16121 74TH PL W.PDF111111111111
5953
16121 74TH PL W
�sZ11•4
ADDRESS: / k/I/=��`r
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: l/(/ �Yc � oDq mEelv
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): 95 D Z-6L¢
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
CRITICAL AREAS :017' L.64 DETERMINATION: Yconditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: �V ,1JYT I NZA Z
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 5' (� 115 : �11241e 3
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER): 2-003r493 i1
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: 210
SHORT PLAT FILE: / X✓ /-919 LOT: BLOCK: /--�/U�/✓,V �G
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: '
SOILS REPORT DA
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED' :
OTHER: All meWAY v ` &A
a// low /L ('O/tl &e 7 if
L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
STREE10FILE RECEIVED!
F E B 1 g 1993
.PERMIT COUNTER
. ,•(`b 1 4'AriY. .. . � Nwl.wmual •1vnY�olno ,w,l a.ravw.• .. / Zr,
uL'7
� 1M :.>1 PA',rr Ill.p^ 11II IiI `jtl�ll i�J `L' 1"•IM` LN`.tiW.
ev'Krlcc
71
I I. .y p.
! 1�• ' II� -�.r «._I�._. •II'—'-"' fl' ti.Yl�`�• 1 ''1+(Yy. �'1
a�u ..a � ue,s aan.a se.mlM1y cu+a ttvr.) L .ewl>! �temuA
+c`
'� �''o', .. 'e Knc•kV'-9'MAt:�iV. tdlt TG LE. ' - -t�reY Lc�torA oY `/ACQu..'/
M Y!.
�. v ( •Ili � -��I,o .4-i. +UJmi _ ,•. � � ' �; 'Men r, r. I 7
_ . '[1" Mtrl. 1111ti.Jle:•,- HIeE I'RN +trxe/GYr� �*+rol"- }"lLxy T)-_-mCF C-Ls'J. 1
;. mt •r,,,,,� .-j. it , , NA,
Ar1P �y,4^fhlN 'I rMKi.'Atl Ain.tYr11ff10lJ Ch"tL'ti.N t
I��hl\fi tI 1•VeT•�IL 'tw ^t"'N'o'u-w to l,HFM- JAl1C1 Y l'.t W.I. llln t r'
t. �. .IU YUV V,IAWAi Clalern.'1 IV.p KJllflCry 1Y rAI I., C.lA•A''}MI
i II t 4,.• , 'Yltlrl.'ra-JtiIAJ'w •CIIU fy 11A+�JY (Y'.r„It, A-D 'Ali+INL1Gk1LY'•kA14hA1Nlla
k.� .. (i k4i!] t2»MAX'' IIW to 1 uvf1L wkra. A'UrrWAP1.r ne, o,nM.eltlU bJ<. 1.011'/rfV•l. TL<,•olJ, tATW
' t, IN IZL 1 : ¢M1DaOd' 11�
". - `•II I r vt I 'trt '"UGbp
r r (altw e�'�Rdgk1X Pr 111.41'
I�:WIuL`t't U,IStA`-
il>
� t ,
}-, ,. , � ' CJ � // tcp al. et'�trr°vutet I ` + k., "-•-�.. � I
� � � 'C�i1 .�j/ kYII1M 0(�Ip4UCYi 411141.. `f .,��\ Y `� „•• , .
tl ,' • . 1 i f -= �; t :1 / 1 Cnaft t tnNui Nth-,.-r-... �� .� •. , _
r,
till•� I t`f`iv.r, % 1upb, 41A14 G�YI6 ...-. .._ -1." ��•_ , .,.
zf
wtfL tu1K C IY't o WA10
y.w'.)) 71'• rI I � /' I� ` I •' -- I �� - I t �1'" �' �, t...�� '� "+^I. -.1 _..
r +li
�i/t f ` r ` ��, I' ; InrvJm `.`..W'..."'.u,a-_..' r /��/�v.r, f I t ' •:.lu
�- 1,1 .� , �' 1 r Il'iA'W l�ldt%// , ` 111 ,.•/r) �, ,� Jr/.j1 I t I'c� ,
_' f )'' ; 1A��1`Rut1+IJ11U 41 1 / l! .. •, •/� -\ 1'T" 0. • ��
t,, - 'yJv � W:t1�Y`• !\ 1 tl� � i ur. `l yJ 'r� � I r .. '!t W *�'.-.'. � �:
->1
� m �..��'�F,iat�• � t t � r t �'� •I1t' � r , � j.�pt'o�plP. 1
y� v
1p r �y !.:•J..- u " .-T4 r(' wme. Its
-fir.;:..-^"•••a ... g(,ISS 41lrat..S' Ct .� •PAO++ 44E 1 91 ° 1 \ h.. it}iYi*. tIY711 fgV(+ltr I 1 yR' 1
� 1 �r 9w,ts n mJo � 1 pautWb
Wlllb IUeI
' "Ii9.q.uk uI, ru„ Ir 1 fitiw rr 1 �f �' h41 �tt,t' ' .p 1 tN I 1 Iti.nl; Y extct
RUA
g@1�.,
.: I, �'(' F' .`tAoll•1L._. :`•=\ , $ I 4"'\ I • 1 • YAFL'+CAI J r 1 y J /
r � � f ' f 1 r ,tyc----.-_— =_--._ �^I-1_-'r �aACY`.�'nttul='nGh'U'tt:' • IAID ..
�LknW
' >` .'IrJ�
s tA.9�n �r /• .....__. ly L U6 }, .:64r�91 iio AWl4wkto q
_'� rr � tt _'n ! fi C ��,� '�`-•+�—+'r � .., �""'IIPfM4�RRN�uI itFll �, .. r q _ � ,
¢� t•. , .+v J'.• r, IW+11S t til 1'tG • •�'' - �kxtNI tl..... U'vIQ"{ 4I1t7 J AUF.AV�}' eYlmr�v » . I ' 1 i b
t " �.�+Ib'tor,Il+,aP'•' BtE 6'sp.P 0.G6Y :'rt00'1{ ho',
Iti»" •:i IutrAtitu WI . L.' vtlYl;t, jfe6t. `'�:'-.;-'---�1 vw.•I�81
roinwe I�aAa ub) ut,10 ) oln, n.i
�jpthr�,(SO "W .uU4') KAPL I.�It41,7' 1 .I�y �•i. GvR'.. 11°.
('C�ht��6AALGi"rhW4`i ��' 1'rliltutllVlr � r 1 ' }:1 1 }. ��! V ( . 1 �1t 1 tr ��'� ! f• 11 : � I
! �LSi liR 'dAtpufAOAd 'Fu ^ 1: I ( l � 1„ 1 1 r I I
�` 1 � I � � I` '� 11 r Yq-J U`!If I E ���il,•. ..�
&�,-Us�.x:.:..� I�w �^ ,•: 1.
I' ' CuP.io. 'f n�G6 'trr ek Ktfntou� �L' W. jot; n' }
h' .' .- .. 1 .'M1+• .s:E t: ,,.y' .......a J.+a_ .r ... Pr. - r q..p.yM.___
RECEIVED
StIl
CITY OF EDMONPA�I � 1993 TSIDE
- C WORKS DEP
890 19
Address of Construction:
PL- f
4EET FILE
SEWER PERMIT
PERMIT No v 5 10
Property Legal Description (Include all easements): L 1^J 1 C—) t k-) Vd CJGsJ "7
Owner and/or Contractor:
State License No. 6-,,Ln'Z0 C
�"�
(3\777 Building Permit No.
XSingle Family
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units )
❑ Commercial
❑ Public
dYNNW�®— N
Invasion into City Right-of-Way:P', No ❑ Yes
RW Construction Permit No.
Cross other Private Property: No ❑ Yes
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
I certify'Tl5at I have read and shall comply with all city requirements
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
ZZ
Date
* CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
I OFFICE "USE "ONLY
* FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-3202, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Permit Fee: Issued By
ITrunk Charge: Date Issued:
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.:
Lid No.:
Partial Inspection:
Comments
Date Initial
Reason Rejected: 9 Date —Initial —
p
Final Inspection Approved: Date 3 Initial f)orkp� of SfoE Ser �P� /nvser1__d by
�yl� G�l�rr'Sw�pnJ —SG� /,�S6arLT �ra,,ih
** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE **
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector ` Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3/90
W
P4
N
c
0
E
M
W
0
CV
a�
NOTICE: NO WARRANTY OF ACCURACY The Information shown on the
attached map was compiled for use by the City of Edmc,,:,"-, i;;, cr^-'off 3-s
ano consultants. The City of Ed imids die; not warrant the of
anything set forth on the map. kf',b , or entity requc- :.- a c':Ay
shcu!d conduct an (ndepondont Irrrr. °?D r;;::• !ng the (ntar�tr�;c,, c:;c,;,� on
the map, Including, but not Li* IA' I;_u Pram locaf"on of any stub
shova. Such sewer stubs may gjs° and mayor m--;r nct.vjst at
tho locatioii shown, Nelther tho Cfi i e E&Uids nor Its errp!oyees or
of cc, s sh�l be liable for the in :a,. �a �? f' :. ., ncr for any oral
re,rasen.ahoa provided based sari' r :
d
c�
r
o F
a
e1 A
W
Cr
LO
b
O
0
a
TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
I`COPY
February 27, 2003
Project No: T-840-4-8
Joan and Steve Johnson
16121 — 74th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Consultation
Deck Repair
Johnson Residence, Lorian Woods, Lot 8
Edmonds, Washington
References: 1. Johnson Residence Deck Repair Plans, Sheet S-1, prepared.by CG Engineering,
dated November 21, 2002
2. Final Report, Foundation Excavation Observations, Johnson Residence, Lorian Woods Lot 8,
prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated July 13, 1993
3. Letter, Residence for Mr., and Mrs. S. Johnson, Lorian Woods, Lot 8, Project No. T-8404,
prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 17, 1992
4. Geotechnical Report, Johnson Residence, Lot 8, Lorian Woods, Project No. T-840-41
prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated,May 7, 1991
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson:
As requested, we reviewed the referenced plans, the current site conditions, and our previous letters' and reports
for this project. The :purpose . of our review was to provide our, opinion .and concurrence with the plans, as
required, by the City of Edmonds in their Plan Review. Corrections memo for. the project, dated. February 3, 2003.
A representative of Terra Associates visited the site on February 20, 2003, and made observations of the
southwest corner of the residence.
We understand that the current project involves the removal of-asmall concrete patio stab -and the resupport of
two deck footings. Settlement" of up to one and three -fourth .inch has been reported. to. have occurred. The
settlement has cracked the patio slab.and has impacted proper drainage•of the upper deck. It appears that the
settlement occurred as a result of consolidation of fill material on which the deck footings are supported. .
r
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington.98034.
Phone (42.5) 821-7777 • Fax (4)5)7821-4334 • terraC�tPrra-ass�ciates.c�m
Joan and Steve Johnson
February 27, 2003
Based on our review of the existing site conditions, our previous boring logs in the vicinity of the site, and plans,
it is our opinion that the' proposed supplemental support of the deck using two-inch diameter pipe piles. is
suitable. The house is constructed on soils that have moved. in the past and are loose. No significant bearing
layer has been identified within the upper 50 feet of the site soils; therefore, we expect the capacity of the pipe
piles will be developed primarily from skin friction and with little end bearing contribution.
We understand that deck columns will carry loading on the order of four kips. To obtain the pile capacity that is
needed for support of the deck, the driving criteria on the project plans is .suitable. The pipe should be driven to
refusal or to a depth- of 25 feet. Refusal is defined as less than one inch of movement over one minute of
continuous driving with a 90-pound hammer surcharged with the operator's weight. The recommended allowable
load for two-inch diameter pipe piles installed in. this manner is two. kips. The pipe piles should be load tested to
two times the allowable load to verify that the required design capacity has, been achieved.
In addition ,to the new support for the deck, a portion of the patio slab will be removed and replaced. We
recommend that the slab subgrade be compacted to,a firm and stable condition prior to construction of the new
slab. If the soils are too wet to compact, Portland cement can be, tilled into the soils to dry the soils and increase
their strength characteristics upon compaction.
Terra Associates should observe pipe pile installation and load testing to verify _recommended design capacity
has been achieved. We should also observe. the condition of the patio slab subgrade prior to re -construction to
verify the subgrade is firm, stable, and suitable for slab support.
All recommendations and discussions in our previous reports remain applicable to this project.
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions regarding our
recommendations or require additional information,' please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASS+
Project
CRUTJ
cc
TES, INC.
2-z-)-v-3
f
I
Project No. T-840-4-8
Page No. 2
C �
(THESE NOTES ARE TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS).
m
ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE
DRAWINGS, STRUCTURAL, NOTES AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC), 1997 EDITION.
STRUCTURAL NOTES AND STANDARDS WHERE REFERENCED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO
BE THE LATEST EDITION.
DESIGN LOADS
LIVE AND DEAD LOADS:
ROOF DEAD LOAD: 15 PSF
ROOF LIVE LOAD: 25 PSF (SNOW LOAD)
DECK DEAD LOAD: 10 PSF
DECK LIVE LOAD: 60 PSF (RESIDENTIAL)
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS & VERIFICATIONS
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS REPAIR PER UBC SECTION 1702.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER FOR OBSERVATIONS AT EACH
SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AS FOLLOWS:
1. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO PROVIDE PERIODIC MONITORING DURING INSTALLATION
OF THE PIPE PILINGS FOR RANDOM TESTING VERIFICATION.
FOUNDATIONS
ASSUMED ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR 2" DIAMERTER SCH. 80 PILE: 4.000 POUNDS
PIPE PILING INSTALLATION
PIPE PILING STALL BE DRIVEN INTO THE SUBGRADE TO A POINT OF REFUSAL BY MEANS
OF A PNEUMATIC HAMMER OR OTHER SIMILAR HYDRAULIC HAMMER SYSTEM, WITH
REFUSAL BEING DEFINED AS 1 INCH OR LESS OF PENETRATION DURING 1 MINUTE OF
SUSTAINED DRIVING. THE PNEUMATIC HAMMER SHOULD WEIGH AT LEAST 90 POUNDS
AND SHOULD HAVE FOOT STIRRUPS ON WHICH THE OPERATOR CAN STAND TO APPLY
DOWNWARD BODY WEIGHT PRESSURE. ALTERNATIVELY A 140 POUND JACK HAMMER CAN
BE USED ALONE WITH REFUSAL DEFINED AS 3/4" OR LESS OF PENETRATION DURING 1
MINUTE OF SUSTAINED DRIVING.
PIPE SECTIONS SHALL BE BUTTED TOGETHER AND WELDED. PROPERLY PREPARE ENDS
OF WELDED JOINTS TO AVOID FRACTURE OF JOINT. EXTERNAL SLIP COUPLINGS IS AN
APPROVED METHOD OF SPLICING PIPE SECTIONS. WHERE NOT INDICATED, MINIMUM FILLET
WELD SIZE SHALL BE PER TABLE 5.8 IN AWS "STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE" 1996. WELDING
SHALL CONFORM TO AWS DIA 1996 EDITION. ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE WITH 70
KSI LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. ALL WELDING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY WELDERS
CERTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS AND WABO.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND
SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT
LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY ALL UTILITIES WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RESULTING FROM THEIR OPERATION.
EX. SLAB ON
X. DE JOISTS ABOVE GRADE TO REMAIN
EX. EXTERIOR
EX. COL. < WALLS OF HOME
m �EX. CEDAR 2X AT
w i SLAB JOINT TO REMAIN
EX. SPRINKLER VALVE
L
G
c
c
EX. SLAB TO REPLACED
L
W/ MATCHING EXPOSED
ti `
AGGREGATE SLAB PER
EX.-0E 4JOSTS 91 V1
PLAN NOTES AND
C
STRUCTURAL NOTES
a °
W
m•
EX. COL
W
° EX. COL 7
y
ATE
ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED, PROPORTIONED, CONVEYED AND PLACED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 1905 OF THE UBC AND THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE'S
SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS (ACI 301) CONCRETE
STRENGTHS AT 28 DAYS (Fc) AND MIX CRITERIA SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
MINIMUM CEMENT MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM CONTENT WATER: CEMENT
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION Fc SLUMP PER CUBIC YARD RATIO
CONCRETE
FOOTINGS & SLABS 2500 PSI 4' 5 1/2 SACK 0.46
THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CEMENT LISTED ABOVE MAY BE CHANGED IF A CONCRETE
PERFORMANCE MIX IS SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL.
ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE STONE -AGGREGATE CONCRETE HAVING A UNIT WEIGHT OF
APPROXIMATELY 150 PCF. ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR TO FREEZING
TEMPERATURES SHALL BE AIR -ENTRAINED WITH AN AIR -ENTRAINING AGENT CONFORMING
TO UBC STANDARD 19-4. TOTAL AIR CONTENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UBC
TABLE 19-A-1.
CONCRETE COVER ON REINFORCING
CONCRETE CAST AGAINST AND PERMANENTLY EXPOSED TO EARTH: 3"
CONCRETE EXPOSED TO EARTH AND WEATHER:
16 BARS AND LARGER:
2"
$5 BARS AND SMALLER:
1 1/2"
CONCRETE NOT EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER:
SLABS AND WALLS:
3/4"
GRADE BEAM STIRRUPS:
1 1/2'
REINFORCING STEEL
WELDED WARE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185.
PROVIDE WELDED WIRE
FABRIC IN SHEETS NOT ROLLS.
STRUCTURAL STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AISC "SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF
STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS", LATEST EDITION.
PLATES, SHAPES, ANGLES AND RODS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A36, Fy = 36 KSI.
ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307.
STRUCTURAL PIPES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A53, Fy = 35 KSL
EXI511N
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, MEMBER SIZES AND CONDITIONS OF THE
EXISTING BUILDING DEPICTED IN THE DRAWINGS. AND NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOR POSSIBLE REDESIGN.
PLAN NOTES:
EX. COLUM
1. SETTLEMENTS INDICATED ON PLAN BY [X"]
WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS, CONTRACTOR
SHALL ESTABLISH DATUM AND RELATIVE
SETTLEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EX. SEWER LINES
EX. FOOTING
ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED REPAIRS
AND MAINTAIN EXISTING FOOTING DRAINS.
3. SLAB ON GRADE SHALL BE 4' THICK W/ #4 BARS
AT 18' O.C. EACH WAY AT CENTER OF SLAB.
3 u SIM. 3 2"0 PIPE PILE
EX. CONC. FOOTING TO
IN CONJUNCTION WITH JACKING BE SUPPORTED BY PILING
FOOTINGS, CONTRACTOR SHALL
VERIFY THAT GUTTER FLOW TO
THE EAST IS REESTABLISHED
REPAIR PLAN - PARTIAL HOUSE PLAN
2 SCALE: 1 4 = 1-0
GENERA
STRUCTURAL ORA'MNGS SHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS
FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
CONDITIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY BEFORE PROCEEDING. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERECTION STABILITY AND TEMPORARY
SHORING AS NECFSSARY UNTIL PERMANENT SUPPORT AND STIFFENING ARE INSTALLED.
CONTRACTOR -INITIATED CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION.
CHANGES SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS ONLY WILL NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT.
DRAWINGS INDICATE GENERAL AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE
CONDITIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED BUT ARE OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER
TO DETAILS SHOW4, SIMILAR DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED, SUBJECT
TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
I ! \
All
I /
/ FOOTPRINT OF EX. /
! FOOTPRINT OF DECK
N.
/
I
REPLACED SLAB
1 PER PLAN: LOCATION
- - • VARIES AT SIM. SECTION
y-_mE,<. PLACE NEW SLAB
ON 4" OF 5/8"-
COMPACTED
CRUSHED ROCK
PILE AND BRACKET
PER TYP. DET. 4
NOTES: I
1. VERIFY SZE OF EXISTING FOOTING.
2. IF FOOTING WIDTH EXCEEDS 2'-6
DETAIL CONTACT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
3 SCALE: I Ilf = 1 -0
PLOT PLAN
� SCALE: 1 = a
RECEIVED
!AN 14 2003
PERMIT COUNTER
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 16121 74TH PL. W
EDMONDS, WA
PROPERTY OWNER: JOAN & STEEE JOHNSON
PARCEL LEGAL DES(-: LORINA WOODS BLK 000 D-00
\ LOT 8 IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA
J5' ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.: 00790400000800
HOUSE \ \ \
1
I
1
I
I
1
of
Ia:
1
SPECIAL NOTE I
THIS PLOT PLAN IS BASED ON AN UNDATED PLOT PLAN SUPPLIED
BY OWNER, WHICH WAS DRAWN BY RONALD D. JOHNSON, DESIGNER:
ORIGINAL SURVEY DATA WAS NOT REVIEWED. 1
1
P.L 84.39'
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES:
1. JACK EXISTING STRUCTURE FROM
PILE AFTER REFUSAL IS COMPLETED
& CRITERIA MET.
2. TIGHTEN NUTS AFTER PORTION OF
HOUSE LEVELED.
3. REMOVE JACK &TOP PL. & REMOVE
EXCESS THREADED ROD.
JACK NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY
EXIST. FTG. PL. 1" x 4" x 0'-9" W/
15/16"0 HOLES TO ALIGN
W/ 1" E S PIPE BELOW TYP
3/4"0 THREADED ROD W/
4" MIN. EMBED. INTO 7/8"0 THREADED ROD
FTG. W/ HILTI HIT HY 150
INJECTION ADHESIVE. I" E.S. PIPE x 4" LONG
I 5
I
I �
L6 x 6 x 3/4 x 12" LONG TS5 x 3 x 1/4 x 8' LONG
n _-PIPE PILE PER PLAN
NOTE:
TOP PL &THREADED ROD
NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
—EXIST. FIND.
4 TYPICAL DETAIL �LTYPICAL DETAIL
SCALE: 1 1 2 = 1 -0 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1 -0
3/4'0 LONG SLOTTED HOLES
i" E.S. PIPE x 4" LONG, TYP.
TSS x 3 x 1/4 x 8" LONG
PIPE PILE PER PLAN
L6x6x3/4x12"LONG
ENGINEERING
zso 4TM AVE. s., SUITE zoo
EoroHos. wASHuveroH 9e020
PHONE (lzS) 778-8500
FAX (125) 778-5536
�• GUI
C�4+�oT •��1�2
me o
OVAL ts'�
OPIRE4 9 5 2H103
DESIGN: LWC
cr
DRAWN:
JRZ
CHECK:
GAG
JOB NO:
02135.10
DATE:
I1 /21 /02
d
W
]C
U
W
O
W
HEET:
S
S-1
STREET FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BLJSIN SS
MAIL NG• ADDRESS q
CITY , ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER
NAM
�...1L. I 1 w t
ti It1AWu T) Zjof ii
w ADDR S
i
a c1Tr r1��{ I zip
0 1 f 7
kAME
ADO ESS
-3ZO 19to 5W
a
1Yn/NWDo�J ZIP
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
TELEPHONE NUMBER
q/�-' q Lt-e)
Co das
j333Z
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Legal Description.of Property - include all easements
Nit t� �t�s s4,ss I sb s? c�
M��acl��nur �Rui �� �� ebf�lo�or
nor
Property
Tax Account �1
Parcel No.
V ��
ZONE
JOB
ADDRESS
PERMIT
NUMBER �302�j6
.CURL ULDUMIKIWN LMtt,n SUBDIV151ON NO. LID NO.
:i
LOT $ j3?d
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑
t: i
EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required ❑Street Use Permit Req•d ❑
PROPOSED '`'
Inspection Required
Sidewalk Required ❑
REMARKS
'-•�c:.l,J!"._...
ENGINEER2G MEMO DATED JREVIBW BY
9.3
METER SIZE �/ BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES
REMARKS (�
SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW/ ADB NO.
ALLOWED I PROPOSED COMPLETE IiREMPT
I 1 EXP-- ` l
VARIANCE OR CU _ PLAINWG REVIEW BY
WOOFS SETBACKS — FEET — HEIG -1COY
FRONT SIDE REAR 2�j /-
REMARKS
(••!Cc- r SEE BACK. FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
^J PLUMBING
0
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL.
_MECHANICAL
ElREMODEL
APT. BLDG. ..
aGR D G
SIGN_
FENCE
REPAIR CYDS.
I_FT)
a DEMOLISH - WOODSSWIM
INSERTTOVE
POOL
HO TUB SPA
GARAGE:', .•'',' RETAINING WALL/
Lnj T
AJ ROCKERY
RENEWAL '.
:.
z
O (TYPE F USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVIT PLAIN•
05 NUMBER OF STORIES . '; NUMBER OF .
2-f QAt1,41hNT I UNITSLING
oLU
'DESCRIBE W K TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT
Uba�
P N)
try/fir• Asiit.i t J� ✓w•iw�. �-.i.+t.r �*
,5!7 A-5W, 174PV 64-0 'Z6, POW 5)21
LAw
CHECKED,AY TYPE OF CONSTRUCT ON CODEc, HEIGHT
SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY. / OCCUPANT
REQUIRED `/ A�eqi4 GROUP j .- LOAD
�( YES
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305
FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED
VALUATION
•�4T .. LOPE / , D%
PLAN CHECK FEE
BUILDING
"f
T
HEAT SOURCE:
GLAZING
-%
PLUMBING
Plan Check No. 13-0
MECHANICAL
This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY.
GRAOINGIFILL
78
Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks,
STATE SURCHARGE
yISO
.driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission.
Permit Application: 180 Days
PermLimit: 1 Year -Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days .
STORM DRAINAGE FEEit
"Applicant, on. behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and
ENG. INSPECTION FEE
;i �.'.�i►
ow
successors. in Interest, agrees to indemnify, defendand hold
S,
harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, Its officials,
p
Q
employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of
rr i
WA
x
whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance
of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to
?LAN CHECK DEPOSIT
modify, Waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
...1.
i
nor limit In any y wa they
y .Cit s abilityto enforce an ordinance
provision."
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the
Information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly
ATTENTION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
authorized, agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and
THIS PERMIT
state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz-
AUTHORIZES
This application Is not a permit until
ed Ih?reby, no person Will be employed In violation of the Labor
ONLY THE
signed by the Building Official or his/her
Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa-
WORK NOTED
Deputy; and fees are paid, and recAipt is
ti n Zurance. I
INSPECTION
acknowledged in space provided.
SIG_ NATURE (OWN R DATE SIGN D -
DEPARTMENT
�EN
J
CITY OF
OFF I L'S SIGNA URE pGA2TE
EDMONDS
� 9
A TENTION
CALL FOR
ELE SED BY: DATE
INSPECTION
IT IS UNLAWFUL. TO USE, R OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
MADE
%%�-0220
UNTIL A FINAL, I( SPECTION HAS BEEN AND APPROVAL OR
;OF
ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector
A CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC
CHAPTER 3.
PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor
a
Ix
W
3
STREET R111111177
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information
Project Name: Permit Number.
riav�
Site Location:; �� F' r Property Tax Account Number:
---�-_ _-
Approximate Site Size:(acres or square feet): 5$ 0Q s v. �� f
Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? n)y
General Site Conditions
1. Has the site been cleared or logged? )Ms. _ Date of most recent action:
Soils I Topography
2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)?
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.)
BCU3r. slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30'*W( a vertical rise
of 10 feet of horizontal distance.)
Steep: grades of greater than 30V* present on site.
Comments
Hydrology/Vegetation
4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water.
5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. IJ 0 Approx. Depth:
6. Site is in the floodway No floodplain A)0 of a water course.
7. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? l �flows
are year-round? Flows are seasonal?
Rev 3/27/92
f
U
0
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Johnson, Stephen Determination #: CA-92-254
Project Name: Permit Number:
Site Location: 16121 74th PI W Property Tax Acct #: 7904-000-008
Project Description:
New Home
Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply):
XX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers;
XX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to
the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance;
XX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas
ordinance;
XX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant must comply with any requirements the Building Official
might call for because of construction on steep slopes (ECDC title 19.05,
19.00-UBC chapter 70).
2. The applicant must follow the requirements of the Engineering Division for
erosion control (ECDC title 18).
Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study
associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter
20.15B.150 (B) of the Edmonds Communit evelopment Code.
Stephen F. Bullock
Name Sig ture e
C 4mI
(THESE NOTES ARE TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OR DETAILED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS).
m
ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE
DRAWINGS, STRUCTURAL, NOTES AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC), 1997 EDITION.
