Blows
jam).
Qu. tsf
Ft.
Ivy ground cover, 18" duff & topsoil
SSp
Grey fine SAND, some silt
5
=
8
4
sm
Grey silty fine to medium SAND with
10
_
11
15
silt zones, some orange stain
Same, less silt.
15
=
3
22
ml
Grey non -plastic SILT
20
I
14
35
3/15/89 --
sm
Grey silty fine SAND
25
=
8
32
ml
Grey clayey SILT with thin sand lenses
30
Z
21
33
2.0 to
4.5+
ml/
Mixed grey SILT et silty fine SAND
35
9
29
Same
40
I
24
25
ml
cl
Grey clayey SILT
45
=
10
33
2.5 to 3.5
Boring terminated at depth 50 feet
Ground water observation well installed
J
BORING LOG
TERRA
ANDERSON PROPERTY
�....- ASSOCIATES
MEADOWDALE BEACH
EDMONDS
•
Proj. No. 840-1
Date 3/89
1 Figure 8
Geotechnical Consultants
IL
i
BORING NO. 2
Logged By CRL
Date 2/16/89 ELEV. 1201
Graph
CS
CS
Soil Description
Depth
(ft.)
Sample
Blows
(%°�0)
Qu tsf
Ft.
Concrete slab
ml/
Grey silty fine SAND and clayey SILT,
=
4
26
sm
some orange stain
5
Grey silty fine SAND with clay
5
33
10
3/15/89
Same, with some organics
=
5
24
15
Same, with hard clay chunks & wood
=
13
46
20
sm
Grey silty fine to medium SAND
=
10
19
25
No recovery
=
21
30
ml
Grey sandy SILT
=
12
31
35
Grey SILT
=
22
31
40
ml/
cl
Grey clayey SILT with sandy zones
Z
17
37
2.5
45
Same-
I
31
24
31.5
50
ch
Grey CLAY
=
24
38
3.5
55
Same'
=
25
36
2.5
60
Grey CLAY, thin bedding
=
35
35
4.5
65
t
CH
Same LL=75; PI=4
=
95/9"
23
4.5+
BORING LOG
TERRA
ANDERSON PROPERnr
- ASSOCIATES
MEADOWDALE MACH EDMOWS
-
Proj. No. 840-1
Date 3/89
Figure 9
Geotechnical Consultants
Logged By CRL
Date 2/14/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
.15
20
TEST PIT NO. I
Soil Description
Elev. 141±
W
N
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 182 feet
tto ground water observed
.�° TERRA
R
ASSOCIATES
W
.
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 Figure 10
Logged By' CRL
Date 2/14/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. 2
Soil Description
Elev. ' 1471
W
N
9" duff and topsoil
Mixed .brown and grey sand, silt and clay
cl
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
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 jFigure 11
Logged By CRL
Date 2/15/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
10
1s
20
TEST -.PIT NO. 3
Soil Description
Elev. 1391
W
N
12" duff and.topsoil
sm
Brown silty fine SAND._.
21
ml
Grey brown non -plastic SILT
26
Tan clayey SILT, chunks of hard clay
41
qu=2.0
to 4.Ots
sm
Brown silty fine to medium SAND
15
cl
Grey CLAY
34
qu=4.Otsf
Test pit completed at depth 19 feet
No brouhd water observed
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-1 I Date 3/89 1 Figure 12
i
Logged By CRL
Date 2/15/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. 4
15A±
Elev.
W
Soil Description 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
TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA ANDERSON PROPERTY
.. AA ASSOCIATES, MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3189 Figure 13
Logged By CRL
Date 2/15/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. 5
Soil. Description
Elev. 137±
W
N
12" duff and topsoil
27
sm
Grey silty SAND 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 Date 3/89 Figure 14
Logged By CRL
Date 2/15/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. 6
Soil Description
Elev. '142±
W
N
12" topsoil
35
sm
Grey silty fine SAND with zones of soft
clay and chunks of hard clay, loose
33
c
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 I Date 3/89 1 Figure 15
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
STREET FILE
Project T4840-5
January 22,1992
Stephen R. Sullivan AIA
The Sullivan Company
7215175th Street SW
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Derry Residence
Lot 10, Lorian Woods
Edmonds, Washington
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T48 1
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57
Lorian Woods Approved Construction Plans
Sheets 1 thru 6, by Dowl Engineers
Preliminary Plans for Derry Residence
by The Sullivan Company
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We understand the Derry residence will be constructed on Lot 10 south of the existing Anderson
residence, as shown on Sheet 2 of Dowl's Lorian Woods drawings. The stability of this property was
discussed in the referenced geotechnical report. In our opinion, the probability of earth movement
on this lot within a period of 25 years most likely is less than ten percent and the lot therefore is
suitable for residential construction. This risk of earth movement will be further reduced by
improvements to subsurface drainage afforded by the residence's foundation drains, and by removing
from the lot a weight of spoil that exceeds the weight of the residence.