STRUCTURAL NOTES AND STANDARDS WHERE REFERENCED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO
BE THE LATEST EDITION.
DESIGN LOADS
LIVE AND DEAD LOADS:
ROOF DEAD LOAD: 15 PSF
ROOF LIVE LOAD: 25 PSF (SNOW LOAD)
DECK DEAD LOAD: 10 PSF
DECK LIVE LOAD: 60 PSF (RESIDENTIAL)
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS & VERIFICATIONS
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS REPAIR PER UBC SECTION 1702.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER FOR OBSERVATIONS AT EACH
SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AS FOLLOWS:
1. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL MONITORING INSTALLATION OF THE PIPE PILINGS
AND LOAD TESTING AT TWO TIMES ALLOWABLE LOADS.
2. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO OBSERVE CONDITION OF PATIO SLAB SUBGRADE
AND RECOMMEND SUBGRADE PREPARATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SLAB.
11lT
FOUNDATIONS %(f�!'P1 ) P% L1./lTtt�',(h
ASSUMED ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR 2' DIAMERTER SCH. 80 PILE: 2,000 POUNDS Cal
PIPE PING INSTALLATION
PIPE PILING SHALL BE DRIVEN INTO THE SUBGRADE TO A POINT OF REFUSAL BY MEANS
OF A PNEUMATIC HAMMER OR OTHER SIMILAR HYDRAULIC HAMMER SYSTEM, WITH
REFUSAL BEING DEFINED AS 1 INCH OR LESS OF PENETRATION DURING 1 MINUTE OF
SUSTAINED DRIVING. THE PNEUMATIC HAMMER SHOULD WEIGH AT LEAST 90 POUNDS
AND SHOULD HAVE FOOT STIRRUPS ON WHICH THE OPERATOR CAN STAND TO APPLY
DOWNWARD BODY WEIGHT PRESSURE. ALTERNATIVELY A 140 POUND JACK HAMMER CAN
BE USED ALONE WITH REFUSAL DEFINED AS 3/4' OR LESS OF PENETRATION DURING 1
MINUTE OF SUSTAINED DRIVING.
PIPE SECTIONS SHALL BE BUTTED TOGETHER AND WELDED. PROPERLY PREPARE ENDS
OF WELDED JOINTS TO AVOID FRACTURE OF JOINT. EXTERNAL SLIP COUPLINGS IS N
CONCRETE
ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED, PROPORTIONED, CONVEYED AND PLACED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 1905 OF THE UBC AND THE AMERICN CONCRETE INSTITUTE'S
SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS (ACI 301) CONCRETE
STRENGTHS AT 28 DAYS (Fc) AND MIX CRITERIA SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
MINIMUM CEMENT MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM CONTENT WATER:CEMENT
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION fc SLUMP PER CUBIC YARD RATIO
CONCRETE
FOOTINGS & SLABS 2500 PSI 45 1/2 SACK 0.46
THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CEMENT LISTED ABOVE MAY BE CHANGED IF A CONCRETE
PERFORMANCE MIX IS SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL.
ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE STONE -AGGREGATE CONCRETE HAVING A UNIT WEIGHT F
APPROXIMATELY 150 PCF. ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR TO FREEZING
TEMPERATURES SHALL BE AIR -ENTRAINED WITH AN AIR -ENTRAINING AGENT CONFORMING
TO UBC STANDARD 19-4. TOTAL AIR CONTENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UBC
TABLE 19-A-1.
GENER
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS
FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
CONDITIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY BEFORE PROCEEDING. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERECTION STABILITY AND TEMPORARY
SHORING AS NECESSARY UNTIL PERMANENT SUPPORT AND STIFFENING ARE INSTALLED.
CONTRACTOR -INITIATED CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION.
CHANGES SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS ONLY WILL NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT.
REE - F I L E
DRAWINGS INDICATE GENERAL AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE
CONDITIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED BUT ARE OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER
TO DETAILS SHOWN, SIMILAR DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED, SUBJECT
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 16121'74TH PL. W
16121EDMO74
TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
WA
PROPERTY OWNER: JOAN & STEEE JOHNSON
/ \
PARCEL LEGAL DESC.: ^szi.LORINA WOODS BLK 000 D-00
LOT 8 IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA
CONCRETE COVER ON REINFORCING
CONCRETE CAST AGAINST AND PERMANENTLY EXPOSED TO EARTH:
3'
/
\
\(. �g35, ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.: 00790400000800
\
CONCRETE EXPOSED TO EARTH AND WEATHER:
/
FOOTPRINT OF EX. HOUSE#6
BARS AND LARGER:
BARS AND SMALLER:
2-
\ ,/o
CONCRETE NOT EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER:
& I
3
SLABS AND WALLS:
GRADE BEAM STIRRUPS:
f'l1AR � L
3/4'
1 1/2'
/
FOOTPRINT OF DECK
PERMIT COUMTER !
�
/
00
I
REINFORCING STEEL
WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185. PROVIDE WELDED WIRE
FABRIC IN SHEETS NOT ROLLS.
APPROVED METHOD OF SPLICING PIPE SECTIONS. WHERE NOT INDICATED, MINIMUM FILLET
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE
WELD SIZE SHALL BE PER TABLE 5.8 IN AWS "STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE' 1996. WELDING
WITH THE AISC 'SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION F
SHALL CONFORM TO AWS D1.1 1996 EDITION. ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE WITH 70
STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS', LATEST EDITION.
KS LOW HYDROGEN ELECTRODES. ALL WELDING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY WELDERS
CERTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS AND WABO.
PLATES, SHAPES, ANGLES AND RODS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A36, Fy = 36 KSI.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND
ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307.
SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT
LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY F THE
STRUCTURAL PIPES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A53, Fy = 35 KSL
CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY ALL UTILITIES WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RESULTING FROM THEIR OPERATION.
EXISTING BUILDING
cojojes S�Q'"zr-%
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, MEMBER SIZES AND CONDITIONS OF THE
�
EXISTING LDINGIN THE DRAWINGS, AND NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL
SUI
PCR
-A744-5 rV
ENGINEER OF ANY SP Y D ANCIES FOR POSSIBLE REDESIGN.
1I4 A-7nMSA-Y
I
ON
EX' SLABDE
REMAIN
X DEC JOISTS ABOVE
EX. EXTERIOR
WALLS OF HOME
EX. COL
m
EX. CEDAR 2X AT
X
SLAB JOINT TO REMAIN
W
/
EX. SPRINKLER VALVE
w
PLAN NOTES:
1. SETTLEMENTS INDICATED ON PLAN BY [X"]
°
WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR
°
°
w
SHALL ESTABLISH DATUM AND RELATIVE
w
SETTLEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK.
EX. SLAB REPLACED
',�
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EX. SEWER LINES
W/ MATCHING EXPOSED
$
'
ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED REPAIRS
AGGREGATE SLAB PER
EX.J)E JOISTS1
VE
i AND MAINTAIN EXISTING FOOTING DRAINS.
PLAN NOTES AND
,
SHALL BE 4" THICK W/ #4 BARS
3. SLAB ON GR:EA
STRUCTURAL NOTES
AT 18" O.C. H WAY AT CENTER OF SLAB.
COMPACT ANTHERWISE PREPARE SUBGRADE
PER GEOIECECOMMENDATIONS.
w
Q
EX. COL.
a a . EX. COL.
W
m
--i EX. BEAM
3 SIM, 3 � 2"0 PIPE PILE
EX. CONC. FOOTING TO
IN CONJUNCTION WITH JACKING BE SUPPORTED BY PILING
FOOTINGS, CONTRACTOR SHALL
VERIFY THAT GUTTER FLOW TO
THE EAST IS REESTABLISHED
REPAIR PLAN - PARTIAL HOUSE PLAN
SCALE. 1 4 = 1 -O
I
SPECIAL NOTE
/
THIS PLOT PLAN IS BASED ON AN UNDATED PLOT PLAN SUPPLIED
BY OWNER, WHICH WAS DRAWN BY RONALD D. JOHNSON. DESIGNER; I
p�
ORIGINAL SURVEY DATA WAS NOT REVIEWED. I
6
P.L. 84.39'
/ PLOT PLAN
1j SCALE 1 = 8
1/2" EXPANSION W/
FILLER & SEALANT
REPLACED SLAB PER PLAN,
EX. COLUMN W/ THICKENED EDGE AT (3)
EX. COL. FOOTINGS; LOCATION
VARIES AT SIM. SECTION
a
EX. FOOTING .106J °
I I '
I I a l I I I
4 1 J n
°
PILE AND BRACKET
PER TYP. DET. 4
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES:
1. JACK EXISTING STRUCTURE FROM
PILE AFTER REFUSAL IS COMPLETED
& CRITERIA MET.
2. TIGHTEN NUTS AFTER PORTION OF
HOUSE LEVELED.
3. REMOVE JACK & TOP PL & REMOVE
EXCESS THREADED ROD.
I
PLACE NEW SLAB
ON 4" OF 5/8'- EXIST. FTG.
COMPACTED
CRUSHED ROCK
3/4.0 THREADED ROD W/
4' MIN. EMBED. INTO
FTG. W/ HILT] HIT HY 150
INJECTION ADHESIVE.
L6 x 6 x 3/4 x 12' LONG
JACK NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY
7 PL. 1' x 4' x 0'-9' W/
0 HOLES TALIGN
W/ 1- B
W/ 1' E.S. PIPE BELOW, TYP.
7/8"0 THREADED ROD
1" E.S. PIPE x 4' LONG
TS5x3x1/4x8"LONG
PIPE PILE PER PLAN
NOTE:
TOP PL & THREADED ROD
NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.
EXIST. FND.
3/4"0 LONG SLOTTED HOLES
1" E.S. PIPE x 4" LONG, TYP.
---- TS5 x 3 x 1/4 x 8" LONG
1
I
1 �
I �
I �
1
I �
i
PIPE PILE PER PLAN
NOTES: 1/4V 11 IT
1. VERIFY SIZE OF EXISTING FOOTING. Li
2. IF FOOTING WIDTH EXCEEDS 2'-6", L6 x 6 x 3/4 x 12" LONG
DETAIL CONTACT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. TYPICAL DETAIL TYPICAL DETAIL
3 SCALE: 1 1 2 = 1 -0 4 SCALE: 1 1 2 = 1 -0 5 SCALE: 1 1 2 = 1 -0
ENGINEERING
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
PHONE (425) 778-8500
FAX (425) 778-5536
N. U��G d • 11
�t`2�i
ONAL
• OtPEt6: 9 5 2003
DESIGN: LWc
DRAWN:
JRZ
CHECK:
GAG
JOB NO:
02135.10
DATE:
11 /21 /02
m \\
Q
CII-
W
m 1\
U (/)
W LJi l
w O
z3 z
p � J
C Q
ir I 3
i--
O ^ 0 U
Z
= N
f—
) W (n
SHEET:
S-1
STREET FILE
-J TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. RECE. I ED
_... Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
-,, and JAN 1 2 iQ92
Environmental Earth Sciences
I � ` _ � y D PERMIT COUNTER
Project T-8404
December 17,1992
Ronald D. Johnson, Architect
19601 23rd Avenue NW
Seattle, Washington 98177
Subject: Residence for Mr. & Mrs. S. Johnson
Lorian Woods, Lot 8
Meadowdale Beach, Edmonds
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T-840-1
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57
June 6,1989
Geotechnical Letter Report, Project T-840-4
Lorian Woods, Lot 8, May 7, 1991
(See Sheet 1 of the Project Drawings)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We understand you are preparing for construction of the Johnson Residence in the spring of 1993
on Lot 8 at Lorian Woods. We have examined copies of the plot and the grading plans, building
elevations, and a foundation plan that you provided us. We understand these plans are equivalent
to those that will be submitted to the City for permit. With regard to excavations, design soil
stresses, drainage, and other geotechnical considerations, the plans, in our judgment, conform with
the geotechnical recommendations in the documents referenced above.
In our opinion, all other aspects of the geotechnical engineer's declaration required by Section
19.05.040 of Ordinance No. 2661 are covered by the initial paragraphs of the second reference.
This letter affirms the declarations and recommendations in both references.
We have prepared a location plan for the test pits we excavated on this lot in April 1991. Test pits
logs have been prepared also and are presented in Table A. Both documents are attached to this
letter. Please note that we recently sounded water levels in the standpipes in TP-1 and TP-2. Both
are dry, as they were in May, 1991.
/ Afrrs
2-10-93
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777
Ronald D. Johnson, Architect Project T-840-4
December 17,1992 Page 2
We appreciate your request that we review these drawings. Please contact our office if you have
any questions regarding our work. We expect the City will require that you include an
environmental checklist with the documents submited for permit. Please call if you need advice
regarding the few questions concerning geotechnical or subsurface conditions on the site.
Sincerely,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC
' 1, -t' , A -/
U
William Bailey
Project Manager
eodore J. Scepper, PE
Principal Engineer
WBM:tw
Encl: Figure 1, Test Pit Location PLan
Table A, Test Pit Logs
I
rn �
�cpMMCl01�lS � t�s c��n �nsev sl�l i���
LDr1;c�6.1
We nd the Johnson residence will be constructed on Lot 8 sottttt of the existing '
Anderson residence, as shown Sheet 2 of Dowl s Lods.0 Woods drav3irtgs:` The stability...:. ;4
of""p was discussed 044cferenced geotechnkaI report: Ip our opinion, the
probileatth movement on thls iot within a period of 23 yean, m t likely is less than
ten percept and the lot therefore is :citable tot residential construction. 71tis.tisk of earth :
moVeAtettt ,will be partially mitigated by improvements to subsurface d nage affordedby
the rriideatods foundation drains, and by removing from the lot a weigh of. GO in excess of
the wetgltt, of the residence.
The prellindnary pl
ans rre have. examined are consistent with the intent-of'the referenced
geott�clinieat report and are therefore acceptable. In our opinion, the risC of damage to the
proposed residence and to adjacent properties trom soil movement. $e minimal. subject =.
to tbe`eonditions setlorth In therepom Once the residence's foundations ate constructed
and tiackttlled, the potential for sail movement. should decrease, ton he reasons noted
Sheet,;a of the prel'uainaq plats indicates ground boon at Elevations it 13 and 122 feet, ;
whidt is::generslly below. present. grades oft the sits, As .explained ! ,for tivretsrenaed ;
geotiedunkal report, the soU onthis lot is landslide debrls, i41ch may p p islaely:poor .
conditions for conventional footings. The retereneed report'. c;ibes test 40 "north
tion WoWtttble for su foundations ws:
of driveway where bnrkA vegeta Pp�� .
nnooveied. Simper mamiuk were observed in utility excavatimu made crtoently to
ir►statt y
site InptO"�nts. 1
To tnrthet explore subsurface conditions on Lot $ we have excavated test pits to elevation:: ;.
a few feet bebw tooting beating grads near the northeast, the northwest and the southweu
corneri at the tot. 'the pits encountered iandsiide .debris, as expected.. N exressive organic
material was observed. U appears that conditions Se
:atisfactoci for conventional
foundations will toe tm the bottom . of tht proposed however,
conditions worse than- those observed In the .test, pits. may be p
locationistier
,,,,,i,,,;� '[�ereforc. the:excat+ation oa L;m S should,be careful exa_tnbelore concrete
avert'
'tlatedutte the risk of foundation settlements due to Pik untvenb"
Or a maxxmum.b4aring stroll of •120b
rdcomtpettd proportio>aag,fiooungs and the feu
{ atttl using extra steel tei<tfoccerntent . in the .foothtga
addkton M►e recommend cxunbit>ine atri+ hnetioc t�otio -.into atlps end i
nertb�t foundation wads.
Perntnetet ottttdation walii thatsuppott latettit win : stresses, should !
lent fluid weight of 40 poum4 per cubic toot• plusa uniform stress
ayq too Perforated drainpipe a
'Wind tree -draining backfiU should be
te
;,1n'otdct. to construct the lower ground floor at E1ev 118• a cut up to abc
ba made near the center of the north lot tine.. in our opinion, a cut thi
on Lot 8 because the excavation would not be near the 'toe of the std
aide .ot: Lorian Woods and the backslope north of the excavation wool
distance to level ground. Therefore, there is virtually nod:mger that)
I initiate extensive slopeinstabilities.
Nevettheless, care :should be taken.in making adeep excavation'on
AMU, Mi
mpacted_ piltrap
tg conditions '*e :
Luads per square
Iation wails." In
tinecdng 11tex�W _ . ,.:
designed for. an
if.100 pouods-.pei
halted outside '-ill
i 1S feet higb must
deep is acceptable
slopes at the east
I rise only a short
excavation might
8. Because: the
Theiefotet._ae.- o
it stee r than 1
npomtn�rxu .-:rr_._�=...�------._.._._..�_
o i vertical, jt groundwater is.encountered, ilattec scopes to _, reguire _ ,
For your contractor's me, we have installed groundwater observation Wells n err t a two
was
north corners of the. lot where the highest �were
installed and the walls rent) are dry:. to
obscrved in the test pits where these ndwater was encountstttd at depths below.
the. third pit near the southwest sot cos ft Frau >:ter w lion be most stable if
the beat'htg grade and the wags of the pi Napsed.
grouatdwater levels when the c=vation is opened are below the bearing grade•
M
0P4-ft INJ. 1:0.0
quo am kR .014
Approx Scale: I in = 20 ft
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
LORIAN WOODS, LOT 8
MEADOWDALE BEACH, EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-4Date 12/14/92 Figure I
1 1
Depth, ft
0-1
1-12
TABLE A
TEST PITS LOGS
LORIAN WOODS, LOT 8
MEADOWDALE BEACH, EDMONDS
Test Pit No. 1
Description
Slash and rock
Ground Surface Elev 127
Silty SAND. Brown -gray with orange stain;
loose to medium dense; moist, becoming wet.
Test pit completed at depth 12 ft. No sidewall caving.
PVC Standpipe installed to depth 9 ft. Lower 2 ft slotted.
No groundwater on 12/8/92.
Test Pit No. 2
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 120
0-3 Silty SAND. Brown, with numerous roots.
3-6.5 Silty fine SAND to sandy SILT. Gray with orange stain;
moist to wet.
6.5-8 Fractured SILT. Gray with orange stain; low plasticity.
8-10 Gray SILT. Low to no plasticity; firm; moist to wet.
Test pit completed at depth 10 ft. No sidewall caving.
PVC standpipe installed to depth 9 ft. Lower 3 ft slotted.
No groundwater on 12/8/92.
Test Pit No. 3
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 115
0-1 Topsoil
1-6 Silty fine to medium SAND with chunks of clay.
Gray and brown with some orange; loose; moist to wet.
6-8 Silty fine to medium SAND. Gray; wet to saturated;
medium dense.
Test pit terminated when sidewalls caved at depth 8 ft.
Project No. T-8404
Test pits excavated on April 26, 1991
LANDAU STREET FILE
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Environmental and Geotechnical Services
March 19, 1993
City of Edmonds
250 Fifth Avenue, North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Ms. Sharon Nolan
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED JOHNSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
16121 74TH PLACE WEST - LOT 8 LORIAN WOODS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Nolan:
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates has completed a review of the
submittal associated with the subject 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 several issues associated with the proposed
dwelling require resolution in accordance with City Ordinance No. 2661 requirements. Our
comments are as follows:
1. The geotechnical consultant should review the environmental checklist, provide
comments and/or indicate its acceptability from a geotechnical perspective, as required
by Ordinance No. 2661.
2. The work will take place immediately uphill from a permanently flowing drainageway,
contrary to the statements concerning surface water in the Environmental Checklist.- To
reduce the possibility of disturbing this drainage, the location of the proposed filter fabric
fence should be shown on the plans.
3. If signed and sealed copies of all of the applicable geotechnical reports are not present
in the City's files for this project, they should be requested. Alternately, the geotechnical
engineer could seal the project plans where portions of previous reports are reproduced.
P.O..ROx Io2o • 1"DN10NDS. WA 1)IM10-C)1'-9 - i'_U6) 77X-0907 - I-AX (2116) 778-64M
f.5001.27_Q737 I':\\
4. The wells installed in test pits by Terra Associates should be properly abandoned per
WAC 173-160 prior to or during house construction.
5. The surface soil materials at this site are landslide debris (Terra Associates May 1991
letter). High cuts are planned in, and foundations will bear on, this relatively poor
quality material. The city should require that the geotechnical engineer provide
settlement estimates and that the structural engineer indicate that he has designated the
foundation system for such settlements. Furthermore, the City should require that the
geotechnical consultant observe all foundation excavation cuts, and the bearing materials
for all footings, to ensure that the intentions of the geotechnical recommendations for this
site are executed correctly.
6. It appears that some finished contours should be added to the grading plan (sheet 1) near
the rockery along the north wall.
7. Significant excavations will be necessary in order to construct the proposed residence.
the excavation quantities stated on the plans (432 cy) do not seem to allow for the
recommended temporary cut slopes. A Conditional Use Permit is required if such
quantities exceed 500 cubic yards.
8. The applicant should indicate where excavated materials needed for backfill will be
temporarily placed while subsurface construction occurs. Many onsite locations are
inappropriate for storage of such materials for reasons of slope stability, drainage,
protection of natural vegetation, etc.
9. A drainage plan for the site is not presented as such. Elements which are typical of a
drainage plan are presented on sheets 1 and 2, but these sheets are not sealed by a
licensed engineer, as required by Ordinance 2661. The City should request that sheets
1 and 2 be sealed by a licensed engineer or that a separate drainage plan be prepared and
sealed by a licensed engineer.
10. The typical wall section on page 11 shows the foundation drainage system 1 ft above the
bearing level of the proposed foundation. Conditions in this area are very wet at times
and we recommend that the City require such drains to be installed adjacent to the base
03/19/93 JAEDMONDS\JOHNSON.LEi
LANDAU :\SSOCIATVS. INC.
of the footing. To eliminate confusion, we recommend that the drawings show the
drainage system on all appropriate sections on page 12, as well as the Foundation Plan
(page 8).
11. Drainage should be provided behind rockeries. The Drainage Plan should show an
appropriate connection to the storm drain system.
12. A stamped survey has not been made for this individual lot. We understand that the
City may accept a survey performed for the entire PRD in order to meet Ordinance 2661
requirements.
The City and Lead Design Professional should review each of these items and modify the
project documents as necessary. With the possible exception of No. 5 (settlement issue), Landau
Associates probably does not need to review Design modifications, unless the City so desires.
Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this review.
DMW /WDE/fas
No. 74043.10
attachment
03/19/93 JAEDMONDS\JOHNSON.IET 3
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Dean M. White, P.E.
Project Manger
and
William D. Evans, C.R.G.S.
Senior Geologist
LANDAU ASSO CIA ES. INC'
ATTACHMENT 1
1. House Plans, 12 page set, dated 12/2/92, first seven pages sealed by Ronald D. Johnson,
Architect, last 5 pages sealed by Cornelius D. VandeEnde of Structural Design Associates,
Inc.
2. Environmental Checklist, undated, signed by Stephen C. Johnson
3. Geotechnical Letter, 2 pages with attachments, dated 12/17/92 by Terra Associates, Inc.
4. Landslide hazard Map (xerox excerpt from GeoEngineers 1985 report) with site
highlighted
5. Owner's Declaration, 1 page, dated 12/15/92, by Stephen C. Johnson
6. Lead Design Professional's Declaration,1 page, undated, by Ronald D. Johnson, Architect
7. Structural Engineer's Declaration, 3 pages, dated 12/17/92, by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
8. Critical Areas Checklist
9. Critical Areas Determination
03/19/93 JAEDMONDS\JOHNSON.M 4
1nC.189v
•
GREET FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
September 25, 2003
Mr. Steve Johnson, President
Lorian Woods Homeowners Association
16121 74th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Dear Mr. Johnson:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
In response to a recent localized slide, City officials conducted a site inspection on
September 16, 2003 and observed slide damage to have occurred all on private property
west of Sequoia Ridge Lot 4, at or near Tract A and Lot 2 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. Note, the report suggests that there is
low probability of immediate risk from the slide damage particularly because the
downslope private properties are currently undeveloped. The report recommends that
property owners in the vicinity of the landslide be alerted to the condition of the slope.
The purpose of this letter and the attached copy of the Landau Associates report is to
notify you and other private property owners in the area, of the current situation as we
know it, so that you may take whatever action you deem appropriate.
During the course of the site reconnaissance, the investigation also discovered ground
cracking at or near, the top of the ridge line of Lot 3 Sequoia Ridge. The ground cracks
observed in this area are estimated to lie above portions of Tract A of Lorian Woods. The
significance of this ground cracking was not thoroughly investigated by the City's
geotechnical consultant. However, the presence of ground cracking suggests an unstable
slope condition that could have a relatively high risk of landsliding sometime in the
future, particularly during wet weather.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
C:c+nr ri+i _ {-l�)<inan _Ta»an
Mr. Johnson
September 25, 2003
Page Two
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 the possible future
impacts of landsliding, preventative measures to this area and any possible site restoration
that may be adviseable for you to undertake.to protect this property. Geotechnical reports
and assessments for properties within the area are on file at my office and are available
for review.
If your geotechnical engineer requires restoration, slope mitigation/improvements an
approved permit from the City is required since all work must comply to City Ordinance
#2661 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area.
Please contact me should you have any questions regarding permit requirements or other
concerns at 425-771-0220 extension 1226.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official, C.B.O.
Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
7 7 c 6400 L"1 U.0 pSSOC'gTES INC U9/1U3 11:110F.JUI;uui
LANDAU
,ASSOCIATES
September 25, 2003
City of Edmonds, Development Services Department
121 5"' Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Don Fiene and Ms. Jeannine Graf
RE: LA,NDS>L1"DE FVAixA•r10N
MEADOWDA,LE AREA — LOR _AN WOODS/SEQUOL4 RIDGE PLATS
EDMONDS, WASHING•roN
Dear Mr. Fiene and leis. Graf -
This letter summarizes our observations and recommendations related to a landslide that occurred
on the steep slope, east of 73'd Place West, in the northeastern part of the Lorian Woods plat, extending
upslope to the western edge of the Sequoia Ridge Plat. At the request of the City of Edmonds (C�ity),
Deborah Ladd of Landau Associates visited the site on September 16, 2003 along with City of Edmonds
personnel Dave Gebert, Don Fiene, Jeannine Graf, Ann Bullis, Noel Miller, and Jim Kammerer. The
purpose of our visit was to assess site conditions and identify any imminent h=rd to City -owned
facilities and the general public from the observed slide. As part of our visit, we also observed surface
conditions on the ridge near the top of the slide. Our services were provided under Task Order No. 22 of
our on -call Geotecluucal Engineering Services Agreancnt with the City.
BACKGROUND AND OBSERVATIONS
The landslide is located in the northeast part of the Lonan Woods plat, east of Lonan Woods Lot
2 and west of Lot 4 in the Sequoia Ridge plat. The landslide lies north of the City's interceptor drainage
system "lA" and immediately north of catch basins CB #6 and CB #8 in this system. The landslide
extends west to near (or onto) Lot 2 (16007 73'a Place West) in the Lorian Woods plat.
We understand that the landslide occurred sometime late on September 15 or early on September
16, 2003. At the time of our visit, we accessed parts of the slide area using the path used for monitoring .
the interceptor drainage system. The ground surface on the path was slightly moist, but soils beneath a
thin surficial layer were near dry. Areas of wet soil and seepage were observed near the path in areas
where year-round seepage is typically present. Heavy rainfall was reported the night of September 15,
2003 by Edmond's residents. Overall rainfall for the weeks preceding the slide has been relatively low.
ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES
130 2nd Avenue South - Edmonds, VJA98020 - (425) 718 0907 rj. (4)5) 77S-640Y - ww .Iandauinc.com
SEATTLE - SPOKANE • TACOMA PORTLAND
'�q7j 11c 64UU LAN11AU A'iSUL I A I t J II;L U9i�/U/US ;!4:IJ Y.lU31UUi
The landslide has combined block sliding and mudflow characteristics, with an estimated width
of about 20 to 30 ft and a total length of 80 ft or greater. The landslide initiated near the top of the bluff,
apparently from Lot 4, Sequoia Ridge. The slide initiation is about 20 to 40 ft (vertical) above the City's
interceptor drainage system IA, CB #8 and about 20 ft north of this catch basin. 'The landslide debris
extended about 10 to 20 ft below (west) of CB #6. The estimated elevation of the top of the slide is at
about 210 to 220 ft elevation. Several seepage zones could be seen in the exposed bluff in the slide area.
The failed soil zone is estimated to be about 3 to 5 ft thick (measured perpendicular to the slope face).
Below the landslide scarp (at the top of the slide), the landslide appears to involve the surficial
layer of soil on the slope along with small to large -sized trees and other surficial vegetation. The
mudflow and vegetative material is currently resting on the slope in the area near catch basins CB #6 and
C13 #8. The landslide occurred on private property, did not extend to public facilities other than near the
City's interceptor drainage .system, and did not impact any residences.
Soils exposed near the top of the slide area appear to be of glacial origin and consist of outwash
sand and gravel overlying fine-grained, silty and clayey deposits. These conditions arc similar to soils
exposed in other parts of the Meadowdale area at similar elevations and are similar to conditions observed
at other slides in the Lorian Woods/Sequoia Ridge area. The exposed soil after sliding was standing near
vertical with a small, shallow, bench visible about 20 ft below the slide scarp. At the time of our visit,
defined sec -page paths had not yet developed and seepage was observed generally flowing around the mud
and debris accumulation at the base of the slide zone.
CAUSE, OF St_IDINC
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 bluff. Most landslides occur
during or following an intense rainfall .event during the wet winter season. The observed landslide
occurred during or after a short period of intense rainfall, but not during a period of extended wet weather
such as typically occurs during the winter.: It is possible that the very dry 2003 summer has led to ground
cracking that contributed to the landslide occurrence at this time.
.It is our opinion that the landslide originated in native granular soil above a seepage zone on the
steep part of the upper slope. The specific triggering cvcrtt of the observed landsliding is not known. It is
Landau Associates' opinion that the landsliding was caused by a combination of infiltration from a heavy
rainfall on the evening and early morning of September 15 and 16, 2003 combined with naturally
occurring seepage near the contact between granular sand and gravel deposits and underlying fine-grained
04I25/03 %XEdm .as%w -pr-c107l%1 MLorian Wood- Se012003 9rde rev 2.doC 2 I.ANDAu ASSOCIATES
5 17E 6 16 9 L p N 0 A U A UI AIES I h L UyiLJlU3 I : I I r.UU4/UUI
deposits. Both heavy rainfall events and groundwater seepage are common contributing factors to slope
failures in the Meadowdale area and throughout Puget Sound_
The observed landslide was likely caused by natural groundwater seepage zones that are present
in the steep portions of the slope. The lowest seepage zones observed during our visit were an estimated
20 ft above the nearest catch basin, CB tt8, in the City's interceptor drainage systern. As discussed in
Landau Associates' Drainage Evaluation Lorian Woods/Meadowdale Area report (July 2S, 2002), the
City's interceptor drainage systems capture some of the localized surface water that would otherwise
infiltrate the ground surface below the drainage system. The interceptor drainage systems do not reduce
groundwater levels in the slopes above the systems or reduce 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.
RISK TO CITY OF EDMONDS FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES FROM OBSERVED SLIDE
No damage was observed in the existing system 1 A from the September 2003 landslide. The
existing landslide does not appear to pose an immediate risk to any other City -owned facilities. However,
there is a large accun-rulation of very soft and wet soil in the lower part of this landslide. This soil could
move further downhill if it becomes wetter due to surface water tenon or precipitation. However, due to
the presence of relatively heavy vegetation in the area, downslope movement is expected to be limited.
BLUFF CRACYJNG - SEQUOIA RIDGE PLAT
During the site visit, conditions at the top of the bluff above and near the slide were observed.
Observations were conducted of the arCa near the bluff top on the south and west part of Sequoia Ridge
Lot 4 and along all of the west edge of Sequoia Ridge Lot 3. No cracks were visible on the ground
surface on Lot 4 above the recent slide. However, observations of the ground surface directly above the
recent slide area (e.g., within the zone about 3 to 10 A from the slope edge) were not done because of
safety concerns_
Ground cracks and small holes were observed in a nearly continuous zone on the west edge of
Lot 3 (Bosch residence). In some areas, more than one sct of parallel cracks were visible. The ground
cracks lie at variable distance away from the edge of the slope, varying from about 3 ft to greater than 10
ft. The ground cracks were observed as close as approximately 10 to IS ft from the northwest comer of
main structure and deck foundations for the Lot 3 residence. The ground cmcldng adjacent to other pans
of the residential structure vary in distance from about 15 to 30 ft away. The ground cracks observed in
this area are estimated to lie above Lorian Woods Lot 5, a currently undeveloped lot.
09.125103 11Eerrn731wprx10?41114LLori2A Woods Sept 2003 Jide rev 2 doc 3 LANDAU AssoclATEs
11c b 4 9 1 LA411P.0 AuL:AILJ INN
UJiZ3/u3 A:lq r.aua1UUI
Vegetation on the north part of Sequoia Ridge Lot 3 includes planted salal and other shrubs.
Closer to the house, vegetation includes a well -watered lawn and vegetable beds. The ground cracking
varied in distance from the existing structure and from the top of the slope. Most of the cracks showed
vertical offset, with the ground surface lower to the west. The ground surface west of the cracks is
slightly hummocky and slopes downward to the west. In some areas, concrete landscape retaining blocks
had apparently been downset from their original placement, with vertical movement of these blocks
estimated to vary between about 3 and 12 inches.
The observed ground cracking indicates soil blocks that are no longer "connected" to the intact
and undisturbed glacial soil mass east of the cracks. These soil blocks have a relatively high likelihood of
movement outward and downslope. Based on the distance of observed cracking from the edge of slope,
soil blocks of 3 ft to greater than 10 ft thick may be prone to downslope movement. Movement of the soil
blocks can be slow- or very rapid. Slow movement will be evidenced by increased cracking, opening and
offset on cracks that occurs over periods of days, months, and years. Slow ground movement may cause
cracks in patios, pavements, and structures that lie over the zone of movement. Rapid ground movement
occurs when the soil strength between the soil block and the adjacent undisturbed ground is too low to
support the weight of the soil block. Rapid failure of soil blocks occurs over a very short period of time,
from a few seconds to a few minutes. There is typically no warning about when and where rapid soil
movement will occur. Movement of these soil blocks is most likely during and after periods of high
Precipitation in the winter season, but should be anticipated at any time of the year. This type of soil
movement is likely to result in landsliding and debris flows similar to what have been historically
observed in the Lorian Woods / Sequoia Ridge_ area. Homeowners and landowners near the observed
cracks in both Sequoia Ridge and Lorian Woods plats should anticipate a high likelihood of soil
movement and landsliding from this area over the upcoming winter.
RISK TO RVCSIDENTS AND GENERAL PUBLIC FROM OBSERVT.D BLUFF CRACKS
At the time of our visit, no immediate risk from the observed ground cracks to public safety was
identified (because the downslope is undeveloped and the area is not readily accessible to, or used by, the
public). However, the presence of ground cracking indicates an unstable slope condition that has
increased risk of landsliding, particularly during wcE wcathcr and the upcoming rainy season. This
situation creates a hazard to any person present immediately below the potential landslide area. We
recommend that property owners in both Sequoia Ridge and Lorian Woods be informed of our
observations and the likelihood of landsliding during the upcoming winter and in future years.
Thu; Scquoia R.idgc Lot 3 homeownLr (Bosch) should be informed that their current setback from
the edge of slope (as defined by the recent cracking) to the structure and deck foundations at the
0925103t1Edrmasl�vra107411WLCroin WoOdSSeotZ003Oderev2.da 4 I..ANDAuAssOCIATES
northwest comer of the residence is approximately 10 to 15 11. Because the house has been built on deep
piles, the presence of these cracks probably does not pose an immediate risk to the structure. We
recommend that the homeowner inform their geotechnical designer of the presence of active ground
cracking so that their designer can provide an assessment of the long-term risk to the structure. We also
suggest that the Sequoia Ridge Lot 3 homeowners conduct regular observations of ground conditions to
document rate of change of ground cracking. ]ncreased numbers of cracks, opening of cracks, and
downward movement of soil blocks are indications that the risk of active landsliding is becoming greater.
The Lorian Woods Lot 5 owner should be informed that they could be directly impacted by soil
movement and landsliding related to the observed ground cracks on Sequoia Ridge Lot 3. We suggest
that information about landslide potential also be conveyed to other residents in the Lorian Woods plat,
because large-scale landsliding originating from Sequoia Ridge Lot 3 could create safety concerns and
i could affect common areas and potentially other lots.
RISK TO CITY -OWNED PROPERTY FROM 013SERVED BLUFF CRACKS
At the time of our visit, no immediate risk from the observed ground cracks to City -Owned
property was identified. However, the presence of ground cracking indicates an unstable slope condition
that has a relatively high risk of landsliding, particularly during wet weather and the upcoming rainy
season. The City's drainage interceptor system 1 A lies downslope of the observed cracks. Accordingly,
we recommend that the City discontinue regular observations of this system and use extreme caution
when making any other site visits or observations in the area.
This letter was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds. Within the limitations of
! scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice_ No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional
advice included in this report.
CIW903 ttEdrmastwroc 07e%t 14%t orian woods SeDI Z007,sdr rcv ZAoc 5 L.ANDAu ASSOCIATES
6 71c 6403 La'N,P U NSSOCikTES INC U9i.1J1U3 4 : I J Y.UUIIUUI
L We appreciate this opportunity to be of sm'ce to the City of Edmonds. Please call if you have
any questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Deborah Ladd, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Principal
DL(DRS/ccy
No. 074114.011
09r15iO3 X�Edrtr3s\Wprocw%4111eKod3nwoodsSept 200'JSfidcrev2.dx 6 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Environmental and Geoiechnical Services
STET FILE
City of Edmonds
-250 Fihh Avenue, North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Ms. Sharon Nolan
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOT•ECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED JOHNSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
16121 74TH PLACE WEST - LOT 8 LORIAN WOODS
EDMONDS; WASHINGTON
1�1
March 19,1993
Dear Ms. Nolan:.
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates has completed -a review of the
submittal associated with the subject project. This review was conducted using the sequirements
of City Ordinance No. L2661 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 several.issues associated with the proposed
dwelling require resolution in accordance with City Ordinance No. 2661 requirements. Our
comments are as follows:
1. The geotechnical consultant should review the environmental. checklist, 'Provide
comments and/or indicate its acceptability from a geotechnical perspective, as required
by Ordinance No. 2661.
2. The work will take place immediately uphill from a permanently flowing -drainageway,
contrary to the statements concerning surface water in theEnvironmental Checklist. To
reduce the possibility oWisturbing this -drainage, the location of the proposed filter fabric
fence should be shown on the plans.
3. If. signed and sealed copies of all of the applicable geotechnical reports ace not present
in the City`s files for this project, they should be requested. Alternately, the geotechnical
engineer couldseal the project plans where portions of previous reports are reproduced.
I',li. I;i 1\ !r_'. • I.I i�,ti i\IiJ. 11 \ 4•:!!'!!.q; �r, '.i„ __. j.l i�!!1� :� --
•
•
4. The wells installed in test pits by Terra Associates should be properly abandoned per
WAC 173-160 prior to or during house construction.
5. The surface soil materials at this site are landslide debris (Terra Associates. May 1991
letter). High cuts are planned in, and foundations will bear on, this relatively poor
quality material. The city should require that the geotechnical engineer provide
settlement estimates and that the structural engineer indicate that he has designated the
foundation system for such settlements. Furthermore, the City should require that the
geotechnical consultant observe all foundation excavation cuts, and the bearing. materials
for all footings, to ensure that the intentions of thegeotechnical recommendations for this
site are executed correctly.
6. It appears that some finished contours should be added to the grading plan, -(sheet 1) near
the rockery along the north wall.
7. Significant excavations will be necessary in order to construct the proposed residence.
the excavation quantities stated on the plans (432 cy) do not seem to allow for the
recommended temporary cut slopes. A 'Conditional Use Permit is required ' if such
quantities exceed 500 cubic yards.
8. The applicant should indicate where excavated, materials needed for backfill will be
temporarily placed while subsurface ronstruction occurs. Many onsite locations are
inappropriate for storage of such materials for reasons of slope stability, drainage,
protection of natural vegetation, etc.
9. A drainage plan for the site is not presented as such. Elements which are, typical of a
drainage plan- are presented on sheets 1 and 2, but these sheets are not sealed by. a
licensed engineer, as required by ordinance 2661. The City should request that sheets
1 and 2 be sealed by a licensed engineer or that a separate drainage plan be -prepared and
sealed by a licensed engineer.
10. The typical wall section on page 11 shows the foundation Arainage system 1 ft above the
bearing level of the proposed foundation. 'Conditions in this area are very wet at times
and we recommend that the City .require such drains to be installed adjacent to the base
03/19/93 J:\EpMONO5\JOHN''SON.LET
•
E
z
of the footing. To eliminate confusion, we recommend that the drawings show the
drainage system on all appropriate sections on page 12, as well as the Foundation Plan
(page 8).
11. Drainage should be provided behind rockeries. The Drainage Plan should :show an
appropriate connection -to the storm drain system.
12. A stamped survey has not been made for this individual lot. We understand that. the
City may accept a survey performed for the entire PRD in order to meet Ordinance 2661
requirements.
The City and Lead Design Professional should review each of these items and modify the
project documents as necessary. With the possible exception of No. 5 (settlement issue), Landau
Associates probably does not need to review Design modifications, unless the City so desires.
Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this review.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By.
Dean M. White, P.E.
Project Manger
and
William D. Evans, C.P.G.S.
Senior Geologist
DMW/WDE/fas
No. 74043.10
attachment
M/19/93. JAEDM0NC5\J0WS0N.M 3
LAND-V ASSO CIAI f:>. 1'�t'
ATTACHMENT 1
1. House Plans, 12 page set, dated 1-2/2/92, first seven pages sealed by Ronald D. Johnson,
Architect, last 5 pages sealed by Cornelius D. VandeEnde of.Structural Design Associates,
Inc.
2. Environmental, Checklist, undated, signed by Stephen C. Johnson
3- Geotechnical Letter, 2 pages with attachments, dated 12/17/92 by Terra Associates, 1W.
4. Landslide hazard Map (xerox excerpt from GeoEngineers 1985 report) with site
highlighted
5. Owner's Declaration, 1 page, dated 12/15/92, by Stephen C. Johnson
,6. Lead Design Professional's Declaration, 1 page, undated, by Ronald D. Johnson, Architect
7. Structural, Engineer's Declaration, . 3 pages, dated 12/17/92, by 'Structural Vesign
Associates, Inc.
8. Critical Areas Checklist
9. Critical Areas Determination
03/19/93 JAEDMOND5\1OHNSONIET
4 : . . . .... .. I
LAMY%!
TERRA A SSOCIATES, Inc.REcEjE®
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology 1 1)and MV 2' 1 2003 ..
Environmental Earth Sciences DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
June 13, 2003
Project No. T-840-4-8.
Joan and Steve Johnson
1612.1 = 74th Place West
Seattle, Washington 98020
Subject: Final Letter
Earthwork Observation and Testing
Johnson Residence, Lorian Woods, Lot 8
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: 1. Geotechnical Consultation, Deck Repair, Johnson Residence, Lorian Woods, Lot 8,
Project No. T-8404-8, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated February 27, 2003
Dear Joan and Steve Johnson:
As requested, we provided geotechnical observation and testing services during construction of the deck repair at
your residence. Our services included observing, recording, and evaluating pile load testing and, slab subgrade"
preparation. The purpose of our work was to verify conformance with the approved City of Edmonds drawings,
and our geotechnical engineering recommendations provided'in the referenced report.
Pile .Observation
We began our observations on June 9, 2003, after all four of the two-inch pipe piles were installed.. Two piles
were driven for the -column at the southwest corner of the deck, and two piles _were driven for. the adjacent
Column, located east of the corner column. The contractor explained that the piles had been driven to refusal, 3. at
a depth:of approximately 42 feet below existing surface grades; and 1" at 5 feet..The.pile on the west -side of the
easternmost column hit an obstruction at, five feet and was abandoned. The contractor later drove another pile two
feet west of the -abandoned one and planned to tie it into the grade beam.
Prior to our .arrival, the contractor prepared the westernmost pile for load: testing- and readied. a 140-pound
Jackhammer to redrive the remaining piles to,show they had reached their refusal point. Due to the' abandonment
of one of the piles, the structural engineersuggested that the adjacent pile, for that column carry the total column
design load. of four kips„provided testing indicated the pile had, the capacity. To verify this newdesign load of 4
kips, the testpile was loaded to approximately 8.3 kips. A cap was placed on the pile and,a 30-ton jack was used
to apply the test load., The contractor used -two double helix helical anchors installed .to approximately seven feet
"below existing surface grades as reaction piles. The pile was. loaded' in increments to an ultimate, loading .of
approximately 8:3 kips. The test pile deflected vertically a total of 0.05 inches during the test and, rebounded the.
same amount when the test. pile was unloaded. The .measured strain was most likely elastic compression of the
pile and not an actual indication of load -induced settlement of the pile. " After load testing, the jackhammer was
placed on each pile and turned on for one -minute increments.. None of the piles were driven any additional depth.
The piles were well seated and refusal criteria had been met.
M I C << �ILnll
12525 Willows Road, Suite,,] 01, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777. • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terraGterra-associates.com
4kan*`and Steve Johnson
June 13, 2003
•
In our opinion, using the information we gathered from the contractor, along with our field robservations, we
believe the piles installed on -site were constructed in accordance with ,project, specifications and our
recommendations. The piles are suitable for support of two kips, of vertical loading. We, concur .with. the
structural engineer that the easternmost pile can be used to support a design -load of four kips.
Fill Placement and Compaction
Some structural fill was required on the site. To prepare the slab area for construction, the. contractor used a
jumping jack compactor to first recompact the existing subgrade surface and then to compact the structural fill
into place. Structural fill consisted of 7/84nch crushed rock imported to the site. During our -initial site visit,,
prior to the slab subgrade preparation; the slab area probed easily and felt soft underfoot. After the.slab subgrade
recompaction, the slab areas werefirm, non -yielding; and the hand -probe could not penetrate the surface crust.
All areas, were suitable for slab support.
Summary
Based. on our field observations, it. is our opinion that the driven, pipe piles installed on the subject site have been
installed in accordance with the City of Edmonds approved drawings and Terra Associates; Inc. project
recommendations. Additionally, it is our opinion that the site grading was conducted in general accordance with
the.City of Edmonds requirements and'Terra Associates,. Inc. recommendations.
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information; please call.
Sincerely yours;
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.,
I -1/jp 3
Theodore " l
Principles
BK/CRUTJS:ae
cc: r. Larry, Uinimol UU Engineering.
RECEIVED
NOV 2 1 2003
t=! nPMENT SERVICES CTR.
'Y. OF EDMONDS . .
Project No. T-840-4-8
Page No.,12
INC. . �RUCTURAL DESIGN ASSJfIATES,
F ® CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5630. 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366
N WOOD.WA98046 PHONE: (206)775.7434
T
REC I OP ED
J
JAN 1 21992
PERMIT COUNTER
December 17, 1992
Ron Johnson, Architect
19601 - 23rd N.W.
Seattle, WA 98177
Subject: S. Johnson Residence, Lot 8, Lorian Woods P.R.D.
Edmonds, Wash.
DECLARATION STATEMENT -
Our ref.: Reports\90-591.rjh
To Whom This may concern:
This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the
geotechnical report from Terra Associates, Project #T-840-1 dated
June 6, 1989, letter dated May 7, 1991 and the 1979 report by Roger
Lowe Associates, as amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers,
Inc. and Landslide Hazard Maps established as part of these
reports.
The report indicates that Lot 8 is in an area subject to ground
failure. The probalility of earth movement on this lot within a 25-
year period is most likely 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 conotruction in a known hazardous area. Among these risks is
the possibility of the loss or damage to the resident's property
and life, as well the property and life of neighbors, public and
private, due to soil failure.
Sl"f7trc '!'L1RAl. ENGI+jELFr•{t c Dt.stc o t 2—
C3UILf71NC35 e i= UNOAr;,Di,�._ 9 i( 1. , INc' ;A a 'ai (A`— .. I caw t=1?S m I t .r•l r. S �
Reports\90-591\rjh Page 2 of Three
Because of the unpredictable nature of the soils, owners must
oassume the 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.
Reports\95-040.tsp
DECLARATION STATEMENT
To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans,
submitted with the permit application, substantially -incorporate
the above mentioned reports' recommendations.
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
SNRE.ET FILE
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. RECEIVED
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
d and JAN 1 2 1992
Environmental Earth Sciences
PERMIT COUNTER
Project T-840-4
December 17,1992
Ronald D. Johnson, Architect
19601 23rd Avenue NW
Seattle, Washington 98177
Subject: Residence for Mr. & Mrs. S. Johnson
Lorian Woods, Lot 8
Meadowdale Beach, Edmonds
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T-840-1
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57
June 6, 1989
Geotechnical Letter Report, Project T-840-4
Lorian Woods, Lot 8, May 7, 1991
(See Sheet 1 of the Project Drawings)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We understand you are preparing for construction of the Johnson Residence in the spring of 1993
on Lot 8 at Lorian Woods. We have examined copies of the plot and the grading plans, building
elevations, and a foundation plan that you provided us. We understand these plans are equivalent
to those that will be submitted to the City for permit. With regard to excavations, design soil
stresses, drainage, and other geotechnical considerations, the plans, in our judgment, conform with
the geotechnical recommendations in the documents referenced above.
In our opinion, all other aspects of the geotechnical engineer's declaration required by Section
19.05.040 of Ordinance No. 2661 are covered by the initial paragraphs of the second reference.
This letter affirms the declarations and recommendations in both references.
We have prepared a location plan for the test pits we excavated on this lot in April 1991. Test pits
logs have been prepared also and are presented in Table A. Both documents are attached to this
letter. Please note that we recently sounded water levels in the standpipes in TP-1 and TP-2. Both
are dry, as they were in May, 1991.
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 0 Phone (206) 821-7777
Ronald D. Johnson, Architect Project T-840-4
December 17, 1992 Page 2
We appreciate your request that we review these drawings. Please contact our office if you have
any questions regarding our work. We expect the City will require that you include an
environmental checklist with the documents submited for permit. Please call if you need advice
regarding the few questions concerning geotechnical or subsurface conditions on the site.
Sincerely,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC
William Bailey
Project Manager
'Theodore J. Sc epper, PE
Principal Engineer.
Encl: Figure 1, Test Pit Location PLan
Table A, Test Pit Logs
'M be eoniuvcted ohlot S -.of the existing -
9� Sliiei-2 ofb6mes 1,01%6 Woods diav, SL e
I the'' port.,, .our --op n oni.
'Wia's-, d1sOAs64'1Jn'ft'jcf6repccd Scotechikal: report.. likoly h less than
within 4ii this lot' rs,
hl ;Mrw ti
p -b risk -of earth-',,
nst l6n. .-t%
ter
."d t I ll� lot therd
afforded- b
nti p y
movoo".im bi by iMpidytM6
pa
the ii�� (otmdAdon AW.M.111M
by retnorring root al i weigh 6 (Ill. in excess of
Wknce-
of the, the rts,
la tA 'ut consistent with the in!en�-of! the referenced, ,
d
.fiery P ns WO, ve dimage to the are 0 -]In out opinion,- the ; ris)t'4,
I fePOrt and judort-iceelptable.
ge6todWka
.. 1. ies from Soil movement Win 40 minimal, siibject..,
prop&-cd reside= and to adjacent properties
nce's' foundiddiiiie constructed. A
tjo-:tWOioihdft1ons.sct:fOrth in thC'ftP.OFt- Wee the reside
movement. should decrease. : tbf� "reasonsnoted
soil
the Ootcntial, for
a
She'44 of - the, prefinduaq.0"Indk6tes ground Doom. at.-Elevado'
113 and 122 fees...
wlikh1j" %ily beldpo' ".Wftt F%dej L-on the iltf. :'A& vOhdped.OP.tW
the tbU ce tills W.k tarAoft 4ebds.,**& may Mlativ*:Pow,t�
referenced ¢
report,
The iefeteet¢eA ftpoftl =.-testpits nortb,..,
nal gougmp� 06 for conventional
of tM*..drhvwq'whcm builed vegetation. 'iqtniiaifta" 00113
.6boerved4i - fatfilty excMucii ii0ently to install
TO fiWW explare subsurface conditions on W 8. we have excavated t*�lplts to elcfttkm
ft northewk aW the sout I
a fc* fen below footing t!�, grades war
is
coinetW"the loL 7UpWe&ounWed-Wft&IWed&rKW �N
pea re
ingtedd -was observe& 11-ap thatY $at convent
ional ,
*M be
condl"'worsc dift- those observed In ft Pift may''.. P=at .locations not Y's
be. I W, f o
e.*o",Mqdcwe, evimoitionontAtS
F_ wr�
_qt 1. re
Id
In are movZoAtfitin
Id
top -
kno be _rives travel of pd ft.o
co
'pO nditlo ' '
do risk of fcun"on settleine�duatd "SOW u n%
are.
maximum Oqaft- isre".0r,120 per
MOMIMd Iftiportion V. or a M.
sad ush, to": and, at
L!q�jqtb Wigs int' tlp2.ffi_qMA�0,.,
mend, get gnb;p�a ntg,
wU stresses should designed for'an
Perintetet'(OU11" Ohis'&.Ohifi)tm stress rdfL 100 pouud ",ef,
Aluid wei&-alf 40,pou pds 00 C41C toot,
I dim, Ded outsidd,411
of'oot. Pciforatij dfafiip166!and fre"mint
in order..to construct the lower ground flow at Vey. 1% O.Cut, up to "b
ptol.
line.. In ow.Opoo�t 8 cut this deep about
Cce C*
be atade sear the center of the north lot
'toe, Of the 5 he east..
flon would not be 11ci the . steep at t
on U(S because the excava r 'excavation rise only A short '
the north bUthe
141deof. Urlan Wobft and hifth excavationmight
�night
Therefore, Wally ljo,danger'A
distance Ill a4el ground. reftire, thdii is virtually
WtabilitltL
initiate extensive slope
t S. Becaui6. the
#nu!d be taken, in Ma�qqk emvatibn on
Nevertheless, care n Therefore, —We
tc A Me Y--
more than to
MCOMM-nd #�mq#p in*
re awed.
Horizontal to 1 vertical it groundwater is encountered. tbttcf 51OPet
ter observation wells near the two
installed groundivB
0'
25
ubs
jh 6!.
V=N
U2, on
04 your contractor's an, We have insl
ma&.. Nahii. groundwatel.,was
dorth corners of the. jojwherethe-highestcuts,win be. 14rently afo dly.. in
obtiried In the test Pits where these wells were installed and the wGUS4
mcountardd at d6pths*-bilow-
.10 ecfnero stable if.
the thW pit new the MMISWCM be most *C b%Wq Wade and the walls of the pit eorp".: smation
slopesthe V=vz*M is . opened are below do beaft #24e.
gravpdwateg Wiels.v*ft
rer a n..el
pl lit
9
0
C z}tIy
%toNNdS MEW w00fIJ'i ORFINS
414 10 s �o w.�s. qAw UAL
V •r IHLL uO.0
kn '0 li
Approx Scale: 1 in = 20 ft
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
.- LL 614 lq+
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
LORIAN WOODS, LOT 8
MEADOWDALE BEACH, EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-4 Date 12/14/92 1 Figure 1
TABLE A
TEST PITS LOGS
LORIAN WOODS, LOT 8
MEADOWDALE BEACH, EDMONDS
Test Pit No.1
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 127
0-1 Slash and rock
1-12 Silty SAND. Brown -gray with orange stain;
loose to medium dense; moist, becoming wet.
Test pit completed at depth 12 ft. No sidewall caving.
PVC Standpipe installed to depth 9 ft. Lower 2 ft slotted.
No groundwater on 12/8/92.
Test Pit No. 2
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 120
0-3 Silty SAND. Brown, with numerous roots.
3-6.5 Silty fine SAND to sandy SILT. Gray with orange stain;
moist to wet.
6.5-8 Fractured SILT. Gray with orange stain; low plasticity.
8-10 Gray SILT. Low to no plasticity; firm; moist to wet.
Test pit completed at depth 10 ft. No sidewall caving.
PVC standpipe installed to depth 9 ft. Lower 3 ft slotted.