The preliminary plans we have examined are consistent with the intent of the referenced
geotechnical report and are therefore acceptable. In our opinion, 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 residence's foundations are constructed and backfilled, the
potential for soil movement should decrease, for the reasons noted above.
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The Sullivan Company Project T-840-5
January 22,1992 Page 2
The preliminary plans indicate ground floors at Elevation 99 feet, which is below present grades on
the site, except at the southwest corner. As explained in the referenced geotechnical report, the soil
at Lorian Woods is landslide debris, which may provide relatively poor bearing conditions for
conventional footings. To explore subsurface conditions on Lot 10, we excavated three test pits to
elevations a few feet below the proposed footing bearing grade. Figure 1 shows the approximate test
pit locations and the residence's ground floor footprint. Logs of the test pits are reported on Table
A -
The test pits encountered both silty and sandy landslide debris, as expected. No free groundwater or
excessive organic material was observed in the pits. Caving of the pit walls did not occur during the
brief period the pits were open.
Based on the test pits, it, appears that conditions generally satisfactory for conventional spread
foundations will be exposed on the bottom of the proposed excavation. However, bearing conditions
worse than those observed in the test pits may be present at locations not explored, or may result
from rainfall or from adverse groundwater conditions that may be present at the time the excavation
is made. Bearing conditions are most likely to be satisfactory if the excavation is opened during the
dry summer season. In any case, bearing conditions should be examined before footing forms are
constructed. Unsuitable materials, if present, should be removed to firm ground and the
overexcavations backfilled with quarry spalls or washed gravel, or with compacted pit -run gravel.
Alternatively, pin piles of two -inch -diameter steel pipe driven with a jackhammer could be used, if
needed, to compensate for unsatisfactory bearing conditions:
To reduce the risk of foundation settlements due to possible uneven bearing conditions, we
recommend proportioning footings for a maximum bearing stress of 1200 pounds per square foot and
using extra steel reinforcement in the footings and the foundation walls. In addition, we recommend
combining any interior footings into strips and connecting them to nearby foundation wall footings.
The east perimeter foundation walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid weight of 50 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf), plus a uniform stress of 100 pounds per square foot. For other walls that
support lateral soil stress, the 50-pcf equivalent fluid weight can be reduced to 40 pcf. Where the
ground floor is below outside final grades, perforated drainpipe and free -draining backfill should be
installed outside the basement walls and connected to the storm water catch basin near the southwest
corner of the lot.
In order to construct the lower ground floor at Elev 99, a cut to depths about ten feet below present
grades must be made for the east foundation wall. In our opinion, a cut this deep is acceptable on
Lot 10 because the backslope east of the excavation rises only a short distance to level ground.
There is virtually no risk that the excavation might endanger either the Lorian Woods driveway and
utilities or the slopes east of the driveway.
Nevertheless, care should be taken in making this excavation. Because the landslide debris is loose,
it may stand only briefly on steep slopes. We recommend trimming temporary slopes more than
about four feet high at approximately 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. If groundwater is encountered,
flatter slopes may be required. The water level in the observation well we installed in Test Pit 2
should be read before the excavation is opened. Excavation slopes will be most stable if the
groundwater level is below the proposed bearing grade, as it is at the present time.
The Sullivan Company
January 22,1992
1
Project T-840-5
Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to review your preliminary plans. We expect the City will require that
our firm review the construction plans submitted for permit. We will be pleased to provide this
service after the plans are prepared. In addition, the City likely will require that a completed
Environmental Checklist be included with the submittal package. The checklist can be filled out by
yourself and the Derrys. Please call if you have any questions conceming the checklist's few
geotechnical questions.
Sincerely,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC
�1 `1 Mrr•�_ 7�AM�
William Bailey
Project Manager
WB/mp
enc: Figure 1
Table A
cc: Bill Derry
1
1
1
1
1
k
_._
TP
y;
TP-3 -
I
Approx Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet N (C
Notes: 1) Photocopied from Preliminary Plans by The Sullivan Company, undated
2) For lot location, see Sheet 2 of Lorian Woods plans by Dowl Engineers, File No. 201-50
TERRA TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
DERRY RESIDENCE
ASSOCIATES LOT 10, LORIAN WOODS
` Geotechnical Consultants Proi. No. 840-5 1 Date 1 /92 Figure
TABLE A
LOGS OF TEST PITS
Test Pit No. 1
Depth, ft Description
0-1.5 Slash and topsoil.
1.5-4 Brown silty fine sand, wet and loose.
4-13 Fractured silts on uphill side of pit, brown
silty fine sand on downhill side of pit.
Some light caving, no seepage.
Test Pit No. 2
Depth, ft
Description
0-1
Topsoil and slash.
1-8
Stiff brownish gray silt. qu=1.5 to 2.0 tsf.
8-9
Brown silty fine sand.
9-13
Tan -gray mixture of sand, silt and pebbles.
qu=1.5 to 2.0 tsf. Becomes tan -gray clayey
silt with hard chunks, wet. qu=1.5 to 2.5 tsf.
No seepage, no caving. Groundwater observation
well installed
Test Pit No. 3
Depth, ft Description
0-10.5 Gray -tan silty clay, wet, with hard chunks.
qu=1.5 to 3.5 tsf.
No seepage, no caving.
Derry Residence
Project T-840-5
I
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Project T-840-5
April 29, 1992
Stephen R. Sullivan AIA
The Sullivan Company
18596 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Derry Residence, Lorian Woods Lot 10, Edmonds
Geotechnical Engineer's Declaration
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T-840-1
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57
Letter Report, Project T-840-5, January 22,1992
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have examined the construction drawings for the Derry residence and the environmental checklist,
which we understand are those that will be submitted for permit. In our judgment, the final plans are
consistent with the recommendations in the referenced geotechnical report and letter. In addition, we have
examined the earth section of the environmental checklist and take no exceptions to the answers provided.
The geotechnical report discusses landslide hazards at the Lorian Woods development. In summary, in our
opinion the probability of earth movement on Lot 10 within a period of 25 years most likely is less than ten
percent. The lot therefore is suitable for residential construction, as provided by Ordinance 2661. 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. Some mitigation of the landslide risk will be afforded by the
residence's foundation drains, which should improve subsurface drainage, and by the basement excavation,
which will remove a weight of spoil greater than the weight of the residence.
This residence will be constructed in an area of known landslide hazards. The risk of landslide cannot be
eliminated. Property owners assume aU residual risks. The geotechnical recommendations and declarations
associated with the project do not provide a warranty, either expressed or implied, against loss or damage to
persons or property.
We appreciate the opportunity to examine these documents. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC
Wlllia06§,a!1 •:```.
,.Anil . ;RE::..•:,t.. ;,.'' . ;:,.>
Pieside�it
try.�.EXPIRES 12/09/93
cc.
.tom-
%t3525:W1(lows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777
IF
,e!o77'ftftft���
Joe
1040
vie_---- r--- --- ''-' _
44,
1 % t -ITS
lAl __.
A- -CM-776
IOZ,Ofl
r-1-�
lot; q4
�Io
V
ID
FP
-q- -
"Al L ot CPO
� / V L,� I"1 I ICI U Iz.
� -� '` .,�._
Ar
�= �I
-TOP Or. 4-4-P
VA LNve
ALT
IE . Col.0000/
Y
d, J,
3
ij
Project: DERRY RESIDENCE- -
Job No. 61-36�;,. April 16,1992' By: SSL
S T R 1_1 C T Ll R A L NOT
ca,::)r_� C-C
-a
A. G F N E R A L
The following notes and are not Intended to supersede
structural are su pplemenl�ry
the specifications and/or details shd wn on the drawings.
b. COD gi& STANDARDS,
�5
Uniform Building Code (U.B.C)i 1988 edItlo n.