No groundwater on 12/8/92.
Test Pit No. 3
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 115
0-1 Topsoil
1-6 Silty fine to medium SAND with chunks of clay.
Gray and brown with some orange; loose; moist to wet.
6-8 Silty fine to medium SAND. Gray; wet to saturated;
medium dense.
Test pit terminated when sidewalls caved at depth 8 ft.
Project No. T-840-4
Test pits excavated on April 26, 1991
03-17-1993 16:00 777 777 ?777 P.03
1 i.t�Ai3! f=x�sr. urn i:t.t1.
__
_____ ..
tiv, C � tti try.160
t2o.5� INd, t
_..,...__....._............
J►
Eta. G q
G.I34 4�r a2 �4" S oou, TO
"1
IN , qb. fir`'` 1ST
3
a -
i
tvp
Q �N►1 • It7 . � �. our
I(t.55 w.
1 � ` •y
-a tTj Coaw is
t ..—�•.'_ .,' � it Wit' , i �. "
. � ���•` `�,f rof ��� l t 0 't4 per. -
� 98
P �O
REET FILE
A.
lhC. 1S913
1�
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building •Engineering
Mr. & Mrs. Steve Johnson March 23, 2001
16121 741h Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Slope Investigation
Dear N>I A�15, Alf. J o/wxcp✓
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Please be advised.,, -it has been reported to me as_Building Official for the City of Edmonds that
the recent earthquake triggered earth movement on or near property you own at 16121 74th Place
West, Edmonds. The City was provided a report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., as
retained by Mr. Phil Lehn, that states, "...the risk of landslide activity affecting the existing
homes located at the toe of the slope is also considered to be extremely high." A copy of the
report is enclosed for your information. The City does not endorse nor dispute the findings or
conclusions made in the report, but under Uniform Building Code and statutory provisions, as
Building Official, I am obligated to investigate the matter.
Therefore,.pursuant.to City,Ordinance:#.26,6;1 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence
Landslide Hazard Area and Uniform Building., Code; Section 102 and 104.2.3; theCity and it's
consultants,; request permission to enter upon--lartd"-you''owri 'at`-16121'--74th:Place West, to
iilv, stigafe the. no slope failure. Our inspection will not 'involve any intrusive action. Pending
the resulfof this"investigation the Building Official,may be forced to require further:investigation
and slope mitigation to ascertain temporary and -permanent slope protection --and habitability of
your residence.
If you choose to grant City Officials access to conduct this investigation please sign the
following statement and return it to me as soon as possible.
Thank you,
We Steve and Joan Johnson, property owners at
16121 74th PI W, hereby grant permission for City
Officials and their agents and consultants to enter
my property as described in this letter.
Steve ohnson IDate
Jeannine.L..Graf
Building.O.fficial.
.<
oadJohnson : Date,,,:-,
Cc: ,..:,Duane Bowman; Development Services;Dire- cton, ,- ,
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
March 15, 2001
AESI Project No. BE01022A
Green Terra Inc. KD
16202 72nd Avenue West MAR ' y 2001
Edmonds, Washington 98026.Bultt:lNG CAE?Af?T
CITY OF EUMONDS T
Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn
Subject: Limited Slope Reconnaissance
16202 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Lehn:
At your request, we 'are providing the following summary of a limited slope reconnaissance of
your property at 16202 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. Our slope reconnaissance
was performed on February 13, 2001.
The subject property consisted of approximately ,1.56 acres of developed residential property
bordered by a steeply sloping hillside. to the west. The existing Lehn residence is located in the -
northem portion of the site.
The steep hillside sloped down, toward the west, at an average slope inclination on the order of
1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Total vertical relief of the slope was approximately 120 feet. A
surficial' landslide, which involved the entire height of the slope, was reported to have occurred
on February 13, 1998. The slide occurred below the southwest corner of the subject property and
consisted of rapidly moving mud, and debris.. The slide debris moved over -the entire height of
the hill and caused damage to the private property below. "Damage to the upslope property
consisted of loss of a portion of the upper slope and damage to a former gazebo. During our
slope reconnaissance, we noted that the majority of the slide debris had been overgrown with
dense ground cover with, the exception of the headscarp-area, which consisted of near vertical,
bare sandy soils. _
During our reconnaissance, we also noted the presence of an approximately 40-foot-long; 24- to
36-inch headscarp below the northwestern corner of the subject property. This headscarp was
approximately 70 feet north of the 1998 landslide area. The crack, was visible on the subject
property (Lehr property) through landscaped areas west of an existing rockery. The scarp was .
Corporate Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5424
West Sound Office • 179 Madrone Lane North • Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 • Phone 206 780-9370 • Fax 206 780-9438
Phillip Lehn
AESI Project.No:.BE01022A
March 15, 2001
Page 2
inferred to*I continue onto, the neighboring property .to the north but was obscured by heavy
ground cover. The scarp appeared to. be the result of recent earth movement on the slope.
Following our site visit, we also reviewed a total of seven digital images recorded by Mr. Lehn
on March 6, 2001. These images illustrate conditions at the site shortly after the February 28,
2001, magnitude 6.8 earthquake experienced by the Puget Sound region. The pre-existing scarp
appeared to have lengthened to the south by approximately 10 . feet and has increased to
approximately 48 inches. The scarp, previously located west of and outside the footprint of the
existing rockeryon the Lehn property; has extended approximately 7 .feet.uphill and to the east,
and is now within .the rockery footprint. Displacement of the rockery"has occurred west of the
new scarp location.
The earth movement activity, as evidenced by the February 1998 landside, the pre-existing scarp
observed during our February 2001 reconnaissance, and apparent reactivation of the pre-existing
scarp during the February 28, 20.01 earthquake represents an extremely high risk of imminent
landsliding in this area. Based on the topographic and inferred geologic conditions at the site,'
the same topographical, geological and hydrogeological factors, which.precipitated the 1998
landslide, are likely present in. the area of the'currently observed movement. Therefore, the risk
of landslide activity affecting the existing homes located at the toe of the slope is also, considered
to be extremely high, Future significant earth movement will have additional adverse impact to
your property. Since a significant increase in rainfall could reinitiate the earth movement at any
time, we recommend this area be closely monitored for signs of recurring movement. We further
recommend that the downslope residents be notified immediately of the high risk of landslide
activity on the slope. Further study and mitigation for the area to reduce the risk of future
landslide activity, should be performed immediately. We recommend that this .information be
shared with the downslope .residents.
�It is, our understanding that the geotechnical consultant (Adapt Engineering), representing one of
the downslope residents performed a post -earthquake reconnaissance of the site on March 12,
2001. Information gathered during this field visit and any other previous field visits made, by
Adapt Engineering, or -any other consultant, should be evaluated immediately to help determine
the appropriate course of action to reduce the landslide hazardto your property and the
downslope residents.
Phillip Lehn
AESI Project No. BE01022A
' March 15, 2001
Page 3
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
West Sound Office
v• PETS,
•�0 18802�
. �SfONAL�G�
EXPIRES 6/22
Robert F: Cousins, P.G. John L. Peterson, P.E'.
Project Geologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer
cc: Stephan Fjelstad, Law Offices of Karen A. Willie
W:\GEOTECH\Lehn Property BE01022\BE01022A Lehn Crack Letter.doc
}
I
lnC.189v
April 26, 2001
REET FILE
/21 7747
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
Phillip & Miriam Lehn
Green Tara Incorporated
16202 72°d Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Slope Stability Consultation
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lehi,,
In response to your Associated Earth Sciences report dated 3/15/01 regarding a landslide that
occurred on or near property you own at 16202 72nd Avenue West; City consultants have
investigated the noted slope failure and a copy of the Landau Associates report dated 4/19/0.1 is
attached.
After reviewing this report and the information you previously supplied me, it is my
determination as Building Official, that no further investigation or mandatory slope mitigation
(including temporary or permanent slope protection) appear to be warranted at this time and
therefore will not be imposed by me for any of the upslope or downslope properties.
Meadowdale property owners have a general awareness of landslide hazards and risks associated
with steep slope property. Property owners generally understand the landslide hazard risks
inherent with private property in or near this area. It continues to be important for such
properties to take measures to best manage such risks, including but not limited to, -utilizing
professional geoteclihical expertise 6 Turther investigate and evaluate the landslide risks,
monitoring slope _ movement, implementing slope and/or drainage improvements, developing
recommendations for site specific mitigating measures, etc.
Should there be a change in the future conditions or any new information develops. I would
welcome the impute and will review the matter in light of any new information provided me.
Thank you,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Carol Walker, Property Owner @ 16209 75 h Place West
Mary Neering, Property Owner @ 16119 73`d Place West
Steven & Joan Johnson, Property Owners @1612174d~ Place West
Chun Pak, Property Owner @ 16109 73rd Place West
• Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Citv - Hekinan. Japan
Landau
Associates
Environmental and Geotechnical Services
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5`h Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Jeannine Graf
Building Official
April 19, 2001
APR ? �®
�� 3 ?041
0T 1'Cie �FP,gRT
�MO�M�T
RE: SLOPE STABILITY CONSULTATION
16202 72ND AvENUE WEST
EDMONDS9 WASHINGTON
Dear Ms.. Graf.
At your request, we conducted a limited review of slope stability and risk issues at 16202 72nd
Avenue West (subject property) and several properties to the west of this property, including the Walker
property and the southernmost property within the Lorian Woods subdivision. As part of our review, we
visited the site on April 4, 2001 and looked at a letter to Phillip Lehn (owner of the subject property)
prepared.by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), dated March 15, 2001, and a letter to the City of
Edmonds prepared by AESI, dated March 16, 2001. We did not review the March 6, 2001 digital images
referenced in the letter to Mr. Lehn or the results of a March 12, 2001 reconnaissance reportedly
conducted by Adapt Engineering, as mentioned in AESI's March 15, 2001 letter.
During our site visit, we observed the area of the February 13, 1998 landslide referenced in the
AESI March 15, 2001 letter. We also reviewed letters prepared by Landau Associates in 1998 for the
City of Edmonds pertaining to this landslide. The 1998 landslide area 'remains largely overgrown. A
near -vertical exposure of sandy soil is present near the headscarp area as present in 1998 and noted in the
March 15, 2001 AESI letter. In addition, we noticed a zone of hard, gray, fractured, silt and clay exposed
further downslope below the zone of exposed sandy soil. Large chunks of silt and clay (cobble to boulder
size) have spalled off of this near -vertical soil exposure. This silt and clay exposure is evident from the
property below, but is not visible from the subject property at the top of the slope.
At the top of the west -facing slope near the west side of the subject property, we observed a small
ground crack in sandy soil north of the 1998 landslide area. The crack appeared to be relatively recent
(probably within the last several months). We suspect that the crack may have been more evident when
observed by others in February, as it was partially obscured at the time of our visit (probably due to
weather and rain influence on the sandy soil). The observed ground crack was within or adjacent to the
top of the headscarp of the overall slope. This headscarp could have been associated with older
130 2nd AVENUE -SOUTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020
(425) 778-0907 • Fax: (425) 778-6409 • Toll Free: (800) 552-5957 • E-mail: info@landauinc.com
Seattle (Edmonds) Tacoma Portland (Lake Oswego) Spokane
movement at this location rather than recent movement associated with the small ground crack.
Vegetation obscured the extent of ground cracking or movement, if any, on the property immediately to
the north of the subject property. The 24- to 36-inch headscarp located to the south of the observed
ground crack referenced in the AESI letter was not as obvious to us.
We agree that similar topographical and geological factors that were involved with the 1998
landslide are likely present in the area of recently observed movement and ground cracking. In fact,
similar conditions likely exist along most of this bluff extending to the north and south of this property,
and not specifically just at the observed location. We agree that there is risk of future landsliding on this
bluff. This risk existed before the observed ground cracking. In our opinion, the observed ground
cracking occurring near the location of an existing landslide headscarp does not necessarily represent a
new risk. The ground cracking is simply the current, visible evidence of a long-term slope risk that is
present at this location. We would expect to see various indications of slope movement at different
locations along this slope over time. Because there is currently visible evidence of some movement at
this particular location, that could imply that this location may be more likely to be involved in future
slope movement than adjacent areas where no movement is currently evident.
We concur that it is appropriate to share the information regarding recently observed slope
conditions with the neighboring residents. By AESI copying the March 16, 2001 letter to a number of
surrounding residents, this notification may have already occurred. We understand that the toe of the
February 13, 1998 landslide came onto property owned by Mrs. Walker. It is not clear to us whether this
property was included in the notification of nearby residents, but probably should be.
Since the subject property and properties. to the west are all within the City of Edmonds'
"Meadowdale Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area" as defined in Ordinance #2661, we assume
that all of the affected residents -are fully aware of the landslide risk inherent with -the_ prcperty in this.area.-:M--...-
In particular, property that has been developed since the-"Meadowdale.Ordinance" has been in effect have
all required specific geotechnical studies and the identification of landslide hazard and risk as a partof the
permitting and development process for newer residences. We are aware that geotechnical studies
associated with the development within the Lorian Woods subdivision at the toe of the subject slope have
identified this slope as a landslide hazard.
In our opinion, it is difficult to determine whether the ground crack present near the existing,
oversteepened headscarp location would progress to result in only localized sloughing and slope
movement at this location, or progress to a larger slope movement similar to the 1998 landslide. The
recent notification of current conditions by AESI to the neighboring property owners and the general
awareness of landslide hazards and risks that have been previously communicated to the property owners
is important. Since the slope is located on private property, it would appear that it is the responsibility of
04/19/01 SAWPROC10 AMU6202-72nd Itr m LANDAuAssoclATEs
2
the individual property owners to understand the landslide risks inherent with property in this area and
take measures to best manage these risks. Measures that could be taken by the property owners include,
but are not limited to, monitoring slope movement, implementing slope and/or drainage improvements,
and retaining a consultant to further investigate and evaluate the landslide risks and develop
recommendations for site -specific mitigating measures that could be implemented.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds. Please call us if you have
any questions regarding this letter or if we may of further assistance.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Principal
and
E;�
Steven R. Wright, P.E.
Senior Engineer
DRS/SRW/jzs
04/19/01 SAWPROC\074\092\16202-72nd Itrdoc LANDAU AssociATEs
3
RETURN ADDRESS:
City of Edmonds, City Clerk 200309181173 R 5E PGS PY
121, Sth Avenue North 09 -18 - 2003 04 : 32pm $23.00
Edmonds, WA 98020 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION
AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS
Reference #:
Grantor(s):(1)Wi--F6 Im Additional on pg.
Legal Description (abbreviated):
OR Lot Block Plat
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1)i�'IoDOQR`� �Q (2)
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPROVED FOR RECORDING
DATE:-!? PAGE I OF
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code,
incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit `for the construction of a residential
structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby
covenant, stipulate and promise. as follows:
MICROFILM
•
•
1. Description of Subject Property,
APP*By-
PAGFOR RECORDING:
OF`5
This covenant of notification and
indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of
FL- 20 I,DAaJ t i LV4 . $pZ sert street
address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as:
N"W b4A, -q i7+.1� 400h —, CEO _'%
Ln Sw 6L Sn Lot -fl 14-4 Pt -CA 5 t_-rbo -(0 ev
2. Notification and Covenant of Notification The above referenced site
(hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area.which has been identified by the.City
of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence'or landslide hazard. The
risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical
consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to
obtain_a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports
and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building
permit 51e number (insert number) on file with the City of
Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on
development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of
•
APPRO WD
OR RECORD G:
BY: DA
PAGE OF
the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or
prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or
may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order
to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The
statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer,
geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference
from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser,
lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the
property is put on notice of the existence of the content of.the file and the City urges
review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or
copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
3. Indemnification and Hold Harm] es The undersigned OWNERS
hereby waive any and all liability associated with development; stating that they
have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the
property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against
the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such
development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in
interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or
damage of, any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site
resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of
the issuance of _any permit(s). authorizing development of the site, or occurring or
APPR- I��OR RECORDING:
BY:A:
VJ
PAGE � OF Al
arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the
OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of
the building permit.
4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be
required during the course of development, the Community Services Director
not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy
for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order
to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification
and hold harmless agreement above:
5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land This covenant of
notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject
tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of
future owners,, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity
acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall
not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to
the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above
required.
r
=�TOR REDATEOF
DONE this �_ day of Zz� �o2C
X
By:
By
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss:
COUNTY OF ,5N10H-6M,1,5,41 )
certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in
this instrument. DATED this 0p a day of Gc o�Q�3
' 'T . 4 'O •. 2 i
Jf 0 NG Y TARP PUBLIC f��►4 wt r-c_ �'
j PUBUG .
I�..OFWAS =
L:ITEMP\BUILDINGIMEADOw\COVENANT
My commission expires: c q — / oZ0o9 .
I
I,'-" �77�
CITY OF EDMONDS
LAURA M. HALL
:.`:t }.`..:• .; MAYOR
250 - 5TH AVE. N. EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
I p Public Works • Planning •' Parks and -Recreation . Engineering
890 19
Mailed 5/20/93
May 19, 1993
Steve.Johnson
14312 - 63rd Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
'Re: Driveway slope waiver for SFR at 16121 - 74th Pl. W.,
Edmonds
Dear Mr. Johnson,
We have reviewed the letter submitted by your architect requesting a.
driveway slope waiver. Based on the reasons presented and the area
included, a waiver is hereby granted. The maximum slope is not to
exceed 18.10.
If you have any questions, please call,me at 771-0220, extension 324.
Sincerely,
ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV
Engineering Inspector
AlEertls
ALC/sdt
c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator
Ron Johnson
JOHNSON/TXTST530
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
• ORECEivEr)
MAY 0 5 1993
• STREET FILE PERMIT COUNT
MiSMA'n1
�s pub ��+�, � ��:� � y�k ��, -to
kQUw h U1InugK, foK, cull 2luu?way fi -4C��o 1410 M*-
s�op�. B+rr.A�9�
1Vt_`fq' lua�w..d -to B� lain
loin 0,�o Tot CAuuoi � Bed
--
-
�o �3. b �� XMpt, 1�1._'i�1S �`jP� . l� •C011. _ �k�.ut%•_. � � A'i�l9ccv/' _.
BY lti 1�u 'tia�utwq�/ �
P.oc�.er.�zs lb ncc� 't� ut,u �uu�ua�� bra P�eP�x9 t��
#0r I.uaulo kw _ f2o�t �ircv. __fl�o �1GiS�s 2 sgpzm.
`�I.NVus (VpbW._*_ Btbb_�ildl�AANy). _U11d1cbf_ ItiOUCb
�Oui�
UIF�Vex, �jmtugl4 W uf to 5.
f W.00
(i�ll'l�C
f
127c.189v
January 16, 2003
CITY O F E D M O N D c GARY HAAKENSO
1 .7 MAYOR
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
Stephen & Joan Johnson
16121 741h Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Localized slide
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Johnson:
In response to a localized slide, City officials conducted a site. inspection on December 20, 2002
and observed a slope failure on private property to the east of your residence at 16121 74th Place
West in Edmonds. Accompanying City officials were representatives of Landau Associates, a
professional geotechnical consultant of the City. Landau Associates conducted a, site
reconnaissance and subsequently prepared a report (copy enclosed) that describes the observed
slide.
The report states that the loose/soft deposits associated with the landslide are present on private
property in the landslide path and can easily move downhill particularly during wet weather
conditions. Although the report also states that the existing landslide does not pose an imminent .
risk to nearly residences or to the., general public, property owners in the vicinity of the landslide
should be alerted to the condition of the slope. The purpose of this letter and copy of the Landau
Associates report satisfies this notification.
Further, as a potentially affected residence to further sliding you may want to consider hiring a
State licensed Geotechnical Engineer to prepare an independent assessment of the slope and to
provide recommendations about the possible future impacts of landsliding.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official, C.B.O.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Citv - Hekinan. Janan
ci
January 9, 2003
40
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
City of Edmonds, Development Services Department
121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Dave Gebert
RE: LANDSLIDE EVALUATION
MEADOWDALE AREA — SOUTH LORIAN WOODS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
. RECEIVED
JAN 10 2003
EENGINEERING DIVISION
Dear Mr. Gebert:
This letter summarizes our observations and recommendations related to a landslide that occurred
on the steep slope, east of 73nd Place West, in the southeastern part of the Lorian Woods plat. At the
request of the City of Edmonds (City), Deborah Ladd and Dennis Stettler of Landau Associates visited
the site on December 20, 200j along with City of Edmonds personnel Dave Gebert, Don Fiene, Anne
Bullock, and Jim Kammerer. The purpose of our visit was to assess site conditions and identify any
imminent hazard to City -owned facilities, the residents, and the general public. Our services were
provided under Task Order No. 18 of our on -call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the
City.
BACKGROUND AND OBSERVATIONS
The landslide is located in the southeast part of the Lorain Woods subdivision, on.the slope above
the residence at 16119 73"d Place West. The landslide crosses the City's interceptor drainage system "1B"
and lies immediately south of catch basin CB #17 in this system. The approximate location of the
landslide, along with a schematic showing the City's drainage system is shown on the attached site map,
Figure 1.
We understand that the landslide occurred sometime between December 13 and December 20,
2002 (between regular site visits by the City maintenance personnel). At the time of our visit, we
accessed parts of the slide using paths originating on the north side of the residence at 16109 73`d Place
West and the north and south sides of the residence at 16119 73'd Place West. The landslide occurred
during a period of moderate rainfall (2.3 inches of precipitation was recorded at Sea-Tac Airport between
December 13 and December 19, 2002 and a maximum 24-hr precipitation amount of 1.31 inches was
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
January 9, 2003
40
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
City of Edmonds, Development Services Department
121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Dave Gebert
RE: LANDSLIDE EVALUATION
MEADOWDALE AREA — SOUTH LORIAN WOODS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
. RECEIVED
JAN 10 2003
EENGINEERING DIVISION
Dear Mr. Gebert:
This letter summarizes our observations and recommendations related to a landslide that occurred
on the steep slope, east of 73nd Place West, in the southeastern part of the Lorian Woods plat. At the
request of the City of Edmonds (City), Deborah Ladd and Dennis Stettler of Landau Associates visited
the site on December 20, 200j along with City of Edmonds personnel Dave Gebert, Don Fiene, Anne
Bullock, and Jim Kammerer. The purpose of our visit was to assess site conditions and identify any
imminent hazard to City -owned facilities, the residents, and the general public. Our services were
provided under Task Order No. 18 of our on -call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the
City.
BACKGROUND AND OBSERVATIONS
The landslide is located in the southeast part of the Lorain Woods subdivision, on.the slope above
the residence at 16119 73"d Place West. The landslide crosses the City's interceptor drainage system "1B"
and lies immediately south of catch basin CB #17 in this system. The approximate location of the
landslide, along with a schematic showing the City's drainage system is shown on the attached site map,
Figure 1.
We understand that the landslide occurred sometime between December 13 and December 20,
2002 (between regular site visits by the City maintenance personnel). At the time of our visit, we
accessed parts of the slide using paths originating on the north side of the residence at 16109 73`d Place
West and the north and south sides of the residence at 16119 73'd Place West. The landslide occurred
during a period of moderate rainfall (2.3 inches of precipitation was recorded at Sea-Tac Airport between
December 13 and December 19, 2002 and a maximum 24-hr precipitation amount of 1.31 inches was
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
recorded on December 14). Overall rainfall for the water year beginning in October 2002 has been
considerably below normal.
The landslide has mudflow characteristics, with an estimated width of about 15 ft and a total
length of 40 ft or greater. The landslide initiated about 20 to 30 ft (vertical distance) above the City's
interceptor drainage system 1B and slightly south of CB #17 in this system. The landslide debris
extended about 10 ft below. (west) of CB #17. The estimated elevation of the top of the slide is at about
200 to 210 ft elevation, an elevation similar to approximate groundwater seepage elevations observed in a
glacial sand unit within the bluff. The failed soil zone is estimated to be about 3 to 4 ft thick (measured
perpendicular to the slope face).
Below the landslide scarp (at the top of the slide), the landslide appears to involve the surficial
layer of soil on the slope along with small to medium-sized trees and other surficial vegetation. The
mudflow and vegetative material is.currently resting on small benches near (above and below) CB #17.
The landslide occurred on private property, did not extend to public facilities other than the City's
interceptor drainage system, and did not impact any residences. Silty, water, along with some fine sand .
and silt had flowed into small drainages in and near the backyard of the residence at 16119 73'a Place
West.
Soil conditions exposed near the top of the slide area appear. to be glacial in origin and consist of
outwash sand and gravel overlying fine-grained, silty and clayey deposits. These conditions are similar to
soils exposed in other parts of the Meadowdale area at similar elevations. The exposed soil after sliding
was standing near vertical with a bench visible about 10 ft below the slide scarp.
At the time of our visit, defined seepage paths had not yet developed and seepage was observed
generally flowing over the mud accumulation at the base of the slide zone. Groundwater seepage was
also observed from other locations on the hillside. At the time of our visit, no seepage was observed
flowing into CB #17, although Mr. Kammerer (City Public Works) reported that seepage had previously
flowed into CB #17 and Landau Associates' personnel observed a flow rate of about 1.5 gpm in January
2002 at that location.
CAUSE OF SLIDING
The. bluff in the Meadowdale area is a known landslide hazard zone. The observed landslide is
consistent with other naturally -occurring landslides that occur along. the Meadowdale bluff, typically
during or following an intense rainfall event during the wet winter season. There was no evidence of
construction or other human activities that would lead to..landsliding. It.is our opinion that the landslide ..
originated in native granular soil above a seepage zone on the steep part of the upper slope. Although the
specific cause of the observed landsliding is not known, seepage occurring near the contact between
01=103 1XEdmnas\wproc10741109uMeadowdale Slide - Dec 2002.doc 2 LANDAO ASSOCIATES
granular sand and gravel deposits. and underlying fine-grained deposits is a typical and significant
contributing factor to slope failures in the Puget Sound area.
As discussed in Landau Associates' Drainage Evaluation Lorain Woods/Meadowdale Area report
(July 25, 2002),. the City's interceptor drainage systems capture surface water that would otherwise
infiltrate into the large-scale Meadowdale Slide below the interceptor drainage system. The interceptor
drainage systems do not reduce groundwater levels in the slopes above the systems. The observed
landslide was likely caused by natural groundwater seepage an estimated 10 to 20 ft above the City's
interceptor drainage system 1B and CB #17. 'Accordingly, it is our opinion that the observed landslide
was not caused by or related to the City's interceptor drainage system..
RISK TO CITY OF EDMONDS FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES
The landslide may have damaged a small part of a City -owned interceptor drainage system.
Specifically, based on the lack of observed flow into CB #17, the trench drain associated with CB #17
may have been clogged or damaged. We recommend that the City continue regular observations near
CB #17 to determine and document the routing of seepage in this vicinity.
The existing landslide does not appear to pose a risk to any other. City -owned facilities. However,
there is a large accumulation of soft soil above CB #17 that could move downhill, particularly if the soil
in this area becomes saturated. Accordingly, City maintenance personnel should. exercise care when
working in this area.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Loose/soft soil deposits associated with the landslide are present on private property in the
landslide path both above and below CB #17. These deposits of soil can easily move downhill,
particularly during wet weather. Although the existing landslide does not pose an imminent risk to the
nearby residences or to the general public, property owners in the vicinity of the landslide (particularly
the residence at 16119 73rd Place West) should be alerted to the condition of the slope. The potentially
affected residences should consider an independent assessment of the slope and the possible future
impacts of landsliding.
01A8M3 %%Ednwsiwprod07411090eadowdele Slide -Dec 2002.doc 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES
This letter was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds. Within the limitations. of
scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been conducted in accordance with. generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice.. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional
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 or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Deborah Ladd, P.E. .
Senior Engineer
o�s..r2
Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Principal
DL/DRS/ccy
No. 074109.011
Attachment: Figure 1, Site Map
01/08/03 �1Edrrmas%wproc%07411091Meadowdale Slide -Dec 2002.doc 4 t.ANDAU ASSOCIATES
-g'I
1.7
1 i' / /'.. • 'fi�rr : r: i/! : / V l I "�' •,/:
'( /,:, :j� i- / �,'+'•/ rk" Lei' // •/�
-DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1A,' /,-
'� t _'�,�,'',: � ....�,-'.l-,^4-,, 4-�i l:" / �. I Ye , 1 I +•, /: ice'" :_j ..