A Cl Cl Sp�-15'
b
C.- E S b iiiii L-0 A D S,
Roof (snow 25 Livia Load
P
U
40 v.6 Load
I Floors,., LI
Stair's & Exils, 100 -Live Load
'Wind P�Pff Hi "0"
Speed C. 80 Exp.
Sel mlozond 3
b F 0 ti-N b A'T ION D A T A:
Soil bearing Information per Terra Amc-,. Inc. Report No. T� -840-5.
2.. Extend till footings down to undisturbed sell bf.the specified strength with a
mlnlmurin of V-6" below adjacent grade.
Cit..
3 Center -all footings on columns and walls above unless specifically dimensioned
4 Compacted fill to be %Wl graded and granular with not more than 5% passing a.
200 Move. Pldce In 84nch loose lifts and compact toi 95% Modified AASHO density at
A
Fliii��
optl' urn moisture content.,�
M
R E I N F. Q N c R r= E.
1; Concrete ofJollowing 28 -day btreogth:
Alk-1 F
5 sac cernbritIcyd (min.'2.000 pal): mdx. 6 gal. water/sack for fodndationsi slabs on
k
d d footings, except precast wall panels.
gra a an
MOAVim size aggrdg6to 1 -1/2"i Maximum slump 4%
rr
Add aster Builders Poizollth per mfr'd recommendations to all concrete 6xcept'i
Q H MNTF-t
footings
Concrete foVbxt6ri6r' W"aft and slabs exposed 'to. detrimental che�ilcals to be air.
entrained (5% dir)..
2_', ', Reinforcing stool ASTM A-61 6: grade 60 for #5 and larger, bars, grade 40 fdi
'11 h
.
Ap.
other sizes.
I I tj I An fnr 11fornnarojitra �iani flos istirrune dnrl Anwate
Detafl, fabricate and place In accordance with thd latest edition of X0.1. "Manual of 47,
:Standard Practice".
4
Submit shdpdr wings
for opl�.rovaii prior to: fabrication.
Ii<y
. o I
3. Concrete cover on reinforcind steel (clear dimentions):':
Vertical faces,expoged. to earth or.weather ..... 2".
Bottom of footings .............
3
sla -on grac .........
b lo (frorn top) 1-1/2"
Lop main reinfordement 42-bar dl6ftnoters minimum.
4 Lop till field �Ilces 24 dlai With minim.urn of 12"
Bond oUtd fo ting bars 12 Inches or use corner bars at all corners and wa
41EEAT IZ
Intersb6tIonto
I nilhuoUi #5 bats In top, of foundation walls and In footings.
6 Prov do two co
6owbifoundatloh walls to footinq with #Sxl'-6" long @ 24" o.c.
HIG;,H. t-EOF-16',
Embed 6. IrAdfooting. No shearkeys required.
6. Rolnfor60 6tound Wall 6nd slab openings with aides of 12'; or greater with two 45
�:l bars extefidlhg 24 Inches beyond. corners on 6.11 four sldbs. Provide one extra #5
diagonal bari 4'.V long at each.corhdr.
P�Z. 7
17�
7, Slab on grade:, .
Roll 6nd moisten tuborade boior� pout. Whbro vapor b War required, Install under 2 -
I,e APPROVED BY PLANNING 166h6a of clbdn coarse, sand.
r Insi6i
86Wcut btatk dbntrol joints Within 24 hoUrd bt pour 6 1 21p-Stdp. 1-66ato at coldmd.:"
Maximum s acing:, 12'-0" for 4-Inch, non-relnfotced slabs, 40'-0" foii slabs with,.'
bUoportbd j2x12- 2.BRW2.8 wire mesh.,
Ion of materials to be prevent6
Vlbtgtd'bll cohbrpte� Sbgr6gat d.
9" P1966 no fill agdInst foundation or basement walls until floors are In place, or
n' adequately th r-r= I L
�A `Wds have bee or6d to resid lateral earth pressure and concrete has
attained Its.fdII alto
F R
M B P iR A Kti I kna
PW
All lumber to be grvided per Book No". 16 of th West Coast Lumber Inspectio
Kilkift n
ZO. "i e Bureau:
a.
SE. wide beam
PA e7
141: 1`1j.2 t6rijolstq, ra46" -I'A framing, platesi bracing and 4
Hr No.1 for post --d �-'4 b-inmi.
44,�
SETBACKS" HF 'Stud' f,,r 2"x4" s'uds.
6 '11— 1� the V.F. P.A. !'National Design Specification' as
2., Corrp:y with latl%
RME
LOTCOVE
mo led bythl 'J ' C, 11rber requirements.
BUILDING HEIGHT
1'rn6w, b, kl;n d-led.
3.
At' 2 Inch I
SIDEWALKS— 4-� Jr [at;- anl rafters t) *,avo'2" thick solid blocking at supports.
-me -With"10d-nails @ 12"'o.c. sta-g-gered.
5. SplkG all laminated mbersioUet�u
+ STREET'DEDICATION 4zt�7
lions at supports drily.
Ir2millillairIkKI Splice lamina
6. LdmInatd,tWoJU hde'
4,
vg
11,helght studs to.6rippleb b r headerb and block solid to
bedrl' %"lot �,M
Provide but W3'16hers for all bolts bearing on wood.
tff U
8. All halls shal be common wire nails.
W -OAASTATEMENT
ET
'411f I-VY E�MENT
HOUSE STAT
GUEST 9. Glue -laminated timbers, Douglas Fir, A.I.T.C.-gimdl�§:
Combination 24F-V4 for simple spans; 24F-V8.for cantileve condition
_Dry %
FL66D AREA ip
?5-� of Use.
OTHER
AtchilecturW Appearance grade whBi
<67k-0 r/`!e re exposed to view.
Fabricating plant A.I.T.C. Inspected. Wrap Individual m embers. �n
Submit shopdrawings for review prior to fabrication. e, :,ijA!j t 1� �W;
j
10. Plywood:
Roof sheathing to be 1 �/32� C-D INT-APA. plywood with exterior blue, P. 1.. 24/0 (Use r
5-ply for panelized roofs). Nailing 8d @ 6", o.c. at panel edges, 2" o.c. at
Iniormedlate sUoportii. All
c-b INT-'APA pl ood with 6xierlor glue, P.I. 48/24. blue
Subflooring to be 314", T&
YW
and nail with ib
q @ 6' b.c. at panel edges 10d @ 10" 6.c. at Intermediate supports.'
Odentdd strand board of equal strength may be substituted fo? plywood. Provide space
between bottorn choidt and perpendicular non -bearing Walls and connect with Simpson
91
s STC each bldo;
-q,
11. Pre-tabridated'members to. be designed by 6 Washington State licensed
'14
structural ofiglneee and In accordance With requirements shown. Submit complete
shopdrawings With engineer's seal for rbviow prior to fabrIcd1lon.
STRIJOTORAL STEEL,
4f
All steel except tubing: ASTM A-36.
Tubular section: ASTM A500' Grade B.
All bolts: ASTM A-307.
:ation, erection and detailing In
2. All fabric accordance with the latest edition of
'Manual of Steel Construction* of the A:merlcan Institute of Steel Construction.
'5 1�
3. All welding by WASO certified welders In accordance with "Welding Handbook' I allV
by the American Welding Society.
4. . All welds to be 3/16" minimum continuo
Us fillet Welds Using ASW A5, E70XX
electrodes.
li,41 0211 �,M
"47. 5. Field burning of hole; Is not allow' d Without Inspection by engineer.
6. Provide washers on bolted connections. t ,
7. Ali steel not embedded In concrete
or masonry to receive one shop coat of an
ap ved primer paint; Apply two coats of heavy asphaltic paint to all steel exposed to
eapro
rth.
8. Submit complete shopdrawings for review prior to fabricati'
Is — on.
ZONE,
H.' M iscr=LLANEQUq,
SETBACKS:
Contractor to verify all dimensions In.the field.
FRONT 4 2, Provide temporary bracing as required Until all permanent connections and
Ings have been Installed.
SIDE
stiffen
3.: Verify size and location of all openings In floor, roof and w
ails with mechanical
and electrical Work.