' it i' i' l,• f/ l i/ t I ' �:� ( ' % �_ /_ O / r. 1. ,� ! I i I • ' , ' ' /' : •/,- ...-i .: ,-_..
'i+.!()'r" I � - i� i- ' i V.••-_':- ._ _"_--
IF
, 1 ' r l i j I , i • l�. ! , ! ' � � ... " r ii'; i.il. _.:;,1;j � �� %x ��: _ - - _ - _-•, .
�i A ! I i• � ' .'II;�•- --__ r ,�j! l.jt .i�ii���/Ilt ,y�l :/ii� --_- - _--_- -
�" II I i � l }lyt�� 1/i �/�. !.'.i '�''i' _ -♦'• _ - .:v? j•�'77("y !�'!f.,!1: •.. i• /: - - - - _
4 i. ` t 1 -
I ' 1•/ ,, �� �•: - \: i ' - r fj:!:1l; '' ia;iii'� - - _ _-- _ _ _
Ii LORIAN:
' --WOODS
\3. ,1• '' jiif;`,Yi.!,�,;;�!rti`; ,;'}:j�iEj�,iiin4O ;ilr, ii• '�i'�: 1l---•..:�.-' -- -- - _ -_ _ =._ `'\'`,;�lI\�', j '. � /' �� i 1, ;•i.;;i f 1 Is , ,,, .I � ! I �-RI_DGE__ \ \
t ( I ! ; •,... - • ,. I /'i �/ i -!', a;,I,' /' i ' , ,'� t r�, i,�� ii ' (II� �I (I' i) I i I.. - _ _ ---\` \\\• 7:..
� (11 � ; , , � '• `, !�,�,ll; 'j , �� � ii!u1� ir'wi p ,� � III �y -- __ - � �•::
i! fill
' -
,1?� � ,'��r' / �':1:`, ! ' �, '���\ , ': i�r II �'iil I►.f III , i„;. .ti,. .l. •, :• .' •\'
1
I / /•— I li �' 4�1 �-v �:1:..• 1'.v. i ! 1' ; r i , � I 11.. :.`; 4t '. '� :/�/.
' i l , I i ' 1 + it 4� C' � : "•j �J
-,J.. i � fill !`, (!, i I ,i ',':�: :•�. ,*�, e � ,t,ti•
J. i i�,• II .�,:'' '11 II�I'i ��i'I III it 1 �;� :;.: ^ it - _ �•
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 113
�Ii i 'ii I'
I I
/. ;,,:1: ' ,,• li fill 11) ,�;�►i ,. i,4i� :I ►I1�., - _:,
XXI
.'1 I 'l: +/ , •�i;'. i 1 I I i l l � 1 � ' 1 .Ei n }:`i� i s i �:'S..�
.�,'r. 1, � 1, /i i. ,Ili'. .. I) i �� ii i ,ill ill ! i '�� ii'1 i'I!'I tf:t:i.; .• { Ss.
�`.,:' i•�• � %, I �'♦ •� ���I+Q ,,�i ! ! ! ,1i; r.'. .I _I III) t , �-ir`
rJJ •'/ - r .1,.�1 -i ! \\ \\,�.\ /n•• 11,' ir�i ilI 4+ i.l.:; :ji': ;`I i
•i r�•'j'+:`•. ?iii. ,��• rill, /n' 1!1I A,- 1__•:
•'�/�•�• �:i:�,!4'!;i :. ni fill { •.•�•�••�\ v'!w% �,
C
� I
•�l/ '.♦. \
r� i•'ir �!, ''+'i}d1 .all
01
Adapted from: R.W, Beck 2000 '•
0 100 200
Drainage Evaluation '
Scale in Feet Lorian Woods/Meadowdale
Edmonds, Washington
_ I
S OZ�_ r7A-1°
'40
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building - Engineering
April 26, 2001
Phillip & Miriam Lehn
Green Tara Incorporated
16202 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Slope Stability Consultation
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lehn, 4.
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
In response to your Associated Earth Sciences report dated 3/15/01 regarding a landslide that
occurred on or near property you own at 16202 72nd Avenue West; City consultants have
investigated the noted slope failure and a copy of the Landau Associates report dated 4/19/0.1 is
attached.
After . reviewing this report and the information you previously supplied me, it is my
determination as Building Official, that no further investigation or mandatory slope mitigation
(including temporary or permanent slope protection) appear to be warranted at this time and
therefore will not be imposed by me for any of the upslope or downslope properties.
Meadowdale property owners have a general awareness of landslide hazards and risks associated
with steep slope property. Property owners generally understand the landslide hazard risks
inherent with private property in or near this area. It continues to be important for such
properties to take measures to best manage such risks, including but not limited to, utilizing____
professional • geoteclhiical expertise '**to further investigate ` and evaluate the landslide risks,
monitoring slope movement, implementing slope and/or drainage improvements, developing
recommendations for site specific mitigating measures, etc.
Should there be a change in the fixture conditions or any new information develops I would
welcome the impute and will review the matter in light of any new information provided me.
Thank you,
2
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Carol Walker, Property Owner @ 16209 75'b Place West
Mary Neering, Property Owner @ 16119 73rd Place West
Steven & Joan Johnson, Property Owners @16121 74 h Place West
Chun Pak, Property Owner @ 16109 73`d Place West
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Citv - Hekinan. Japan
Landau
Associates
Environmental and Geotechnical Services
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5 h Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Attn: Jeannine Graf
Building Official
RE: SLOPE STABILITY CONSULTATION
16202 72ND AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
V
April 19, 2001
APR ? �V�®
8U/'P/Hc 3 ?U01
Gry a &Nm I �FPgRT
At your request, we conducted a limited review of slope stability and risk issues at 16202 72" d
Avenue West (subject property) and several properties to the west of this property, including the Walker
property and the southernmost property within the Lorian Woods subdivision. As part of our review, we
visited the site on April 4, 2001 and looked at a letter to Phillip Lehn (owner of the subject property)
prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AES1), dated March 15, 2001, and a letter to the City of
Edmonds prepared by AESI, dated March 16, 2001. We did not review the March 6, 2001 digital images
referenced in the letter to Mr. Lehn or the results of a March 12, 2001 reconnaissance reportedly
conducted by Adapt Engineering, as mentioned in AESI's March 15, 2001 letter.
During our site visit, we observed the area of the February 13, 1998 landslide referenced in the
AESI March 15, 2001 letter. We also reviewed letters prepared by Landau Associates in 1998 for the
.—City -of Urnonds'-pertainirig to, this' hilidslide: The 1998 landslide area remains largely overgrown. A
near -vertical exposure of sandy soil is present near the headscarp area as present in 1998 and noted in the
March 15, 2001 AESI letter. In addition, we noticed a zone of hard, gray, fractured, silt and clay exposed
further downslope below the zone of exposed sandy soil. Large chunks of silt and clay (cobble to boulder
size) have spalled off of this near -vertical soil exposure. This silt and clay exposure is evident from the
property below, but is not visible from the subject property at the top of the slope.
At the top of the west -facing slope near the west side of the subject property, we observed a small
ground crack in sandy soil north of the 1998 landslide area. The crack appeared to be relatively recent
(probably within the last several months). We suspect that the crack may have been more evident when
observed by others in February, as it was partially obscured at the time of our visit (probably due to
weather and rain influence on the sandy soil). The observed ground crack was within or adjacent to the
top of the headscarp of the overall slope. This headscarp could have been associated with older
130 2nd AVENUE SOUTH o EDMCNDS, WA 98020
(425) 778-0907 • Fax: (425) 778-6409 • Toll Free: (800) 552-5957 • E-mail: info@landauinc.com
Seattle (Edmonds) Tacoma Portland (Lake Oswego) Spokane
movement at this location rather than recent movement associated with the small ground crack.
Vegetation obscured the extent of ground cracking or movement, if any, on the property immediately to
the north of the subject property. The 24- to 36-inch headscarp located to the south of the observed
ground crack referenced in the AESI letter was not as obvious to us.
We agree that similar topographical and geological factors that were involved with the 1998
landslide are likely present in the area of recently observed movement and ground cracking. In fact,
similar conditions likely exist along most of this bluff extending to the north and south of this property,
and not specifically just at the observed location. We agree that there is risk of future landsliding on this
bluff. This risk existed before the observed ground cracking. In our opinion, the observed ground
cracking occurring near the location of an existing landslide headscarp does not necessarily represent a
new risk. The ground cracking is simply the current, visible evidence of a long-term slope risk that is
presc„ t at this location.--W- a would expect to see various indications of slope movement at different
locations along this slope over time. Because there is currently visible evidence of some movement at
this particular location, that could imply that this location may be more likely to be involved in future
slope movement than adjacent areas where no movement is currently evident.
We concur that it is appropriate to share the information regarding recently observed slope
conditions with the neighboring residents. By AESI copying the March 16, 2001 letter to a number of
surrounding residents, this notification may have already occurred. We understand that the toe of the
February 13, 1998 landslide came onto property owned by Mrs. Walker. It is not clear to us whether this
property was included in the notification of nearby residents, but probably should be.
Since the subject property and properties. to the west are all within the City of Edmonds'
"Meadowdale Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area" as defined in Ordinance #2661, we assume
that all of the affected residents are fully aware of the landslide,risk inherent with.the: property.,in.thi&aTea- --
In.particular,_property at, has been developed since the "Meadowdale Ordinance" has been in effect have
all required specific geotechnical studies and the identification of landslide hazard and risk as a part of the
permitting and development process for newer residences. We are aware that geotechnical studies
associated with the development within the Lorian Woods subdivision at the toe of the subject slope have
identified this slope as a landslide hazard.
In our opinion, it is difficult to determine whether the ground crack present near the existing,
oversteepened headscarp location would progress to result in only localized sloughing and slope
movement at this location, or progress to a larger slope movement similar to the 1998 landslide. The
recent notification of current conditions by AESI to the neighboring property owners and the general
awareness of landslide hazards and risks that have been previously communicated to the property owners
is important. Since the slope is located on private property, it would appear that it is the responsibility of
04/19/01 S:\WPROC\074\092\16202-72nd—Itr.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
2
a
the individual property owners to understand the landslide risks inherent with property in this area and
take measures to best manage these risks. Measures that could be taken by the property owners include,
but are not limited to, monitoring slope movement, implementing slope and/or drainage improvements,
and retaining a consultant to further investigate and evaluate the landslide risks and develop
recommendations for site -specific mitigating measures that could be implemented.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds. Please call us if you have
any questions regarding this letter or if we may of further assistance.
DRS/SRW/jzs
04/19/01 S.\WPROG1074\092\16202-72nd Itr.doc
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Principal
and
':�u
Steven R. Wright, P.E.
Senior Engineer
LANDAU AssociATEs
r O
890 19�
� STREET FILE `
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering
June 1, 1993 �.
Ron Johnson
19601 - 23rd N.W.
Seattle, WA 98177
Re: Distance-wai-ver—from-storm drainage system
at 16121. - 74tK PI —W.4
Dear Ron,
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
We have reviewed your request on behalf of your client, Steve. Johnson,
for a storm drainage distance waiver dated May 21, 1993. We will grant
a waiver of 4 feet from the 10 foot minimum setback of the closed
drainage system per City Code 18.30.040G, with the provision that the
integrity of the storm system remain undisturbed. In addition, we will
require the home owners provide a signed letter indicating that the
City will not be held responsible for resurfacing the driveway should
any maintenance or repairs be done on the existing City storm drainage
system.
The location of the house can be no closer than 6 feet from the
existing 12 inch storm drain pipe. Any .damage to the existing system
shall be repaired by the contractor immediately.
If you have any questions, please call Lyle Chrisman at 771-0220,
extension 324.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E.
City Engineer
ALC/RJA/sdt
• Incorporated August 11,1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
VV GV 1JJr 1V "'1G. l i l I I I 11 1 1 1 •Vl
EC IV jD
STREET FILE 2 8 1993
NGIIVt�n,,v.,�
t <.
1 4.4 1
� ' . i � �1 !• LAG 1 � t t
i +
05-21-1993 48
6INof Dmo09g(��,. Cld�ISMA�1
-
777 777 7777
STREET FILE
Ptnwsre
RECEIVED
MAY 2 1 1993
KRMIT COUNTER
txm �ta ; I.c (.mw.K-0Kmuw A ujAiva,
RM k WAU(M jiTWO)Yml k eAt'1 &tam tWO
twb . WL Ww1k)(0 lWO O(AL Sits cs lBC b IQ I.ew
UJeo6s- My MMp RtW R�j Ocs' UJAM--, (S t* M
Is tom w(w.
�uvc� (st" &W 6t Fey you 05-10 by A SUM - Itluf
too"
ox P�at.a�► �c�rr Bur�u� FS ��t�+� t�
�6 `-a°
Ava-. ro; k
mia W tx`c`��,,. At it -Its' wi�w -rgvotwotkC lF � (l3 S� A�Jb �
LWUw-I A t-=Pmot� &"o'( � <caru6 @0��lNcz�u. is
p�;tfAt� � fi� STU -st*,W0
hi
� �Ry� � � tts lut�a cty: �tl1t, �uwa� pit"
Cyr �cS us�u�, w�� � �
tD'qfW
APPLICATION RF-QUMEWFNn
TO: ' Permit Coordinator, Building Division
FROM: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector
h.
OWNER: ".� PLAN CK #
ADDRESS: /&/Z/ 70-04i4e LEI. STREET FILE DATE: sIIB�J`►,3
After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements mustbe met. '
L Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS .......... 7:00 A.M.-10:00 P.M. WEEKENDSMOLIDAYS ..... 10:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M.
2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY- Construction Permit is required for all work on Publicproperty. (ECDC 18.60)
3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance.
4. Builder/Owner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 18.30.030d)
S. NO WORK SHAM BE DONE WIT HINIS FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROMANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACIL-
IT 1: BUILDER/OWNER IS REPSONSIBLS FOR IDENTIFYING CONDP170NS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30 50G)
6. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUC270N.
(ECDC 18.30)
7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGH MUM, FOUNDATION DRAINS, AND
CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUMED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30)
8. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to the property. If an intersection is involved a
handicap ramp may be required. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering Staff to determine the extent of repair prior to
issuance of the permit. (ECDC 18.90)
9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14 % without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14 �.
Waiver granted to, / %. (ECDC 18.80.060D)
10. Driveways m`usstt/bepaved_from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate perimit is required. (ECDC
18.80.060C)
11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING.
(ECDC 18.30)
12. No burning of construction refine without a permit from the Fire Department..
13. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.30)
14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20)
15. Water and sewer mainlines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10)
16. Connection to the City sanitary system is req * . A separate permit.is requ.
LID# _?.�y Fees paid: Yes No Charge . ,—S (ECDC 18.10)
17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction; and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50 % of the total
assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.05.010)
18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCU
PANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90)
19. �//1/S,,00 AA0W Ave— pj/w .5*r,
20. ��'iadl //o� ��y c�G 77� ids+ G' f't•a•- �Hil/a7" mossy v��is.r * Hai"'.
OT'REET FILE
bf� IT
UlLe SM"
oibluaNu(0
-S;
�E:CEIVED
MAY 0 5 1993
PERMIT COU T
vl�s
blIS (., is kqulo WOO, A--, kAut1-tL5b 61 YOM gfWL to
UJAIVM CM CUK, 2>WWAl tb 4WED -*
,UC6. Uala- Vqf, VAKIP-9 Of tv lVK tof
I� t4$ wem -To W- knon aj mf F"UjQg, 41ri',
W" bo &mac kt tk Tq ovco 4z. -% m; Coin
ApK. &.&'. (* Lam e;w T tut S-lzrg 6u"r W Ova-D Ptme-
T mlStlllf(o KphD) . leOvlte c fto�Sto CWC; vl4 j'
As A wat, up.-C sits l NtV 7' tr w kib 1t * 6A6 e;
wmvl R1401m tv U, 'ID" Pf rbro r fib- W Y rN4 W40cb 6t� JI C
tV 6 ff4% baw), Auo I hyo�
fRof""4,
AbrAw 1�pmefus lz ikccw * Pw -iuuNv Avo PIT" ukt
tkar wo ame Km-c b(Stva.uWm- Uw 2 sow
U&�; (OPbW t9t U
$Nvi gt&35 A AU WWiP6 A UJMVM Rim Ulu
L� M4 - 6eftts oc to "t-ma 6F te). 1
WOO
UUIID�I,NG ^1TUISI;ON TELEPtiONE/VISIT +RECORDS"y-FIL
PERSON CALLhEQ' ate" . :'r 5 nI COMPANY'
'
TEUEPMONE #
Wz2a o PROJCCT
)RE
1, Jam,
l. fn*
�i"1 l�� �''' E { S !iF GC ;(�/e� �W�!/ f�// •.a(t��i/(r-i !�"'vw e 6 FKLv
i /' , �/��1 ��'v�t _ F•��§��i::��G �:�.�' Wl �di�Ir7 �i��%i;���� *!�/��7::.`L.. b/-.. �rt�A44
hj+',4'�a►� y!i?}. i/� �ii�A'I�%'!//... I 4�'�.JILL`
;�.'. I ,.•. 7. i��. rJ �-� rr ,�/ 1., .�. �,, � L f 1 j t 1 �/!•�/� p� I 1 � E� (� t
r•�� ��i. •.�•ctici��fyll"$� • �' "� v/1,��T/a9-�G�* �, ,I_'T .�5�/ ... +s/!' �N%�fiB�f:,_}� � '� k
�l�;f�s: G(J/���6�, Lt`:G(/��� �'//7��i ,' //f/l%Z�i' S .I��—ILFg �r��j� ��G•O� y(�,f,/,��l.1/�p�' �. a�i� t h
!:/{iL f ��t � .�� C.;�.s.,, �r /LlN � /l � %�•>r��fi ` !G6' I��� � �1.•�� � �'Kl, �Gf} 'GO i /�L.v�` .'�� + ��� ` ,�
r �✓ate / �y,S�/�ail��e%. /^'—����'�'CJ ti i� �_�57�/t�i%��'`- _ _ _•`� � � !/�
CA`L L TAIkEN sY
J �fiGG v/rx". ' Ht s K •• I _ k •,�,, , " �`, b y 1
�t'k�ryYst** is * kst�n4r4r�irskoY�c�r*ik�lr�t��1•�iric*�k`9riir�t�'r��hf��li�c7t*��r�ilit�r§k�+t��ekikk�h3r�rxk�►'.���k�ik*�.'xs�" �, ,. ; a ,i
89p-19y
�,TREET FILE �
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
Mailed 4/2/93
April 2, 1993
Steve Johnson
14312 - 63rd Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Site restoration bond for 16121 - 741th P1. W., Edmonds
Dear Mr. Johnson,
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
Because of the slide potential in the subject area, a site restoration
bond will be required. This bond is to cover the repair of damaged
utilities and pavement surfaces should a slide occur as a result of
constructing a house at the subject address. An estimate of $26,000
has been determined to cover the total 'restoration of said utilities
and pavement surfaces.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV
Engineering Inspector
ALC/sdt
c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator
JOHNSON/TXTFORMS
1�,QG�
Alberts
• Incorporated. August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
;r, e®
890-19Ci
sTICE-r FILE
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
April 2, 1993
Steve Johnson
14312 - 63rd Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Site restoration bond for 16121 - 74th P1. W., Edmonds
Dear Mr. Johnson,
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
Because of the slide potential in the subject area, a site restoration
bond will be required. This bond is to cover the repair of damaged
utilities and pavement.surfaces should a slide occur as a result of
constructing a house at the subject address. An estimate of $26,000
has been determined to cover the total restoration of said utilities
and pavement surfaces.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV
Engineering Inspector
ALC/sdt
c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator
JOHNSON/TXTFORMS
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister. Cities International -- Hekinan, Japan
Lorian Woods Homeowners Association
16010 73rd Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026-4552
(206) 743-5774
March 26. 1993
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Johnson
14312 63rd Ave. West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Steve and Joan:
All property owners of Lorian Woods have been polled and all approve of the plan
for the placement of a rock retaining wall along the north line of your lot eight,
extending one to two feet into the common area: Property owners further
unanimously approve the roof overhang in the northeast corner of your home to
extend 1-2 feet into the common area.
The requirements of the by-laws of Lorian Woods Homeowners Association, Inc.
have been fully satisfied in regard to these matters.
j4S ely yDAnaersonL.
obertA.
Secretary,
Lorian Woods Homeowners Association
LANDAU STREET FILE
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Environmental and Geotechnical Services
March 19, 1993
City of Edmonds
250 Fifth Avenue, North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Ms. Sharon Nolan
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED JOHNSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
16121 74TH PLACE WEST - LOT 8 LORIAN WOODS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Nolan:
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates has completed a review of the
submittal associated with the subject 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 several issues associated with the proposed
dwelling require resolution in accordance with City Ordinance No. 2661 requirements. Our
comments are as follows:
1. The geotechnical consultant should review the environmental checklist, provide
comments and/or indicate its acceptability from a geotechnical perspective, as required
by Ordinance No. 2661.
2. The work will take place immediately uphill from a permanently flowing drainageway,
contrary to the statements concerning surface water in the Environmental Checklist. To
reduce the possibility of disturbing this drainage, the location of the proposed filter fabric
fence should be shown on the plans.
3. If signed and sealed copies of all of the applicable geotechnical reports are not present
in the City's files for this project, they should be requested. Alternately, the geotechnical
engineer could seal the project plans where portions of previous reports are reproduced.
P o It/-)X lot') • 1_I?�h 1N1?�. Ay�A w"11)( sll 20. i'n(,- i78-rnni7 -PAX (200} 778-0409
-------------
RI',")1 \P.'f' Srin1 ,17 i,,;7 - I:.\\ i n1 i 7. in•iI / I: i tl'4 \.' 1iu,I ) ..?d — I:A\ (21if
4. The wells installed in test pits by Terra Associates should be properly abandoned per
WAC 173-160 prior to or during house construction.
5. The surface soil materials at this site are landslide debris (Terra Associates May 1991
letter). High cuts are planned in, and foundations will bear on, this relatively poor
quality material. The city should require that the geotechnical engineer provide
settlement estimates and that the structural engineer indicate that he has designated the
foundation system for such settlements. Furthermore, the City should require that the
geotechnical consultant observe all foundation excavation cuts, and the bearing materials
for all footings, to ensure that the intentions of the geotechnical recommendations for this
site are executed correctly.
6. It appears that some finished contours should be added to the grading plan (sheet 1) near
the rockery along the north wall.
7. Significant excavations will be necessary in order to construct the proposed residence.
the excavation quantities stated on the plans (432 cy) do not seem to allow for the
recommended temporary cut slopes. A Conditional Use Permit is required if such
quantities'exceed 500 cubic yards.
8. The applicant should indicate where excavated materials needed for backfill will be
temporarily placed while subsurface construction occurs. Many onsite locations are
inappropriate for storage of such materials for reasons of slope stability, drainage,
protection of natural vegetation, etc.
9. A drainage plan for the site is not presented as such. Elements which are typical of a
drainage plan -.are presented on sheets 1 and 2, but these sheets are not sealed by a
licensed engineer, as required by Ordinance 2661. The City should request that sheets
1 and 2 be sealed by a licensed engineer or that a separate drainage plan be prepared and
sealed by a licensed engineer.
10. The typical wall section on page 11 shows the foundation drainage system 1 ft above the
bearing level of the proposed foundation. Conditions in this area are very wet at times
and we recommend that the City require such drains to be installed adjacent to the base
03/19/93 JAEDMONDS\JOHNSON.IEP
LANDAU ASSOCINI .S. INC.
of the footing. To eliminate confusion, we recommend that the drawings show the
drainage system on all appropriate sections on page 12, as well as the Foundation Plan
(page 8).
11. Drainage should be provided behind rockeries. The Drainage Plan should show in-
appropriate connection to the storm drain system.
12. A stamped survey has not been made for this individual lot. We understand that the
City may accept a survey performed for the entire PRD in order to meet Ordinance 2661
requirements.
The City and Lead Design Professional should review each of these items and modify the
project documents as necessary. With the possible exception of No. 5 (settlement issue), Landau
Associates probably does not need to review Design modifications, unless the City so desires.
Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this review.
DMW/WDE/fas
No. 74043.10
attachment
03/19/93 JAEDMONDS\JOHNSON.IET 3
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
�.�.
Dean M. White, P.E.
Project Manger
and
William D. Evans, C.P.G.S.
Senior Geologist
LAND AIJ A11S. I\C .
1.
2.
3:
4.
5.
6.
�7.
�i
ATTACHMENT 1
House Plans,12 page set, dated 12/2/92, first seven pages sealed by Ronald D. Johnson,
Architect, last 5 pages sealed by Cornelius D. VandeEnde of Structural Design Associates,
Inc.
Environmental Checklist, undated, signed by Stephen C. Johnson
Geotechnical Letter, 2 pages with attachments, dated 12/17/92 by Terra Associates, Inc.
Landslide hazard Map (xerox excerpt from GeoEngineers 1985 report) with site
highlighted
Owner's Declaration, 1 page, dated 12/15/92, by Stephen C. Johnson
Lead Design Professional's Declaration,1 page, undated, by Ronald D. Johnson, Architect
Structural Engineer's Declaration, 3 pages, dated 12/17/92, by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
Critical Areas Checklist
Critical Areas Determination
03/19/93 JAEDMONDS\JOHNSONIET
4
I - A\I)A111 ASS( CI ATI--S. I\C'.
STREET FILE PfiOJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME:_
PROJECT ADDRESSJ6 la % 11ZOL0-)
-
REC51VED
PLAN Cp"�i+s :• •w - • T.
RECEIPT DATE:1
EVIEW
D BY: (I
nitial/Da e)
PLAN. `.
WATER
:.: :COMMENTS ...
FIRE
BLDG.'
SEWER
STREE ENG.
Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment
Conditional Use Permit
{
.: ;a<:
ADB Requirements
8
Other Zoning Requirements
:4
Underground Wiring Required 5
:.,.<
"
19 3
_
5
Lot Slope 1 S%
A
g
SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit
Tree Cutting Plan
Plat/Subdivision Requirements
g>
1:-0
Legal Description Verification
Quit Claim/Street Dedications
Easements - Publi viva,
Engineering Storm rain Review Fee 3o
:.. .
Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee
Draina a Plan On -Site cvv,
ri<`171
Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses
Setback - Storm Drain Line o ,to„ l ,
Open Ditch - Existing
1.:8
Culvert Required
Culvert Size
20
Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff
21;
Catch Basin Required
22
Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access]
Sidewalk Required
Curb & Gutter Required
� •rfi �r
........
Curb Cut For Driveway Required
;.'•;
26
Street PavingRequired
n',<�>•?'r
2.7
Right -of -Way Construction Permit Re uired .ua
i .;s >". ".
Street Name Sign Required
Other Signing Required ,q,op
Bond Re uired For Public Im rovements
•.Fj: 4::v • <
,:•<�v�;�}:: «:r>.{,;,;�'.1r•
; <3a
FEMA Map Check/Water Table
Side Sewer Availability t5r"
Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID #210
rFf`jj:`"'"" 'fir
` ' < <:s sue.: . �:
34
Create Street File 6' S
rS-:..r.}:.wf..7yLv :...5sm.,.....: (%r'4'r .S `3'.• y
?;.�Sip":. hij Mgr ✓",�:<•: F:•}',f.:,'`,,.it;'.,v,... <rk7,.�''#i.`.•}, ..:r'•. � •E.''r>P;+:<'�'rr
'
1 p
t �" Z
Existing Water Main'Size
N �"> .:
Water Meter Size.
Service Line Size
Water Meter Charge Required
;•,r:: '.>,,`;
'<,•sr,;
;
Hydrant Required
>40>:
Hydrant Size Existing
Fire Line Charge Required S rinkler
Street Cut
Miscellaneous
Reviewed By: STREET FILE.
FIRE PLANNING
ENGINEERING
PUBLIC WORKS
sLE
Gftoftr RECEpvEm AMAto #�?. �86�1�ha�
JAN 1 2 tszz
Z�O �� ��• I�• PERMIT COUNTER-
Elt�0u48� u1ll• q�OZo 4tk* WA. 19(77
171. aLu
CITY -COPY
r�:. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inca,VED
"� ; •'` ` i Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and JAN 1 2 1992
Environmental Earth Sciences
PERMIT COUNTER
STREET FILE
Project T.84 o_4December 171992
Ronald D. Johnson, Architect
19601 23rd Avenue NW
Seattle, Washington 98177
Subject: Residence for Mr. & Mrs. S. Johnson
Lorian Woods, Lot 8 A� '4N ���
Meadowdale Beach, Edmonds 9?���
References: Geotechnical Report, Project T4840-1 -
con
Meadowdale Beach, Lots 54 to 57 F9
June 6,1989
Geotechnical Letter Report, Project T-840-4
Lorian Woods; Lot 8, May 7,1991
(See Sheet 1 of the Project Drawings)
Dear.Mr. Johnson:
We understand you are preparing for construction of the Johnson Residence in the spring of 1993
on Lot 8 at Lorian Woods. We have examined copies of the plot and the grading plans, building .
elevations, and a foundation plan that you provided us. We understand these plans are equivalent
to those that will be submitted to the City for permit. With regard to excavations, design soil
stresses, drainage, and other geotechnical considerations, the plans, in our judgment, conform with
the geotechnical recommendations in the documents referenced above.
In our opinion, all other aspects of the geotechnical engineer's declaration required by Section
19.05.040 of Ordinance No. 2661 are covered by the initial paragraphs of the second reference.
This letter affirms the declarations and recommendations in both references
We have prepared a location plan for the test pits we excavated on this lot in April 1991. Test pits
logs have been prepared also and are presented in Table A. Both documents are attached to this
letter. Please note that we recently sounded water levels in the standpipes in 17-1 and TP-2. Both
are dry, as they were in May, 1991.
VA
ATTACHMENT 7
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821
FILE N0. CUG-93-49
Gpt�11�l rfi�Of�iS .�-�►� fi . l,._. ftj WWIV-1 '(Q .
�bt11� �slq�
lobP�.le�Aa TRs�CE; M. ztep..s7(fill
We undetstu d'the Johma residence will be constructed on Lot 8.sol
Andcrson•resideaoc, as shown Q ' $heet-2 of Dowry Lotian Woods draw,
of ihii" was disnnssed.in'the tefaanved geotethinkal:report:. 1
proba�eatth.snoiretatM od thk'bt wltitiA a peiiad'cf 23 years ttto
tut peeve* Arid the lot tmiA6 ini:sditeble for. ooauriic oa;
_; auo>riaoins:it�11 be pariiatasnitigstedbt►'Iatpt+oveZnentl to nititis"ti�taa'dt
;• the•tti�daitie �oundation. d0ho, and by timovittg b+oca rile tot a w�eigti
tltigel[it,otthe'tes3deaoe. ; % ', •�
ux.plani vs. ilive acafttieted ace agwitent with IheInto
g;e0tgcilIIleat L�pOrt iltld LAG dia�efot+t: iaoCptabt� •Lroax o�ttwn,•thd.ek
pt 00—roideaoe and to laoent ProMliestray sog movetttcM1wM
-to ibd`cbWons iet.fotth•�n the tepofL Oaoe rise residchoe'i torsiditl
sste':tilea, the potential. for• :ad anaveateat shopM decrease; tot
Shed,'i of the imeliminaw plwa indicates ground floors at Elmdoty
which W genera4 below present grades on the site. acplafttod
g report, the soil oti this lot is land" debris, irlttch spay plc
bearing ootnditions for conventional footings. The retereaocd t+eportFdcv
of the driveway where burled vegetation wmdW& for' suppertiA
aaoovwed. Sint;tar materials were observed in utility amnsisoni mad
site improvements.
To further expbr+e subsurface conditions on Lot 8. wo have excavated a
a fan fed blow footing bear6rg grades near the nort6mst;, the nordr*e
corners a[ the tot. The pits etnaoitataed latt�lide detitta, as txpected. 1
tttaiterial was obretvv4 It appesp that 000ditWS getsetally tatcstacti
gotradWons will be cxposea • ca Qte bbttm of the• pr2os4d :exc
Ih s:of the. cuisting
ig•The stability...
out opinion. the
Is lea thi .r `
Tliii rink of earth:;
�.in�acdoess•.of
t��� tEfefenCCd'. ••
C ti�daatage to the: .
e iaitdntal,siibJed'•:
a� are aut:tructed.•'.
tine `i+easons bated'.
13 and 122 teat.
t •chi referenced
foundations was
raoetttty tp Ec�iatl
t pits to atevdtiottt
acid the soathivest
i ,bmsive orpnia
fl6r oowientional
VOISIA-Vid the of re#!n►atk�s «'Kh li+ gi NQ!.Ri Pn ..pn3 P. '
To•redttoe the risk of fougon-stttlements due -to pgstR>tie uuteveiu be&'. conditions; *e
raooauriend proportiotntig�ootin99 for a maximum bgatitlg strew of 1200 ' pet :giiare
fct and .using extra steel refs arameat . in the 600lit{gs situ the dfson walls: � ' in
addition; we recommend combi &j any Interior f into itHps and ` iunecting �becn to,
tiez{tby foundation walbt. �T^
Pei wet foundation wells that;'.support latLeml soil stresses should b''' designed for an
equivalent fluid weight.of 40 pounds pet cubic toot. plus a uniform street of 100 poucds•per
sgnnate foot. Perforated drainpire and free«draintng backfiU should be i�ittalled outside Al
basetitent walls. - - - ---t - _-
In order to construct the lower ground floor at Elev 113, a cut up to abon� 15 feet high must
be made near the canter of the north lot line. In our opinion, a cut this deep 4 acceptable
on Lot 8 because the. excavation would not be "ear the toe. of the steep slopes at the east
side of. Lorian Woods and the backslope north of the excavation would tie only a shod
disiance to level groan& Therefore, there is virtually no danger that tti excavation might
initiate extensive slope —Instabilities.:
Novetthekss, care should be taken making a deed cxcavatfon on List 8. 13ecausa:the
k.ndslWe_detmsMis_ e,_h may_ifanA nit :►eep_siopes oaly__lnie�T Thefefoi`e_, we -
rrootnimcnd tdmtr AW more than four feet hojOt :ieeper than 1
:n. tx�ntal to lto 1 vett if watC! i6 Cc10011tltCfed' finer il0 s
►Rn #ie re wired..
- --Pe__.__._ 9 ...--
For your contractor's use. we have installed groundwater observation wells near the two
tiorth cornea of the lot where the highest cuts will,be made.. No free; groundwater. was
observed in the tut pits where these wells were Installed and the welts currently etc dry. In
the third pit. near the southwest lot corner, groundwater was encounterdd at depths bylaw
the bearing grade and the warts of the pit collapsed. Excavation slopes will be most stable if
groundwater levels when the excavation is opened are below the bearing jmde.
•
i
TABLE A
TEST PITS LOGS
LORIAN WOODS, LOT 8
MEADOWDALE BEACH, EDMONDS
Test Pit No.1
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 127
0-1 Slash and rock
1-12 Silty SAND. Brown -gray with orange stain;
loose to medium dense; moist, becoming wet.
Test pit completed at depth 12 ft No sidewall caving.
PVC Standpipe installed to depth 9 ft Lower 2 ft slotted.
No groundwater on 12/8/92
Test Pit No. 2
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 120
0-3 Silty SAND. Brown, with numerous roots.
3-6.5 Silty fine SAND to sandy SILT. Gray with orange stain;
moist to wet
65-8 Fractured SILT. Gray with orange stain; low plasticity.
8-10 Gray SILT. Low to no plasticity; firm; moist to wet
Test pit completed at depth 10 fL No sidewall caving.
PVC standpipe installed to depth 9 ft. Lower 3 ft slotted.
No groundwater on 1218/92.
Test Pit No. 3
Depth, ft Description Ground Surface Elev 115
0-1 Topsoil
1-6 Siltyfine to medium SAND with chunks of clay.
Gray and brown with some orange; loose; moist to wet:
6-8 Silty fine to medium SAND.. Gray; wet to saturated;
medium dense.
Test pit terminated when sidewalls caved at depth 8 ft
Project No. T-840-4
Test pits excavated on April 26,1991
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION
250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
TO: FILE NO. CUG-93-49
FROM:
Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP
Responsible Official
DATE: March 26, 1993
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR JOHNSON CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR GRADING, FILE NO. CUG-93-49
I have had the opportunity to visit the site, review the environmental checklist, and soils
report, a copy of which are filed in the official file for this permit.
Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I have
determined that a Determination of Nonsignificance should be issued.
PC: FILE NO. CUG-93-49
Robert. Chave, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT 8
FILE NO. CUG-93-49
93-49aana5-93.SEPA
Wwts
Non
deuce will be constructed on Lot 8'sotttit of the existing
We understand the Johnson tesi: g:'
Anderson teMdence, as'shoani tm Sheet 2 of Dowl's Lottan Woods diavJirigs:` The. stability;..:.. t
s �. eotechnicat report.' In oui'•o inion;. the
F p� was diacusaed M thd.feferenoed g P° . p
probe earth utoremettt on thin lot within a peddd of 23'years, m t iikeiy b tess.than Y
ten povent and. the" lot- therefore is, -suitable for -residential construction: ;'phis, risk of earth ,
tnot►ctuatt,wpl be a mitt ted' int rovemenii to iubsurtace-d t ege afforded by
P rtia!V, , ga by p
the to idetioe's toundetton drains, aiid by removing trorit the tot a weigh of 4U in excess of
the alright of the residence:
The preHi Hill plans we -have examined are consistent with ihe'intent tit the referenced
g�
t report and are therefore acceptable. In our opinion, the ris� of:damage to the
proposed residence and to Mgltaatt properties from Soil movement,%tQ a minimal. subject t .
to dw condidons set.forth in the report, Once the residentx's foundations ate constructed t;
an•d-bi&ffikd. the potential, for soil movement should decrease; foi he."reasons rioted
1� Sheet,'1 of the. preliminary.. plate indicates ground. doors at. Elevations 1113 and 122 foot,
`Y which i= geneoelly below present grades on the itte. 'Aa eripiataod the referenced
'P geottchnkal report, the sod on this lolls landstido dehrh. vVittch may pto�bde talatively poor.
beating conditions for coriventtoRAI fotiongs. The referenced report'desctibei test pits liorth
of `the . driveway where burled vegetation unsuitable for' supporting'• aoundauons was:
nacaiYered. • Similar nitateria4 were observed in utiil ' excavations madg rightly too install
site b3provetnents.
To furdw explore subsurface conditions on Lot 8, we have excavated teat pits to etevetions
a few feet bebwr footing beating grades near the northahst, the northwest and the southwest
corners of the lot. The pits encountered landslide debris, as expected. No excessive organic
material was observed. IS appears that conventional
foundations ,fill be exposed' oa 'the bottom of the- proposed However,
-oonditioro worSe than- those observed in.she :test -plts. may be. p , t' at locatioi .not
totoc
d:; Thetef the exa�►attan Lot on 8 4xK4d be Bare. u exa
pxpbefore concrete F
bnot
s>tti eotatitrUed. amu�e$b�e ntatenals are present' they~tgufudiotnontQ'..[itm
a spd the overe vats is .b? _itt d. rYi0.!0b�_ �tvet 8rgvel . os lo�tPacteQ. p :tun.
'11a educe "risk of foundation �ettlettuMs due to P uneven:beatin�g eondltions 'we
S d ` . potifut ig,i ootings'for a.maximuni bearlttg strew of 120i1 ' unds per aq{tare
Ebot'sDd acts `steel reizifocce dad in the'600tittgft'e11d .tbe:. at walls.. Ire
addittoit; we recommend into a lntet�r into stN s and ''rinecting titerg to . : '
iteetrb1► foundation walls.
'Periuutet foundation walls that`m1 tt,tateral, soil strei es "shouldb� designed for. an .
pP� ..
iti,t flwd weight:o( 40 poutrds per'wbic toot, plus itiniform stressfof.100 pounds'per`
igttioot. , Perforated dtainpie; an_d'tteedia&t' tug bacltfsU s1►outd be : Ited outside ell .
basetnenttwalls.
in,bidd to construct the louver ground floor at,Elev.)113, a tut Up to a 13 feet hfgtt must y�
lie`aiade near the center of the north lot tine.. to our opinion; s cut th eep is aeceptabie
;',ottLot.8 because the excavation would not be near the toe of the, steep Mopes at the east
side of. i.orian Woods and the backslope; north of; the. erxayation :nouns rise only a _short
diaence ip level ground. Mterefore, there is virtually no,. ager.tt�atah .excavatton.might
initiate extensive slope Wifibilitiirs.
,,
_
,euavhtfoit on: t 8. Beca.*)he
N` care should be taken in rtlaking a dtx�_ ion bti 'fhetef_or _
lade_ bti_s_b 'base: -k tit stand on =tee�=lo�e=
�; rn_tnani0104 PRny`ides more than about font Eeet ot_steeper .thtsn 1
nett sb sat reguirrA c;
`";horizontal t01 verttatet h encountered,
. :.. • ,-tat observatkin• ells ne
1~oc your tontractot'a use, we have installed:groundwe
tioatb corners of tbe: lot where the .highest -cuts wilt tii:.mad'e.. No' fr o groutryyn�
oUs
bseved in the teat pits whore these: wai4 faete' iititaikd ends�etleoitttta eitdi
t1le.lhitd pit fltarAM sot ti rataot corner,
the bearbtg grade and the walls of the.pit.eni= tfon slapd be m
gFosvtdwater levels wt+en the excavation is opened are below the bearing
h '
able It,
CITY CLERK CJ°
�+ CIVIC CENTER 3 0 0 2
F-1 MONDS. W O O
SF
COVENANT OF NOTIX &N AND INDEMNIFICATION HOLD HARMLE
SS
ESS
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. Descriaticn cf Subject Property. T::is cc-t enant GL
notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract
of land at the street address of 161A I - 7��11 tni�yV�s� (ins ert
street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and
legally described as:
J�UI.(M �(/ �ctq CS vq GN t44 rCGo fP U 1 S ��MIS�
r �
o w-A 5. S -� e �-� VJu 5
1
2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above
referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area
which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a
potential for earth subsidence or landslide' hazard. The risks
associated with development of the site have been evaluated by
technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a
part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject
site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -1- BUILDING
02/08/90
FEB 9-1"0
the risks associated with development ake contained.An building
permit file number (insert number) on file with the
City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or:
prohibitions on development may have been imposed in -accordance'
with the recommendations of the consultants in the course of
permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions
may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or
lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth
stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated
changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and
conditions proposed. by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer,
geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby
incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully
as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or
any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest. in
the property is put on notice of the 'existence of the content of
the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may
be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at.
the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 505 Bell Street,
Edmonds, Washington 98020.
3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned
OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with -
development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of
all risks associated with development. of the property and do'
therefore waive and relinquish anyand all causes of action
against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -2-
WSS/klt 02/08/90
arising from and out of such. development. In addition, the
OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest,
heirs and .assignees, do hereby promise. to indemnify and hold
harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and -employees
from any loss, claim, liability .or damage of any kind or nature
to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from
or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or
out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of
the site, ,or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading,
or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their
employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance
of the building permit.
4. Insurance Requirement.. In addition to any bonding which
may be required during the course of development, the Community
Services Director has/ (strike one) specifically required'
the. maintenance of an insurance policy -for public liability
coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in -order
to provide for the financial responsibilities established through
the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above:
(insert insurance requirements and time period,
if any --if no insurance required,.so state.)
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3-
WSS/k1t 02/08/90
S. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant
of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and
concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding,
obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, 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 It, day of f.1�ce�n �- , 1992.
OWNERS)
AS
By: -
By:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss:
COUNTY OF
Icertify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that Oo-o_.n Qj ^•- signed this instrument and acknowledged'
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -4-
WSS/klt 02/08/90
•
it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes
mentioned in this instrument:
v �
ten- A J
DATED this day of 199 .
NOTARY PtJbLIC
My commission expires: 712-7�9`E
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss:
COUNTY OF
.I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that. s-^- 09k-----'.signed this instrument and acknowledged
it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes
mentioned in this instrument_
.:DATED this % 6day of O�R-� , 199 Y.
NOTARY PUBLI
My commission expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss:
COUNTY OF )
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 instrument.
DATED this day of
, 199_.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5-
WSS/k1t 02/08/90
Exhibit 6
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
'AL,g4jk, `Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
°6 /2-1 ilx �GW
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 0 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. k
SITE SURFACE CONDITIONS
The project site is located south of North Meadowdale Road and east of the 74th Place
West right-of-way in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The Anderson
property includes Lots 54, 55 and 56 of the Plat of Meadowdale Beach and part of Lot 57.
In plan it measures about 350 feet by 650 feet and includes approximately 5.3 acres. The
Anderson residence is located on Lot 55 in the west center of the site.
As shown on Figures 2 and 4, the eastern third of the property is a slope that gradually
steepens toward the east. The upper slope climbs steeply to a bluff with its crest near
Elev 250 to 300 off the site to the east. At the time our study was performed, two small
surface sloughs were noted on these steep eastern slopes.
The central area of the property is a bench about 100 to 120 feet wide covered with grass,
ivy and scattered trees. Grades on the bench vary from about Elev 120 in the north to
Elev 150 in the south. The Anderson residence and a shed to the south are located on
this bench. Several firs up to 47 inches in diameter and other large trees, straight-trunked
and vertical, are located just south of the house.
To the west the bench slopes down to the 74th Place West right-of-way. The grade
change from the bench to the west property line ranges from ten feet at the north to about
50 feet at the south. Typical slope inclinations are in the range of 20 to 25 degrees with
local areas as steep as 45 degrees.
Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1
June 6,1989 Page 6
In 1984, as part of the LID 210 work completed by the City, Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B
were installed on the Anderson property, approximately as shown on Figure 2.
At the time of our study, many areas of the property, especially the east slopes, were wet
from snow melt, rainfall, seepage and springs. Surface water not collected by the
interceptors descends to the bench, runs downslope in watercourses around the Anderson
home, then continues on to. catch basins and other drainage features.
The central bench on the Anderson property extends off the site to the north, where it is
occupied by single-family residences. Other residences are located on a lower bench west
and south of the Anderson property. All of these structures are supported on the slide
debris that is part of the Meadowdale landslide complex..
We understand that prior to the construction of the Anderson residence in 1965, six
cabins and a house had been present on the Anderson property for many years. When
these buildings were demolished in 1963, none are reported to have showed any evidence
of landslide damage.
REVIEW OF RECENT LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY
The original landslides in the Meadowdale area are believed to have occurred several
thousand years ago. The area involved extended from the bluff to the shoreline and from
Meadowdale County Park on the north southward to about the 165th block. Landslide
activity in this area has continued during historic time. The most readily accessible
records describe the landslide activity during only the most recent 40 years. The records
may not be complete.
The landslide records indicate that much of the ancient landslide south of the present
wharf was active in the winter of 1946-47. The same area is believed to have been active
again in the 1960s. The area affected extended more than 400 feet east of the railroad.
These events explain the 4A90 hazard rating the Lowe report gave the southwest corner
of the Anderson property, as shown on Figure 3. However, residents near the Anderson
property during these landslides report that no damage occurred on their property or on
the Anderson property during either event.
During the same winter of 1946-47, a slide that blocked North Meadowdale Road did
occur in the road cut on the Anderson property about 70 feet east of the present driveway.
This slide probably was not related to the other landslide activity that occurred that
winter. '
In the winter of 1955-56, landslides were reported at two locations north of North
Meadowdale Road. The Lowe report concludes that during that winter the active area
probably extended over most of the ancient landslide north of the wharf. These slides
explain the Lowe report's 4A90 hazard rating shown on Figure 3 for the northwest corner
of the Anderson property. However, residents near the Anderson property report that no
damage occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during that winter.
Robert and Joann Anderson 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 of the wharf crossed to the east side of 75th Place West, causing
minor pavement disruption, which recurs periodically. In 1973, a slide near the 158th
block adjacent the railroad extended upslope to the west edge of 75th Place West.
On the Anderson property, the ancient landslide mass has not undergone perceptible
movements during the 40-year period of record. In addition, only minor sloughing has
been observed on the eastern slopes since the Anderson home was constructed in 1965.
Since that time, no avalanche debris has reached the toe of the slope at the east side of
the bench.
We reviewed stereoscopic air photos that show the property vicinity during the years 1947,
1955 and 1970. Pavement disruption on 75th Place West west of the property, due
probably to the .1970 slide noted above, can be seen on the 1970 photos. The 1955 photos
show bare soil on the eastern slope above Lot 57 off the Anderson property. This scar
probably was part of the residential construction going on at that time above the slope
crest.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field work on the Anderson property was performed on February 14 through 17,
1989. Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two standard penetration test
borings to depths 50 and 69 feet below existing grades. In addition, six test pits were dug
with a backhoe to depths that ranged from 12 to 19 feet below existing grades.
The borings were made by Drilling Unlimited Inc of Olympia. A skid -mounted drill rig
was used for one boring and a truck -mounted rig for the second. Continuous flight,
hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes.
The test borings and pits were located by measuring from site features shown on the
survey plan provided us. The approximate locations explored are shown on Figure 2.
Ground surface elevations reported for the locations explored were estimated by
interpolating contour lines shown on the survey plan.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our
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 30linches.
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.
LoT 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.
G�r-1 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.
LOT% 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.
Cor%. Test Pits 2 and 4 through 6, which were excavated on the eastern slope, encountered
Lorto 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.
LOT (0 A ground water observation well installed years ago by the City is located near the
southwest corner of the property. A log of the borehole is not available. We understand
from discussions with the geologist who installed the well that the depth of the boring is in
the range of 24 feet and all the material drilled was landslide debris. At the present time,
the water level in this well is five to six feet below the ground surface.
Robert and Joann Anderson
June 6, 1989
Project T-840-1
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 (313); 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 corner were assigned a 90
percent chance of failure within periods of 25 years.
The Lowe report concluded that a reduction of ground water levels in the landslide
complex likely was the most effective means of reducing the risk of additional landslides.
Consequently, during the early 1980's, the City installed sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and
subsurface interceptor drains; at various locations on and around the Meadowdale
landslide. Interceptor Drains 1A and 1B were installed on the Anderson property at the
locations shown on Figure 2.
Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1
June 6, 1989 Page 10
In 1985, GeoEngineers Inc evaluated the effects of these new drainage facilities and
concluded that. the landslide hazard had been significantly reduced in many areas that had
high risk. Landslide occurrence probabilities of 90 percent in 25 years were reduced to 30
percent in 25 years. Similarly, ratings of 25 and 35 percent in 25 years were reduced to 10
percent in 25 years.
Our explorations on the .Anderson property disclosed subsurface conditions generally
consistent with the landslide categories described in the Lowe report (see Figure 3).
However, when applied to more localized areas, these categories are not always
descriptive of the landslide processes actually occurring or most likely to occur. For
example, in the steep areas on the bluff where undisturbed soils occur, the Lowe report
distinguishes between slumps (3A) and more shallow slides (3B). However, on the old
landslide debris west of the bluff, all the recent and the anticipated landslide activity was
classified as renewed slump movements (4A) although much of the recent activity was
recognized as having characteristics of relatively shallow earthflows or debris slides.
Figure 5 presents a landslide hazard map for the Anderson property that we believe
better describes the slope movements that could occur. It retains the general features of
the Lowe report map but has been adjusted to better fit local geology, topography and
drainage conditions.
On the steep bluff at the east margin of the property, the Lowe report indicates that
slumps (3A) may occur in the exposed Esperance sands, but are unlikely. The probability
of such failures is low because the springs on the bluff provide much better drainage for
the sands than existed at the time the ancient landslide occurred. Nevertheless, the overly
steep face of the bluff is constantly being loosened by weathering and plant growth.
Shallow surface slides result from these processes. They usually are small in area and of
little consequence for construction further down the slope since downslope movement of
the debris commonly is hindered by vegetation on the lower slopes. On Figure 5, to
distinguish these shallow slides from more massive slumps (3A), we have used the Lowe
report category 3B, debris slides in material that has not previously failed.
As shown on Figure 4, the Whidbey formation is exposed on the steep eastern slope
below the Esperance sands. On Figure 5, this area is the second zone west of the east
property line. The Lowe report indicates that shallow debris slides (3B) .are expected as
weathering and plant growth gradually loosen this material. This zone is also at risk due
to avalanches of debris from the Esperance sands above (2C). A massive slump (3A) is
also possible. However, for the present drainage conditions and bluff topography, a
slump would likely, be confined to the overlying Esperance sands.
The third zone from the east property line is below the zones where undisturbed native
soils are exposed, but upslope from the ancient landslide debris (4A). The near -surface
soils are colluvium from the bluff (see Figure 4). Due to surface water from the springs
on the bluff, the ground water table is near the ground surface. The landslide hazards in
this area are shallow slides in steeper, wetter zones of colluvium (4B) and avalanches
from slides occurring higher up the slope (2C).
Robert and Joann Anderson
June 6, 1989
Project T-840-1
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 (413). These latter
failures are most likely to occur on the steeper slopes to the north during unusually wet
winters. -
The remainder of the site includes the central bench and the slopes to the west. The
major landslide hazard in this area is renewed activity in old slump debris (4A). In
addition, the east side of the bench may receive avalanches from the slope to the east
(2C). There is little chance such an avalanche would carry across the bench and down the
western slopes. However, the west side of the property has locally steep debris slopes
where shallow slides (413) may occur during unusually wet weather.
Lor,S' The west corners of the site are classified in the Lowe ,report as having the highest.
LDT- 6 landslide risk on the Anderson property. These areas also have risks due to landslide
hazards other than renewed slumps, as shown on Figure 5.
A numerical probability of occurrence is presented on Figure 5 for the multiple hazards in
each of the various areas. The probabilities shown are consistent with those in the Lowe
report, as modified by the 1984 assessment by GeoEngineers, Inc.
In our opinion, the landslide occurrence probabilities shown on Figure 5 for the central
portion of the property are reasonable considering the historical record of fairly
large-scale landslide events. The 10-percent rating has been assigned arbitrarily to areas
where renewed movements of the old slump material have -not been reported and are not
believed to have occurred within historic times. The bench on the Anderson property is
such an area.
Applying the conclusions of the Lowe report elsewhere on the Anderson property
presents some difficulties. Firstly, the 30-percent rating was given the west corners of the
Anderson property because these areas were believed in the Lowe report to have been
affected by landslides in the 40-year record. However, downslope neighbors of the
Anderson property who lived through those events report that no perceptible slope
movements occurred on their property or on the Anderson property during any landslide
of record. Consequently, the original 90-percent ratings, and the current 30-percent
ratings, probably are too conservative, based on the available evidence.
Secondly, with regard to the eastern slopes, landslide occurrence probabilities in the
range of only two to five percent, as assigned by the Lowe report (see Figure 3), are
understandable only as 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
icted by Figure 3. However, we believe these low probabilities
the bluff is low, as predevents in overly steep
underestimate the frequency of small-scale landslide r. Such events, although-mallan scale,
by weathering, erosion, and excessive ground Ovate
residences located on the slide area or in the path of
could cause significant hazards for
an avalanche.
A third difficulty in applying
the Lowe report to residential lots is that probabilities of
landslide occurrence may not represent the risk o damage eadowdale indicates that few
primary concern of home owners. The historical record
homes have actually been damaged by he landslides the landslides ve that occurre. If all the d he
within a defined landslide area wermes
e not damaged y
probability of � residential damage must be less landsliden the damage and landslide
obability of landslide
occurrence. Unfortunately, the relationship between
occurrence cannot easily be evaluated and vanes from
increase to place
de Mo oho es
probability that a landslide will damage homes w
increases, even though the probability that the landslide will occur remains constant.
q� A qualitative risk assessment that incorporates the nerAnderson property.ations above is oi lour
on
Figure 6. We recommend its use for residential lots ontherienced
opinion, the risk is lowest on the central bench, which we do not believe has a above, wepe any landslide activity during he 40 years of record. Following * ent in 25 years, base
less than five
believe the probability of landslide damage likely is ment
on a landslide occurrence probability of ten percent, as shown on Figure 5.
On the western slopes, the risk is higher than on the bench, due primarily to the influence
of locally steep slopes, and to the proximity of downslope areas with higher landslide
occurrence probabilities.