:REAR -----------------
.,I e
4.. Prd-fabiilcated Items to be handled an,� Iftstalled per mfr's recommendations
A,
OTHER
HEIGHT
'Pr—T^— Or H U M, W 15,
DF
`b0 I L -AIZ1"64 1 I'ZOO
y Cl
r
T
ING"DEF"AR-rMENT
BUILD
WORK,
aAwnA WILL 5E-
69 jjyt:>5. or
Z 6, Z-0 �7_ Mgt
ADDRESS rA1?11r or_� 114141�1' 1PR0jF1_-(1T-
OWNER
rl�f FL011 �10i�t Fr,- W V A- P PE t W/ IZ: 1.0420t.;Ik, ri 0 0
":4
APPRO.V
ED DAT i1A WU4 100 T, 14 0
P
BLDG, OFFICIAL
ALL' WILI.,., f�e �Oe-ATr,-Q 10 C4t�t')IT1014IB-P -$PAr..5
PERMI'T N B E R
A'
"�TA?LC-I�p Two -Mg 45`�C_. INA
�1/4 PTu ilour- ewE
M _r 19,1611
Axel( 4/40r/114�5/7mf leo 4/1, It A;
i:A
Jo
lee,
IkF.CE
.;j`
ell'
wl
.44'
OUNTER
PERMIT 0
C. ITY;, -COPY
A
'w
f
—T
04A A 11-4
-�-.)T A T I ---::)T I 0's
F=� 11114 PAT 10 fi�- e',OC= M r- t,-I.T
PI -A t--A a ppa F2_
Frp-A t-1 I ca F L--AFi
I W C41:11.D 5;o..
-609. FI-A
I' C-16T Il..;__ I eq �515
F:P-A jliil�-j I f-,Jdo I -A
e .1991
-5
Iiiiil'�, 1Z r-VA7 I Of -A S f5L]Ili-r�*,10
IS.
.5 -7
t�)e5TAII-s' 7YP, WAI-�L .
TEF;Z- IORL Dcx;� IZ-. 114 L;7
44)-7 616
W I F-4 C>c�� 6e-H I= t-,-)u Iii- es
7P
-40AL. 1"�Aq
10
HAIlil-I FL-bO P__ ECT P4 C�\ PI -AO 121ZIVeWAT e
3074 '61f
U r-Y�15 12- Fl�_OC�)P-- E=-Il�r-T1P_IC1-\L. r::1-A t4
eF
-r=� r--A F__ QA l...—L—
PC) L
A-r TACH E�-1 T _rm
Hr-_Ir1ZPH_r
CAI. LA I-A-FI OW
Z
Olkl-t A .10+qi 6'
Z
b
fE.; 102—, 0
a
:4,
;j q.
�,It,, ef" :t
7,
'j"
n
I;0 �4. i,
j1444��' A i�)1.1,7"�,
1". ,,)1 Tlt�j�,j)".t�#;,;�
if I ,
AN
V lkll� i
Atli.
y k.."j
7x I,
tf"56% M
in 11 vit'5�;
A.
10i
r0;
I it %1� I � �;' 4, - --.I
V-1, It
tik,
2l.1 �tt
t(
till
4i,. �:f 0
Fo
Y�l 14 fit
'e,
1�114 Al
t!" It
f, ei.�; it Alt�
A7i V"A,- I
"A
X.
12,
�,7
T�
�'eL�*j,k If
I, A
4,
1,41 i";4�,ticg
V
A i" 3"'Q'PT
I -T i.c, r, 067
4�A n A"If" 1; -'Nf,I
CID'
OD,
I.Y
i_lfil- � "...
L 5
.7 U��AL 0Q,
.11 k A to
W
4. Uj
-7
4
4, A A
"37r,ll -At
LdT I..:
T
I'A'
U
FW
'C
I14
ACTu4_ 12-9 a
41
A
".Low.
(j l00'
fit, I— -,y
f
'14 7
7
75 7-
l. L
-7
(D.
it-1 0
Af
t4
-T(?
itP "�M
P.
f k V)
YAMC:� T-0 C)F�a-'
-X:r Tf
4T
4
WT
(3A,)
VAL
40
--4
-top
TZ
P
cr 0
'oo
IA
R E C S IV E� D
r
'1992
JUL1 0
LA 0 Olt 5 r
NIT
P
T.
4 1
A L C. -
C) r M- AA 1�111'. AR. SA" .1
-
:x
Ii,
:73,
If
g
V.
_�F
4
77
4
9
712-
v.
4
A;,FzT
I5s
�'A
V1
N
v*�;
v.
f4f.
P C
d",
OF
I- T.,
"j.
Ile 1^ 1 lil',I, �t.
j.
A
ei.
IYt
z6-o%L
i/ ZV �Z � o� 9/ 41YVYY5