The risk at the toe of the eastern slopes, in our opinion, is also
and higher avalanches off the
on the bench,
due to the threat of small slides of overly wet slope de
bris steeper slopes to the east. Slides in the debris on the lower slopes drainage impPovementsarently aand to
not
occurred during the 40 years of record. Due to the recent
the additional drainage improvements that will beffected
b easeurSl o me off he upper
owners, the
frequency of occurrence of such slides is not expect apparently are occurring with an
slopes that might cause avalanches on the lower slopes app Yby the
average return period of ten to 20 years. Due to their small size the andlowto Modeance
lopes during the
heavily vegetated lower slopes, no avalanches have reached
past 30 years.
In our opinion; residences located on the upper slopes would ecloserBecause potenareas
al
small-scale landslide activity and thus would experiencegreater
are comparatively inaccessible, they are unlikely to be selected as home sites.
Robert and Joann Anderson Project T-840-1
June 6,1989 Page 13
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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 Project T-840-1
June 6,1989 Page 14
Working conditions on the Anderson property may be excessively wet during the winter
months, especially on the eastern. slopes. We recommend scheduling all site work for the
drier months from April to October.
.Site Improvements
In order to subdivide the Anderson property, only limited site improvements are
necessary. To provide access to the interior lots, the existing driveway must be extended,
approximately as shown on Figure 2. Either concrete or asphaltic pavement may be
supported on the landslide debris on the Anderson property. In either case, the subgrade
should be proofrolled to assure it is firm and unyielding. The uppermost twelve inches of
the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of its ASTM D 1557 maximum dry
density. Site soils may be too wet to achieve this level of compaction. In that case, a
clean bank -run gravel or crushed rock should be imported and a subbase constructed at
least twelve inches thick.
Asphalt pavement should have a base course of crushed rock at least four inches thick
and a surface course of asphaltic concrete at least two inches thick. Concrete pavement
should be at least five inches thick. It may be placed directly on the subgrade, provided
the work is done in dry weather. A base course of crushed rock a few in thick maybe
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
n
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. Fillsshould
above not
resent grades should be flaced under homes ramed over crn 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, wood -framed residential construction may be supported on conventional
spread foundations. However, because most of the property is underlain by landslide
debris, bearing conditions at some building sites may be relatively poor, especially on the
lower eastern slopes, where our test pits uncovered trees and other vegetation buried
within the debris.
likely
Preliminary building plans, once prepared, should be reviewed
the building site with test
foundation requirements. Following the review, exploration
pits may be recommended. Where needed, the pits should extend several feet below the
intended footing bearing grades. To provide suitable bearing, for footings, unsuit
aand
materials, if found, should be removed to depths least two feet below the footings
replaced with compacted gravel or rock fill.
Where buildings overhang slopes or are located closeto
slope
crests,
re t , the fementions
should be stepped down to bear well below present grades.
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 prop rty damage if a future landslide occurred
e viewed by property owners as
on the site. Consequently, deep foundations should not b
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
potential small-scale failures.
UBC requires a minimum setback of 15 feet. On slopes not overly steep, this requirement
can be satisfied by excavating a bench behind the residence and supporting the low.cut
with a retaining wall. On steeper slopes, the code's intent can be satisfied, in our opinion,
by constructing the foundation wall. adjacent the slope. to a height where the top of the
wall is 15 feet from the face of the slope.
Since these small setbacks are catchment areas for debris sliding off the slopes above
these homes, where the setbacks meet only the minimum UBC requirements, :the rear
walls of the buildings, in our opinion, should be designed to withstand debris impacts.
Setbacks from Descending 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 T7-840-1
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 lA and 1B. These
recent improvements have. significantly dried up the Anderson property. Some water
undoubtedly passes under the drains and reaches the ground water. Since the water table
presently is well below the ground surface at the west property line, the present
large-scale stability of the Anderson property, in our judgment, is adequate to justify
subdivision of the property. However, measures to improve site drainage can be obtained
at little premium cost by incorporating them into any storm sewer extensions that may be
needed, as discussed in the Site Improvements section above.
To reduce the risk of local, small-scale sloughing of steep slopes due to excessive surface
water and high ground water, other drainage measures should be installed as part each lot
owner's construction.
Each lot should be landscaped so that all surface water is collected and conveyed into
catch basins connected to the storm sewer system.
All basement, foundation, and retaining walls should. be provided with perforated footing
drains, as described above. The drains should connect to the storm water system with
tight lines. Cleanouts should be provided.
Rain gutters should be connected to the storm water system using tight lines separate
from those used for basement drains.
Stability During Construction
The present stability of sloping sites will be disturbed by construction activities on the
individual lots and the risk of slope failures will be highest at that time. The risk is mainly
to builder's operations close to the disturbed area. Builders can minimize their risk by
using good construction practices. Surface water should be diverted into catch basins and
the site dried up prior to making any excavations. Excavation sidewalls should be sloped
back at safe angles or supported with temporary shoring. Where excavations encounter
ground water, perimeter ditches should be constructed to control the water.
Robert.and Joann 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
V) .kt;. r�o► -'
William Bailey
Project Manager
Anil Butail, PE
President
=
110Kv B U T
Q o
tN
� w
`ccssl0NALtiOfii
O2# 31VOMOOV3W 'N
a ss
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS I ��� :` }
I \ A25
4A Renewed movements in old slump material
2C Avalanches of encroaching landslide material
311 Debris slides in materials that have no
previously failed
The two trailing digits indicate the estimated probability ��, , 3 02 j
of occurrence, in percent, during a 25-year period i ( : , I I� , I ;'l 'til Q. -
j 35
:CJ
` 4 A.2 5
1 1
This figure copied from Figure 5 in ��
the final report on the Meadowdale
� I
Area Landslide Hazards Investigation I' II
by Roger Lowe Associates Inc,1979 J 2 (I J . I I—
j
2A ; 4 90 - I _ ,11 AOG \
Ifj tt
jl ter;,, A
I
/ D 3802�
�►�..�
J� 4A s', ANDERSON PROPER
14 A 2 5 4 A 2
�4 0 \
N `- -
�14A3
Scale: 1 . 300 J { /��` �'� l
2.1
4490 31302 ! \
it
U%�. � ! • :. �
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS FROM LOWE REPORT
TERRA ANDERSON PROPERTY
T MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 840-1 Date 3/89 Figure 3
9 KE
280
240
r",I
�t5F
w
LL
2
4
160
w
Approxrrtate present ground water table
B-1 (offset)
1 J .
120
City Piez '
(offset)
l'
f Slump debris from ancient landslide
80
Ere]
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 ancientfailure plane
Grand lost since
the ancient landslide Present grand surface
VASHON DRFT
Spring fine Esperance Sands
z. r
-�ys
VVHOBEY FORMATION
I
Pebbly sands and sits
Possible seepage one
buried under colluvium
Colluvium with buried trees
(avalanche 8 slide debris)
TERRA uo45
to A. &SSOCIA
�-� Geotechnical Consultants `Proj• No. 840-1' Date 3/1
3A
3B
2C
4A
4B
_-= - 02' 21' 17aE 505.33•
_ ____ -_-�-- -- _QO�-� �_IAaK •ZOO: ���._--"�- ---_-� _-__` __-� --- -� -
--- -; _ - 'v60' l Scale:
p
�w�i�}i • -
«. ..,, .e r n• l�t'`�a��+�c-�„i�a: .:i 1F';•� � °A �•r� I'J;�.•,✓ �� ..,\ ,"j�� "'`'--_\\~ •_\ ��: i % ` ; \
w •Y• .:.1 ` :•ter - ♦: :�' ��' `•: -w� -i7.
�4�f++ LOT 1. '` •i' _ LOT} 3 I 4A7O �•` LOT
o �—_-- _.
LOT 4
- `u ``` •u-_ �% ' _.,,Z _� -_ - ,'LOT 6 , q
to
�.' ! �i r� �` `3� +ems �� �• .
. � ••_.� tom- . -'- ` -� _
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS '
Slumps in materials that have not previously failed
Shallow landslides in oversteepened slopes that have not previously failed
Avalanches of encroaching landslide material
Renewed movements of old slump material
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
oceotechnical
TERRA
ASSOCIATES Consultants
LANDSLIDE
ANDERSON
MEADOWDALE:B
proj. N077cl-7 D 3i
ai �•I+fir! �( /��'�r/! >:,./,.�. "'�' I.r � /•/ � ' ,� ;'� .
� :-b,[;,!�;��III �f��Ir I/ !�'P •�/ !°11 .�� ``'�` I � J1 /rr/ ;. I I:'t
(fl
o' ' I I f I I r / r' r i'1'•.; r
'`.>•_.���•'a
I1�l i II' I �� .{ �• I . a a ��
.oV ozr 9,Er
I (' � •''; Iliillll„ I 1�'' r ( /. %�% I / V �� III \` \1 _ �'; .I �. !
Ihl,l,'11 It
,,;,;;��„
1'Iii � �Sl ili ryll"'' 1� 1'�1 ( / /y � '� 0 I IIi��,( II,\ '.\'\','•., ,•,
�111'•I11,�°�ii;ii�r'i�!ii!�;�I�I I I I 1 / / �/ / / � J �:/III al,1{ll,1\�\`�� \4
�'��'. ;l l,t ,,1 (lit,.,'`� � ��.;I'I,I.: ',��1► II ,
�t,it!'1''1','t%11�tt+11,•'.l\1�jl lq �� � I! I �• I �, �`. �/ , �•'�.` .. � j � a ; I � ,•� I+I•
•' ''�, '��\, Jl.tp,lll•'ti I II�.II I � � I Imo{.. I,1� / / I(
,`I :,i �++l�jl`I •' .1111i1�',IIYI �I� III II I 1 � I �','/.: f'I I I
`
;-`•/ ,�•'�,,,II, ;I r„� �ii,. ',l 11;�11 I ,. I I I ,� � � , .. M�.'. to \+, 9 �IIIIIII I II,I .
r r; r�'��•tr+rlli 11111 I' Ir
II/Ir�ii"•'�r � I I IIII I l l � i 3 .W
"III (� • � to � 1 1 1i ' ` Ir
lad; I II�,�I I I I 1 ;•t
lal l: ;� l'. I 1 ,' ,Irptll' I �I � • �/ / � � I 1 '•';�. I '� I I I
9ti'Idt,''•'xllll�ll�Yjli!�ii{�a' ( I �/ � / � 1{
' Yly1tl11111111111111�J 1(i'ijlle II@�I I I �`r•��j/��� �4 j�+� �'"j-�tll I����I I
n,,p'�;1 i'iil h�li/"i1�lli IIII II II� , ///�/ / �•�*.'✓ ,4� �I I� I` I1
li ���, I,�li%i�r, I�IL'rq�l ''I' I� f jiI / � %1, i � 1 yi�. � \• •• '�.. III,.\ +I 1 I /
1'rl'l 1. I'I l/rr'lll 11 rl ll''l�' i T, 1
1 )1
I;rl'1 r'r'''/��r/;1 ";�'�'r!I I 11 �I�I / � , ,� : �) `��' .. •: � � t\\ �, ' I
a•• CV Op"
�
!111' : �I/"i/:�� 13 I 1 •��8 1 t 4.:.^ ..1� .. .. - "'�7+ ' �/u
iM"i��gpn� /%y/r� i+l''iii'' � :+F � I rlr �yj 1 1 •�. I I I � ''.'' `� ,.. .. .. / ,
i r'''�il� r�.G::I' r ; ' /:�/ � / I � �1 !� Jq4 � I,,,, � /, •, ,/I � C'i
'11111i11111rIN % � // ','`I�.'�,•'�'�"•' �� ')' O ^' / W t/�
i'/gi'rb'!I�lijjli i I . %/ %' '�� _.•;'' / ' i r J :.�'/� .� / to —i
1 IIII II I l � 1 , ,'/� i' ' /,.•
'+1l lilt „1+111 I /, 1 , ''�'/, , / / �. �•1 •.. t111'�f^ '
' • hh'rl1 ,I, , I r I r,�' i'! / / V. .,� ,•. / W co co ccC
( /�il���li�jl lili 1 ! j',� ' i' r' j � aat i' % � ' ./ '� � ,b / j� A •'�"'.• � .�'.+ .•�'+
CA
It-
lLn
/,/l,, ,11/�/I rI / � , ''/ 77 I I r / � 3+• ., FV W W
►�' / ���*.\•"` se�J °� \ O?! 31VOMOOV3W 'N i
'0 5p °I�; ►l" �;aF
'S� 7
,0
as
W
a
�z
N
�0 CO
aU
=Za a
-OM d
W J 00
IjZap
r`o b
o �
w Z
a
H a
Q U
I
m
V)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTFM
LETTER
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
GRAPH.
SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
GRAVELS
Clean
GW
:.,;a
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures,
Cn
J
Gravels
:o:''
little or no fines.
GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures,
O
More than 50% of
(less than
U) m
coarse fraction
5% fines).
little or no fines.
Gravels
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures,
I b N
is larger than
W '� •-
z ! �,
No. 4 sieve.
with fines.
non -plastic fines.
GC
Cl e
y y gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures.
Q E >
plastic fines.
cr o N
SANDS
Clean
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
to o
Sands
little or no fines.
W Ca N(less
More than 50% of
than
SP
Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands,
t z
5% fines).
little or no fines.
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures,
Q (L) °
CO
coarse fraction
°
U
is smaller than
Sands
non -plastic fines.
SC
Clayey
Y Y sands, sand -clay mixtures,
No. 4 sieve.
with fines.
plastic fines.
�_
SILTS AND CLAYS
ML
Inorganic silts and very ,fine sands, rock flour,
silt or claye fine sands or clayey silts with
O
0
Liquid limit is less than 50%.
CL
Inorganic clays of low to, medium plasticity,
�avelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean
E N
OL
i�i�
Organic silts and organic clays of low
W � d
z o z
���;��������
plasticity.
Q c
SILTS AND CLAYS
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous
'sandy
tr <a N
fine or silty soils, elastic.
u, ro >
Liquid limit is greater than 50%.
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity; fat clays.
W
Z ° U) QJ
OH
1
Organic clays of medium .to high plasticry,
(0
ti
organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
2" OUTER DIAMETER
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
C
TORVANE READING,-tsf
2.4" INNER DIAMETER. RING SAMPLER
OR SHELBY
TUBE SAMPLER
qU
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
W
MOISTURE, percent of dry weight
�C
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
PCf
DRY DENSITY, pounds.per cubic foot
SI.
WATER LEVEL (DATE)
LL
LIQUID LIMIT,percent
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
PI,
PLASTIC INDEX
N
STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
LEGEND.FOR BORING & TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-1 I Date 3/89 I Figure 7
BORING NO.
I
Logged
By CRL
Date
2/14/89
ELEV.
142f
Graph
us
CS
Soil Description
Depth
ft )h
Sample
Blows
(�W)
Qu 7 tsf
Ft.
Ivy ground cover, 18" duff & topsoil
.Sp
Grey fine SAND, some silt
5
I
8
4
sm
Grey silty fine to medium SAND with
10
I
11
15
silt zones, some orange stain
Same, less silt
15
=
3
22
ml
Grey non -plastic SILT
20.
=
14
35
3/15/89 -�--
sm
Grey silty fine SAND
25
=
8
32
ml
Grey clayey SILT with thin sand lenses
30
=
21
33
2.0 to
4.5+
ml/
Mixed grey SILT et silty fine SAND
35
9
29
Same
40=
24
25
ml
cl
Grey clayey SILT
45
I
10
33
2.5 to 3.5
Boring terminated at depth 50 feet
Ground water observation well installed
l
BORING LOG
TERRA
ANDERSON PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES
MEADOWDALE BEACH
EDMONDS
•
Proj. No. 840-1
Date 3/89
Figure 8
Geotechnical Consultants
BORING NO.. 2
Logged By CRL_
Date 2/16/89 ELEV. 1201
Graph
us
CS
Soil Description
Depth
Sample
(N)
Blows
W
(0/0)
q tsf
Ft.
Concrete slab
ml/
Grey silty fine SAND and clayey SILT,
=
4
26
sm
some orange stain
Grey silty fine SAND with clay
5
33
10
Same, - with some organics 3/15/89
T
5
24
15
Same, with hard clay -chunks.& wood
13
46
20.
sm
Grey silty fine to medium SAND
7
10
19
25
..No
recovery
:E
21
30
ml
Grey sandy SILT
=
12
31
35
Grey SILT
22
31
40
mcl ll
Grey clayey SILT with sandy zones
=
17
37.
2.5
45
Same.
31
24
3.5
50
ch
Grey CLAY
=
24
38
3.5
55
Same
=
25
36
2.5
60
Grey CLAY, thin bedding
=
35
35
4.5
65
CH
Same LL=75; PI=4
r
95/911
23
4.5+
BORING LqQ
TERRA
ANDERSON PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES
mEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-11
Date 3/89
Figure
Geotechnical Consultants
Logged By CRL
Date 2/14/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
i
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. I
Soil Description
Elev. 141±
W
N
12" duff and topsoil'
39 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
No ground water observed
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
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
(%)
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
AMr° TERRA
ASSOCIATES
- Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 844-1 Date 3/89 jFigure 11
Logged By CRL
Date 2/15/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. 3
Soil Description
Elev. 139±
W
(%)
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.Otsf
sm
Brown silty fine to medium SAND
15
cl
Grey CLAY
34
q=4.Otsf
u
Test pit completed at depth 19 feet
No ;round water observed
.-I TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-1 1 Date 3/89 1 Figure 12
Logged By CRL
Date 2/15/89
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
20
TEST PIT NO. 4
Soil Description
Elev. 153±
W
N
18" duff and topsoil
43
Grey silty fine SAND with numerous
sm
trees, loose
33
,
Test pit completed at depth-12 feet
Ground water seepage at depth 3 feet and below
Sidewalls collapsed
TERRA
.. ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-11 Date 3/89 1 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
Test pit completed at depth 15 feet
Moderate ground water seepage below depth 6 feet
°=r TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
. TEST PIT LOGS
ANDERSON PROPERTY
MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS
Proj. No. 840-1 I Date 3/89 I Figure 15
i
a "
cn
z:i
o Oz N•
!� W Q W
00. Z
W =
�U
O
YI
w • .•
N
w
.z
3�m
a.-8Iri
LO 4
NN Z.
F O O
10
-j
0 In
F-
g
I,- •, HO d39 37
t I
�, rr 111� Rw,YY11M • a�y,r � 1
«ni
r
t
I s T r •m 1 i I Y Y �F` •�1
YIt• Q • , • /� � Y
1 •
I
I
I
I
z
V
1Q
W
W
oll
I i 1 i � 1� '`•ram tt "• i
1 8j,41
G , 1 -•�� "••••••,y
I I • 1 • 1 1 an•1,
`• ``�` O 41 1 1 !
G O yl i I
I � � Ertl � ��•�
a
C
O
MEMORANDUM
March 19, 1991
TO: PRD/PLAT INFO -BOOK
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
SUBJECT: CONDITIONS FOR PRD-1-89/P-4-89, LORIAN WOODS
1. All development must comply with ECDC 19.05. The Geotechnical
report by Terra Associates, Inc., project T-840-1, dated June 6,
1989 may be used for permit..application, but any geotech submittal
must be reviewed by the Geometrical firm contracted by the City,
as it pertains to the particular proposed structure.
2. 100% lot coverage is allowed, but eves are not allowed to overhang
beyond the property lines of the lot on which it is built.
3. Max Height 25 feet
4. Clearing plan required
5. Re -landscaping plan required
6. The dates and.time.pf grading other than for streets and common
utilities are.subject.to the discretion of the City Engineer.
7. Grading may only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. No grading work allowed on holidays.
8. All grading work requires a grading permit from the City of
Edmonds Building Division.
/_Or #/o /may
-tw1w ' 1_11fii1ly
s
LANDAU { �� Exhibit 10
A ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies
November 17, 1989
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Planning Division
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attention: Mr. Duane V. Bowman
Assistant City Planner
RE: REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLANS
PROPOSED ANDERSON SUBDIVISION (LORIAN ESTATES)
MEADOWDALE AREA
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Bowman:
This letter provides a summary of our review of the following documents: (1) a June
6, 1989 Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. (Terra); (2) sheets 1 through
4 of subdivision plans prepared by Dowl Engineers and Whidbey Island Architects, dated
-September 26, 1989; (3) City of Edmonds Meadowdale Permit Requirements; (4) the October
16, 1979 Roger Lowe report; and (5) the February 28, 1985 GeoEngineers, Inc. report. Our
review deals with geotechnical concerns; items such as verifying that the appropriate liability
statements and declarations have been filed and are outside of our present .scope of services.
The June 6, 1989 Terra report provides a good description of the property and
adequately addresses present and future landslide risks. The Terra report does not, however,
provide sufficient detail for individual home construction. Also, the September 26, 1989 plans
do not incorporate all requirements of the Terra report with respect to site grading, drainage,
and use of rockeries and/or retaining walls. For example, cuts of up to 5 feet or more along
the east side of the main access road are proposed (with 1:1 [H:V] backslopes). Terra's report
does not address whether 1:1 unsupported cuts are acceptable, but does state that cuts under
4 feet are to be supported by rockeries, and over 4 feet by retaining walls.
Other general concerns and comments are summarized below:
1. The construction of below -grade .pools or surface impoundments on a landslide is
&AI, typically not recommended. The September 26, 1989 plans include three pools near
the center of the development; the pools will have controlled outlets which will allow
water to remain in the ponds on a year-round basis. Gunite, the proposed pool liner
material, is a relatively inflexible material that can crack as a result of even minor
P.O. BOX 1029 - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 9802071029 - (206)778-0907 • FAX (206)778-6409
earth settlement. For this reason, and to be consistent with Terra's report which
recommends "tightline" storm drainage systems, we recommend re -assessing the
present design. This same concern exists for the small pools shown along the east
slope of the property. '
2. Terra should review the September 26, 1989 Plans for conformance with recommen-
dations contained in their geotechnical report. The review should pay particular
attention to the need for rockeries or retaining walls along the proposed roadway,
site drainage (particularly the use of pools), lawn irrigation, the lot layout at the
southwest corner of the property with respect to the need for additional exploration(s),
and lastly, the method of trail construction (i.e., constructed by hand or using a
bulldozer which could generate significant quantities of "sidecast" fill). The viability
of the project should be re -assessed after Terra's review.
3. Improper construction can impact individual lots as well as neighboring properties.
For this reason, separate geotechnical reports should be prepared for each lot. The
individual reports should address specific "checklist" items required by the City's
ordinance. While each of the individual reports need not go into an extensive history
conceming slope stability, the need for , additional site explorations, site -specific
topographic mapping (i.e., Lot 1), laboratory testings, etc., must be made on a case -
by -case basis.
4. We understand that access to Lots 8, 9, and 10 will be via 162nd Avenue West. This
access and any improvements (if necessary) should be addressed.
5. Shallow ground water identified at Test Pits TP-2, TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6 raises
questions as to the effectiveness of the existing drainage system, and of constructability
on Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. In our opinion, this condition should be further investigated
to determine whether observed conditions are a year-round phenomenon, or of a
seasonal nature.
The following provide specific comments relative to a comparison of the Terra report
and project plans to the City's Meadowdale checklist:
o Subsurface soil investigation: The June 6, 1989 Terra -report addresses, in a general
sense, all critical items. The report is stamped by a licensed engineer and has been
signed by an engineering geologist.
o Field investigation: Site investigation to date consists of drilling two test borings and
excavating six test pits. Boring B-1 and Test Pits TP-2, TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6 are
within or immediately adjacent to proposed lots. The remaining explorations are
outside of proposed building areas. There are no explorations within the southwest
corner of the property on Lots 8, 9, and 10.
2
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
o Analysis of soil characteristics: The report does an adequate job of describing soil
conditions at the exploration locations and interpreting information from earlier reports
prepared for. the City.
o Environmental checklist: The report does not include nor discuss the environmental
checklist.
o Exploration logs: Included.
o Laboratory test results: Laboratory testing was limited to moisture content, Atterburg
limits, and grain sizes. These tests are often used for determining general site grading
requirements; the tests are not generally intended to address slope stability concerns.
o Drainage: Site drainage is addressed in a general sense, but is directed more at
drainage on individual lots rather than on improvements required for subdivision
approval. The report recommends that storm drainage be conveyed via tightlines.
o Preservation/Maintenance of natural growth: Discussion on this subject is focused
on maintaining natural vegetation outside of construction areas. The report does not
address the potential significant impacts of extensive open lawn areas and subsequent
irrigation which could add significant quantities of water to the landslide.
o Other. The Terra report identifies appropriate, but. general, information concerning
foundation types, setback requirements, rockery/basement/retaining wall styles, site
drainage requirements, and information on construction and post -construction site
grading. Items such as bearing capacities, depth of foundation burial, lateral pressures
for wall design, etc., are not included. This information will be required for
individual home construction and may be required by the developer for "common"
improvements.
We trust that the information contained within this letter meets your present needs.
If you have. any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
WDE/wk
No. 24-06.10
Very truly yours,
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
William D. Evans, CPG
Senior Geologist
3
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
t.
r-�� -: -
7 � '
. '� '�--�.`: _ ' "-fig � 1t10 ll`o �( '`fig 7 P aF (•otYxB.i � 1210 - %-a
`;. it I -_ IZo .11�—+✓ ,�� r r `, ` `--�.._,
Jt t � . ", 124 i •� � i�� - _
It+tIC: �'r
� � �= t U1�5+ :MtN• j i. i 1 � 7�, 35i -- �j"1�._1.35
r
-+ F-1
r
tD(f 1 C, 4.
�zZ.a
WIN
KEW
/tit lt4 - �- -
t Ito /
• i1�.�1�'1 I '`4'�y"? - � . � `� .,... �,:�•��1�i�1t' �'��l�T'�i�.M1SI � � .. � ``,� 1I�.}�� ��/ r ,�,,r� ��
--_ _ iW t 11�:� 120+ .12b :: : = 11�.15�•:+ L5 - 144,25' kA :1�E1W1't j w i'C:� (1.1, TV
A `�
tv
1�Dli �2AEt.EAS;. A'f b:: �SNi�i ALS. .w(��1l :CGU�;�A G
K:t3%.G1�OLA ..(SWUO:1�j : flit : bik4 'j� Z
ZONING
SEPA / w G—
H E SETBACKS
LOT COVERAGE
BUILDING HEIGHT m
�CO SIDEWALKS
APPROVED BY PLANNING STREET DEDICATION
SUBDIVISION REQ.
T� O� Vdt T3ARSTATEMENT ' t
GUTZST HOUSE STATEME
���/ FLC,OD AREA
o rH,-R A
uw
stow H LStu' f
Sum t*A14
Ttw
b
i
RECEIVED
;S'floL.4, SUN
MAY 1 7
PERMIT COUNTER
`.3: '�,•°;,fir' iP��<((�.�� i�t.
t2u
the � � , - � r •� .� � U i',�,t
- - -, �C&'fib ``- � �� � ���v�"1�,✓gyp
_, 1 V. rr
r
IRV, RtO.44
•�_ •. ion iNv . l 1 U , t4 opt.
97
,emm
70 �1
-mot � .. � • M
R V AS NOTED•STREET.3
Wk
__ ,� " �,� � , I I I �l � 11 , , I I � " �_, - . - � - I I 1� I , �: ., - . " j , 1� I - � I I . 1. 1, . , . I . , � d , , � , I -1 � :* I 11 �, I : ` 1 -�"�7' , , � , , .
""; , , �1% �- I I I � ." �, � - "" , , I ,� i, . ,� � , � I , , I �I% I I "I I I 11, I I I � � :_ : _. 1, "" I (,-_ ':f-,� 7 � 7 "7" �- ',�;,�' '""'
� I' I ,; ,� � I , , � - I � 1 � ; -� I I , - .. _ � � - i � , � I I .11 � 1, , I , " I - I I I : I , ,,:, , , , I I � , , , t , , : _ � ,_ , ��'� 17 .-- '11'1,;� 4
� I � � 1� ,. 4 , ". I I � � � I .11 A I I � . I � I I I ., , , 1 . , ��' 11, I � I � �. , - I I 11 �'. � - . I . , I I I I I '.1" � � I I :,, � I I I , , , , ; � - , , I � , ." . . � ,�� 1. 11, �. . . I I I ", . , .- 1, , 1, .- �
, I � k , ,� 11 , , , I ,� � 1, .. , � :; : � " � I- I . I �, . I I 11. I � � I ,� - I . � � I � � I I . e I - � '' I I I I , 1� , . - . I , , , � . - I - I � � , , 1, - . . I .� , " � , . �* . I 1� *, ,�, , ", ': � � , , ,,,�' �,' i�V,_�
I , I I � , I , , _ , '! I I �, , " I I � m - . , 4, I I I I - I ., , , , � . -, 1. I 1. I � I , - � 1, , , � . . � I , I � I 1. I I I I I I , I , . � , . . I I I , I , 1, � . I ,; ,� 1,
I : � � � I" I I � . � , I I I 11 I I , I I .� � - I I � � . � I I � , � ,� � ,
, , , -
I ; �l ,� I ,�� � � " , , , , : , , , , � I . � � , I � I I I , I " v I I . ., . I I 11 . I I . . � I I . I I - . . � I I I I . - 1. . I . � I I I I , I �
k� ,:�', " , I i , � , - , � I � I I I � . I . . � . � . - . I I , I . , , � I � I � � . � � � I I I I :_ , � I . .1 ,� �. 1 , I�; " �� ""', I ,* " �� . ", ". , ,,"�', I 11
1,
, . "; , " , , , I 11 I I I I , 1 , . �� I 11 �� �' , , ; 1, " 11 I ,�, I , , , � I ':', I I I I I I , I I I I", 11. ; _i:' . :,� _� � - . 1 . . I � �, � I I I � 11 I � � � I � . I I " , . .� � I I .1 : � - . I I . . .: . . I I I I , � . I . I I . I I I �� I I � . . - I I 1. I : . : , , : I � I I ; � , .1 I I � . � I � . I I � .� I . : � 1(1 , I : 11: I : I , I .1 , ,�,�, "" , .11 - 11, � 3"VI"D
r , � , � I , , I I , " �' , I , - ", , - , , , I -, ; I '� I I , - , I I 1, I . I I I . � I . I I I I I I I � . .1 � - , '. .1 . I � I I . . I I 1 . 11 1 - I I � I I . I .1 I I "I " I 1, I �, *:. " �
" '�' " " -, �', � .� 11 , , I '. , � �l � I I 1, , I " I � 11 � : , I r , - - I � � , . I . I I . . I . . .- I , . � 11 I I I . , , , � , , I , , , I , "
I , I I - � " � I , � I I I I 11 . I I I I I 11 I . I ,� I I � I I I . I . . . . I . � - . . 'I, . I I 1� � f I I I ., � I . I I I . . . I I I I I I I .. I , , , I . � , , ,_ , , , %, , 1�'� ",,',�
, , , , 11 , I " �l , �l � , . , " � I I �. k I , I . . - I , , - : : , � , I � . I .: . ( ,�',,�,'�,, I
,,,, , , , �! I I 1 � : � , : , I I I � , J , . I I I I � I I � I � � k I .1 :'. � , , I
" " � " I I , . � � "", ,.: � , . � , � 1; " ". . , - � - . , � I � . I I I i " : I . 1, - , � ,
� , , , , ""J""', � " " - � I I I , I , I I � - 11 I I I 1, I � 11 � � � " � " , , I . , , - , , �� " - � I'- I , � � . " I I " � - I , . I I 11 . I . I I � I I . , I 11 . I � - I 1. I I I . . , . , I - , � I I . ,,,,
,,� - _ ..... . 1, , 1 ' ,' , ,' , 7 1 1 1 I" � , �, ___ � "I 1, I 11 I � I I I - 11 I - I - 11 I I � , I I , �� ,,� : � - I _ � , I � � I - __ -1 - � -1 1 I _,_ , I- I I � I �l � I � I I I I . � , I � I I . I I I I I � I I I , : , : , � I I 11 I ; , , , t , , , . , , � � I , , ,
1,?_,""', �, � � - -- ��_ -, -_ I ,
i i : i ; I i 1,1111illillm ! � : i I I I I � I , , . 11 . , , , , . � i
i i i ,
, �, �,&gl�'s,� S,�,�;, ;'!i�,x�,',�� , lf��Yl:� ." I , 11 , I ".,
i I I "' , , . , I 1,4� " 1, I 11, "I
i i , affivalms"i ��lllll �,, �� ,i � I , .� , , ;"�,
I— I I I , , I I � _� 1� I I I I � 11 I I I - � , . . , A ,
,
, � . ... . :. " I I
I , I I I I I I I I J� - I lj I I , , ,� 1 � , , I I - 11 � I I � I � I I I �. :, �. �"', � ,
I 11 I I 1. " I 1. -, I I � 1 -:11,71 " I I I . I . I � I I � � I I . . � �, ��� , :, -
- .. I I I I I . . I � A
I I I ,� I I 1 " , - 1� "I - I ": 1 I I I � � '. I ,,, , x ��, , � � 11 I � -, � �, , ,. �, I � -, : I'- I., I . : I � I . �, % I " I I I I I . . � i I I I I I . . I . I I . I I . 1, I I . 11 . I .1, I I - I � . . I I I .1. I I ,
I I , , I I I � I ,. ,� , I �_ . . I I : � �, I I � I I . . I . " � I I I � . , .. . . , " " ' I ;, _
� - � I I .1 I I 11 � I I I I I , _ '' :, , . � f 11 I , . I � � I � . I I . � I I . � . . I I - � I I I � I .1 11 : . � ;� I , 1�
I il " �. , , 1:, I I 11 I � I I 1 I I I I � - . I I I , � - � I z , . � I I . . I I I I � . I I I I . . I I . I � � . � . I � �. I I I . ,� � . I . I I , �l
; , , � , � I � I I , " I , , , . I � 1 I : , I . � I . I � I � . I . . � , � � ,�,� �, � �
,,, � � I , , I I � �, , � , I 11 I 11 I � �� I , I ,
� , I I I I I . � . I I � . I � I I . I I I I .� "I I , � I
- I I . , , ''. , I . I � I , ,.,� I � � - : . I I , I I i I : , . ,�� I . , , , I I I . . I . - I I 11 I � .1 11 . - . I I . . . � . . I � - . I . I I .1 . I I . I I . 1. � . . . , , 1.� I � I �
I I "I . : ; I I . I I I I � I I 1� I I I _ , � , I . 11 � I ''I ,� -1. a ;,_. � 11 : ; . � � - � I I I "I � , . . . I I . I I I I . I I . . � I . - � I .. 11 . � I ': � I I
I �': , , I I I . I . I 11 - . �, � I I , I .1 I . I . I , - . I � . I I I . � I I . � - . 1. . I � . I 1. . - I I I., I . � I I il �. , I I I , I �
, , I I I I I '� � . . I I c � . , � . , . . . ,� . I ,� 1, . I � I � I I . � - I � . . . I I . . - I . I � . I . . I . . . . .- I I . I . I . I . � � 1. I I I ) I - I : , I I'll
I I I I I - � , � I I 1. I 11 I I � I . . � I : I I . I I � � . - 11 I I I I . � I � , , " ,,�
I - ,,,;,. : I I 11 I �� I 11 I I I I - � " - "I . I I I ,� I I . . I I : I . . I . � I �, m I . � I I . - . I e � I I I � I I . � I � I I . I � . . � . 1. . � I I . I . I � I . '. I , I : I I . . , , I )" - I , , , % �l � . I � I i
, I I I � 1 � , I I I I I . I I I I : I �� I � � I � I I � , : I � - O � I . I I I . . I I I . . .. . . I I . I . . � �
! 11 I I - 11 ." I 1. I I I � I I I " . I I I I I - . I.. I I I I I , I i I , . I - I . I . I I I I 11 � I . � I I . I I I I I I . � � I I . . . . I I I I . � . � . � � �l � I ,..: I I � :. I . . I . I . .. I I , I . I . -
. - � 11- I � � I �, . I , , . I t , . 11 I . _1 � 1. . 1. . � I . I . : I I I I I . I I I . I I I I . . I � � . I . I I I I I . � I ,,, I : � I �� I I I :
�l : I:, I I I I I � , I I I I � -, , I I I ��: � 11, � I ,� - . , . . . � ,� �, I � . � � � . I � I I � I � . . 1, . , I I . 11 , . I I . I . I I I I I I I I I - . 11 � I I . I I I
� � . I I � I I I I � I � I . I I . I I I I I � � ,
I � 1 7, . - , I , ., 1, .11 I I j I I I 1, I I � , : .1 I � I 1 1�_ I : t, , I , I , � I . - � I- . . . I .1 1, I I � � - . 11 , � .1 . I I . 11 I I ! I I I . I I . . � I . . . � I . . I I I . . � � . . � I . .1, I I - I . I . . I I � � I . . . .. I I � . I � � I � � 1,� , " �
I � � I '' 1 I I 1 � � I I , . I I I . I. �:, I � - I I " � I � � I I � � I 1. I I � � I . � � . . . . . . . I I . � . I I I . . . I . . I I I � - � t � I . �. 11 I I I �
I I . . - , , , _ . ,. � . � . I . . . I I . . . I � � . . I ,0 , � I
� " , I I I I " I I . . I � I I I I , , , - , , . - . I I I � 1� I I I . � I I I I I I I I I � I . I I . .. I i I . I I ., � I � � I : . 11 . . I I I I � I . I . 11 I
1, ` I I I , " I 1, � I . I � I , I , " I I I � I . . . . . I I " I � . . I I I 1. 1 I �,�, . � � ,.�, ,
, i I ''I I I I � I I " I � I I I I - . I . I : I I I . I � . I I I I I I � � . I I . � . I I " � . . � .. . � I .11 11 . I � � I I � I I I . . . , I . ,
, I , I I . I � I I � . I I I I I I , I .
I., I I I , I I , . I I , � "I � I I I I .. � . I I . . . - . I I . .1 . I .. .1 �. I I � I ''I .1 . . I I I I . I I I I . . . I I . . I . � I '. � I � I I I . � I - I � I I I I � �, I 1� �l " � , , ,� I I , ,
": 1. I I , : " '' ,,, I I � I - I I . I . I I I ,� I _'� ; , I I I I : I . I - - I 1. � . I I � . I I 1, I I I I I I . I I I . I . I . I . . . � � I I I . I � , I , ,� I
11 I ., I I 11 �. I I , I � I I I . � . I I � , , , , I I . I � � � I . I . I I . � I I I I I � I � � I I � I I 11 I I . I . . � . � . . I � I I . I . I �,�. �
1� I 11 I I I , I I � . - 11 I I . , � I . 11 �� : I , �l ,�, I , � I I I . 11 . � e � j .. � ,. � I . I � I � � - . . I . I I I � I . I � I I . . � 1. I . I I I I . � . � � I I I I . I . I I I I � � I I I . , , �l I �l
I I I I I I I . �
. I I I I . I . . I ,,
1 � ll� I.. I � I . . . 11 - 11 I . I � � . � I I I I- , . . , �11 � . I - I I I I � I I , I I -1 � 11 I � I - I � I . . � I . I 1. . . ; I I 11 I � I . � I : � � . . I . , � I I I . I � I , I .1 I I ''I "
I I I I I I i 11 I I I � � . . �. � I I � I . I � I I .1 ,-12 1 : '' 1.
. e_ I 1 l . " I I I - . I 11: - I , . I I I I I 11 I I . . . I . I . 11 I � I I . . . I I I . .. I . I .1 I � � I . I I I I . I 1. I - �� I I I � I ", , , , �
I � � 11 .1 � I I � , I I I I I I I . I I I � .11 I 11 I I . I . � I I , - I . . . . I I I I I I ,. � . I I I I I � I � . . � ..� I ., . I I � I . . . - I � '', � .1 , 11 �, ''I I I I IL
, I I 1. 1, I 11 I I I � I I . I . I I I., 1 I . I I I . � � - . �:, � , . I � I I � I . I I I I . I . I . I I I . � � , I � � � . . I - � � I'� I � � . : I I . � � . I . I � ,_
�", I �t , , r . . I � I I I I I I I I , I I � I I . I I � ; �. I � . ,,, . I I I I I I 1: . � I . . I . . I . " I . , I I .1 . . I .1 . . 11 I . . I � . : I 1, , I
I I I . I I � . I I I \ , �, . - : I . . I I 11 I . . . . I I I . I I � . � I ". I - I I .� I 1, - " 7
, 11 . I - I I I I � � I � � I � � I . � � I I I I I I � I I . . . . I . . . � . . . � I I � . . . � I � I I 1. '. I . , , I . , : � �
.1 I , � I I , . I , I I I .1 I I I . I � .., . I . I I . I . I . I . 11 � . I I . � . I I � . , � . I ��
. - I , 11, � I - I I I I I I I . I - I I I I � -1 I I I I . I .1. I � I 1; . I . I I I k I I . . I � I � . I � �, I . � I I I . � I . . �: :, �
. I .. �. , - - I I . I I � I . . � I I . i I . . � � I , I � I . � I � I I .. 1. � I � f� , , i
. I I , " : I 1, I I � I , I � I 11 . I I �%_ I �. � - . � I I � I I . I � � I . . - , . I , . I I . I . I . I �. I . . � I I I I � I I I � I I . I I .1 I I - ., I I . I . . ''I . . 11 . . I I I I .1 ., � ! I I - I 1;
" -11 I ''I � I I I . . 11 11. . . I . I 11 . I .1 . I ,. � � 1 . I . - I � �, � .1 . . . I I . .1 � I � I . I . .1 . . . � . I I I I I I 1. � I I . . . � I . I . - � I I I � . . . . I . I . . I I I I . . I e I I I ;l I I I I
I I . I I I . I . I I I . . - I . I I . I . . . . . � I I I - I I . . I I . . . � . I I I . . I I � � - � I I � . . I " I I �. 11 . ,�
� I � I � I I � I . I . I I � I I I I . , I - I - . . � . I I . . � : ,�� I � I
. I I . I I I I � I I - I I I ,. � 11 . I I , . . 1. . ,. .� I I I I I 11 � I . I � .1 I I A 11 I . � � I I . I . . I , I I I � I I .. I . I . . I I I . . - I I 1, I ,
, I . I I . � � I .1 I I I I - I . I � I I . . . I . I . . . I I . . . � I I . . . . . I I ll� I I I I ,� I I
I , � � I � � : I I . I � I I . . . . I 11 . I ., I . . . . - 11 ,
I ,� I I I . . I I � . I 11 I I I . I � I � I � I I I . I � I I . I I � I . � I � I I 11 . . � . I 11 I I � " , I A
, � . I I I I I I � I I . I I � . I I : .11 I I I � . . I � I I � I . I � I . I . � 1, � . . I I I "I
� � I I I � I I . I 11 I � , - I I "I I I I . . . � � .1 . I .� I � . I I � I I . . I 11 I � I . I '. 1, I , , 1� �
� �, " 1. I � I I I � . I I I � I � � I I . � - . I . I I I � I . I .. I. .. . . I . I � .1 I . I �- I � - . . I I . . I . . . I I I I I I I . I . '' I � , ., !, �, I I I I
� I � I I . I I I � I I " � I � � . I I I . � I I I I . I I I I I I � I I I . . . I � I . I I I I � I I . I . I I I . _1 � . � I . . . � I I I . I . I . I . � . I � I . . � I . �l . I I � � � " I I . I I I I . . I.. � I I.. I I I I . I I '.
, I � . I ; . �. I I I : . . I I . . I I I I . . � . _,�_-_--�� I __� I I I I � � � � I I I I 1 , , � � . . I I i. I ;
,
I � � I I I I . � I I � � I I � I . I I I I . I I 11 I I I I . I � I . . � � . , , , -_ . ., � I I . I � I � I I I � . I � I I I � I I . I I . - I I . I I . , , I . - � ., , 1'1�
I , I .1. .11,11 . I , - � I I I � I I I I . . . I I I . I � 1. � I � . I - . . I . . I I . I I . I I , , , _% I I
I I I I I I I � I I . I I I I . I . . 1 I I � ". . I ,. ; � " I . I I . . I I .1. ... � . I . 11 . - I I I � � � I I . . . � - I ., � . I I I � I � 11 I � � I . I I I 1, I - I I
� . I I I I I I I I I I 11 I . � :
I
�,/�. I , I I I . .1 . . I I I I I ,� I I . I . , ., 1. � . I . 1. � � I 1, 1. � . .. . I 11 "I I I � � � I I I . 7r7 ' � I I I ,
. � . � . I . I I I I ,
11 I I . I , 1 � I -
I I I I I kl� :. . � . I I . - I � I I . � I I I I .
I . I , I I . I � I ,� - �l I. Mll I I I I . : . I . I I - I .
. I I I . I . 1. I I I I I I I , � I : . . � I I (11 I I 5k, , , '1111111___*�" - - . I . � � I . � ''
I I I I I � . - I . I , I I , . I � . I . I . I I . . . I ,� I .1 - / "" e � I'll I I
. I I I . I I I I I . I I . � . . I I . � . . I I � . flOA-WOU-M, rWut4?,-Ov)Nt> Tlalw_,:�v?;v,Xc-- I 11 : , � . I � � - . .11 I I � .1 -1. I
� I I � I I I I � - I I I I I � I , . I � � I I 1� I I I � � . � I � � . 1 ,7,1 , 17 1 t . I . , I . I I � I . I I �� 1, I I . I � . I "
I I . � I . I - I I . ., I . . � I I I . � -------A . �
: I . I I I I � I I � I . , I I I I . I I . . I I � � . . - -r I . . . . , � . I . � I I I . � I � � I . 1� � �
.:, , - I - . . I I I � I . I . I I I � -5 - "'�� IO ,> ,�bVAU41�,,�_A� ,l+(Olk.wlRn.iimzAc � I 11. 11 I I � . I I I I I 11 � I -,�-,
� , I I . � - I � . I I I I � I , � : � 1. . I I � I I I I . I . I I wl 'MrAM 'Rk?,ne-Lr, . b SSA'Ift Ov k � , � + I ; . I I . � - : I .�
. , I I I I I . I . . - I I I � I I . I I , , . __ . . �. I I I - I 1 � . I . I � , I � ; f I . -
I I . I , I I � I 1 � I , � . � . I , I � , I
� . - . I I I I I . - � I � I I � I . I I . I I I � / I I 11 � , I � � ,� . . .. � I I � I I I . . 11 A .. I I � I I "
- I I � . I I � I q, � I . - 1. (Om 0 i'LA� �') I . . 1� I
I I . ., I , I I I � I I I I . I I -� I , . I I I I I I I I . I � I . ,
. I I .. - . . �,
. I I I I I I I I . I . . . I " � � �
, � I I I - I I . � . . . I -_ .- I C� � . . I I � �� . I 11 I
I I 1. I I � � 1, . 11 I . . . � - <_ 1 I I I � I . I � I I � I I ".. I . I � . I I I � - . . � � . . . I I . I I I ,� . . 'I', � 'k � I I I
I ''I , I I I � I � I I . 1: . 1, . I I . , . . I . . . . I . I \ � I I I I I � � I � I . 1, . � I 1�
. � I I I . I I � . � I I 11 I . . . I I . . I I . I - I �
I I I � , I . I � . , I ''I . . I . 11 I I . . . I , I . I � I 1. . � I �, .1 �l 1,
.1. I 11 . � I 1. I I I . I . � I I , . I � . I I 11 I I . . . I I . � � . . . I I . I I 11 � , %% I . I I I 11 I ,� . .1_ 2�)"j V:i: 0�_ VLt I . - I I I I . I I I 11 .1 I I � ,ill � . I I � � - I I.A
I I � I I I i � I I . i I . . . - � . � "-,. . I . � I I � . . � I I - 1 I ','� : _ I �. 1. I
I I � ''I I . I * - �- ,v , b � . , ''
I I . , I . . I I I � 1. '"' � I I I I � I I . _ " : , I I I I , . I 1� I
.1 I I � . , ,
�l I I I � I � � I I ., I +1 . . � - � " T I . I � . . I � � I . . . I � I I I � � L I I
I I I I � I I I I I I I I � . 1, I I O , , , �. , � I . . I I I I I I I I . R 11, I'll ILI 1 17" _ . � . I I . I . I I . . . . I . . I . I I 11 I , . � I " ,
.1, I . I I I I I . I I "_ ,", I � I �l _,.. � I . . I I I . . I + � . . . � . . . � I I I "I,-
�. I . I I � I � � . � I I I ,� - . � I I . I . r1f \ I � ill 1, 11. 1, . . . � \1 . I 11. . I . I I � . I I . I I �, I I I I I I . I I . I I.. I � I : - I
� , I � � I . I I I I I I I : � I � I I I - I . I I I I � � , I I , I . . � ,� I � x . I ,�;
I I I I I I 11 I I - I I . . I . ", � I I I . I � I . I � � I � . I I I
I . I . I - I I I . I I � I i . f I 11 . I � I I I I 11 I t, ��_, I 11 I 11, , � , . . I . I . . � . I I I : I . I � r I 11 � "I
11 I � I I I I :�� 11. I il I � I I I - I 1� I
,
I I I � . . __ . �
,
11
I I � I �% . '' I I 131. I I 1� �1_ - 'I � , ' . . � I . . I I I '� , Q q
I - I I I � . I � I � . � � � . � I � � I � . I I � I � � . d I I I . i ,I I I �
I � � I . I I I I I t I . I . ,�,_ 17. 1 1 ll�_, I I . .1 I . I . I � I I I � I � N, � I , � , lz
I 1. . I I ,. I . I . � � I � 1- I . I .
, I I ,. � . . . I I ,I � � I I , I I . . . . I I 11
, . I . , I . I I I 1 �' E It" � I I I . - . I � , I I
,� - . I - . I � � I . 11 . I -1r, ., I , . I , ; ?)() � � 1/7.1 � , -WA�AS v ' . � I . � .� . . . I . I I : !� . I "I I '.
I I I I I . 1; O I- �� . irl , . - I . I I � I I '2 � I I ��, ,
. I , . I- I . � ,� ��, � " � I �l . � . I . � . I � I.. . I I , I . ''I � -Z
I . I � . . ,
I I I I I I . . .1 . �, I I � I I I I I . I I i_ I . I `�11. r X - &M,st, zbtf �, skva), . -1 � I � . 11 I . I I I � . 1. I 11 I , , .1, I 11 ��
. , , 11 " t'll I - . � , ,� -� ,,, 4
,
�
. . I I I I � . .1 . 11 , , ill "!J L'_-, , I , - I - �, lgi- I . .1 , . I I . . ,-. � � .
I . .1 I � I . I I I I 11 r . I I ;#" , � I . ,"w
11 I � I . I., 11 I � I I . I I ,- . , . � . It i . 010 I � 1___� �
1, I . I I I I I � . I : I 1 1-7-�\ , _,.) , ''. - ____jj , I I I __,Z� I I x I I'll , ) _ . '110:F ,fi � � , '' . � . I 11,
I . .1 I � I I I I _,_ .. � t : - . I I I I � I I . . I � �
. . . .1 I I I I � . _"*,p,4rL"�_�� � _ ------- 77_410��tW _V �f 1, � _�>l i � I I , - I i , I :i, 0� , I . . . I . . . I . �. I � � I � . (11 11 I 1, I �� ,, I I , . , .1 ,4
,
. I I I I C .- I , , � - I I , ., I 1. . .
I I 11 I I . � . I I � � , � . I I'll �,i , � , v t i ., 1 1 11 . , -- I , 1. , . I .. I I I � . I I I I . I . I .. I I I � � , �l
, . _ I I � . I . ll I U I I I I I ? � i I I
I", : � I , I " . I I � I . . . I I . . I I . I I I I I I : , I � I . I . � I I 'I" I, , . 1. I I � I I I . I " . � I - 1 - I � I - I - � I I . I � - I � . I . Z , . . , � I "
1 I . . - i I -----I.,,, . . . � � . I I . b I I I I , . � I �11
I I . � I � . I I � I . I I � . I I %_11 I - � + I . I . . . I . I . . I I . I � I . - . I .. 11 1�
I I . I . . I - I IV - I . . . I . I I � I I I � � � . I I 11 I � - I I I � . ; " �� ,, 12 I � � � ,�� "I"
111, . I . I I I � , � . . . . � . .1 I I , �
I I .
. I I I I � � , , �14 , , , 0 . I --t- ---k\-\-H I I I 1: J1 I � I I . 19
. � � � . - I �l " I I I . I I , . : � . I . I I .. 7 , 11 I I
I I I I I ?", I - I � , ,,, I
, . . - � I � � I . � I I I . . � I li, I , 11" ,�
I I � I I . ,� I � . I --_ I I . � I I � I . I I Q'I � I . "I . ;,
I � . I I I . . . I . I . I � t4 . I , i ',--- ,f; , I . I I I I . I I I 11 I � -7) I , I 11 I" . . I .11 . � I � I ,� I � ,� I I I . I'll, , I I . �, i . 1. I , � I , 1 "A
1 1 1 1 1 I I I . I I : I � I
I � . I . , I �
I I I . . . I I I � I I � -or , v . Y, -t� t-� �A I "I , . I �
I '.111 I x -� D .'5, 0 Uss vmLe, ,_ Wier. ,v),,,�-, �tlfa) � ,
I 1, - �': . ''I I I I 1. I I . . .. _ . I I � .1 . . - � (i 4�- " 6-(,� . . . . 11 le le . . I . . .1 . I 11 1-1 I.. I � - � 11 t
I I . � I � I I . . I I 11 "
,
,
� , , . . I I . I . I -0, i ; I I -� - tD Z;,e: I r .. I . � I . � ,. 11, , ;, 11,
1, I . 4 1 1 4-. . I t4t�M, *-, ,�,OCY,�n,?�,l IA,k4.. 041 . - � . I . � I , I 4
,
I I I I I . I . I I � I , ! � . I I I - - - VIT I I . . I . I I � I I ,� 1 I I I �
I ,-ip - I I I . I
I . - � , �-i . � I I I I
I . � I I I . I - I . .. I I . � B 0 ?,y : F) a I vi� *1 A OT I �, . I I I I I . + � I . I I . , .1 1 14
: I � I I "' . . I I - I 4 �
�� . � I I . I � . I 1 1-4- - . 't " . - oll JA�oi� . � . 11 � , I . I . I . . , I � I . � I � � � I I � : 4
,. . I " I 4t.
. �
I I 1: , 1 ; "+ � I I I �. Z.w�_ 14 �"I.x It Tze t� CA - . I I
. I I . . I . 1, I . �l � � ,. . I I �l � .
I I I . I � � . I . . I I I - � � , I � � I � , � I �
I I � . . I I I I � _ 1� . . . I IA;mL � + . � I . I I � 11. . 11 I
I . I I I 1. . I I I . . 11 , I - , 1�
, i I W,�:
11 I . I I . � � I � + I I - I I Ir , -71, , , , � \-,-I I . I . � I I I I � I I I � I . I 11 11
I I 1. I I I I I � I - . � 11 , � * I 11 . . � . � � . . . I � I . 11 I , � I., 1
4 1 1 .1 I I . . , I I I 1. � . I . � ill' ". I I I . � _____ I A�A. -�A�v -:AA:, - 1��lzs lmi:,,� . I � � . . . . I . I . I I I � I 1, I 1, � �" I I I ��, iz
. I . 11 I ) , . � - -81 � . ,,,Of I lDzpi�?) /6v�� ,�-.�.vu.L_. I r�, - � I � . I . ; �l
� . . I . I . I I I I . I � . . . . . I I I I
I I � I I 1 4 1 . . I , t", . � I . I I -1�11__TIEZ ��;`K_i:l tL E:\Jl I I .�.... .. I � , '. I I I `z
� � I I . I I I + - � !". . %t . . . I .. - . . 4 ; � I I . � . I : ,,, I
I I � I . 11 . I . I i . . 4 1 1 1 1 � I
I I . . I , t, I . . I . . , , I � Pl�l' 'I. -
I I I � � I , �L � j, I I . I . � � � � I I . � .
I . I I . I I; -_ i:Zn- Q� � . 1 1411+ � I I I � ''I 1�
I . I I I . � u kU � %fwl' AU . . .
I � - I . . . � � .
.---- , t : , ,
I � . I ,
I . . . 111 I - ---,--IV, � I I . . I I . � : I'll
I .o, �� t;�t�jkjo SLI
I - . - -1 Oty I I . . 11, :, 1, .
I I I . I I I ; � o ` ill5v f-ba-WA - flOP ,to I I . I I . I . .1, � , "'
k I I . . �, I SVIA I I
. I . .. . w . I I I . 11
I f - -1., I I 11 �l
� I I I I � I I � ; , , ) I I + I * '�r,wmvv"., "��,,",p mvv.).Y�-,�J-) -tbm?uz.kl��l � �A',":>\N\Srstiv�*"[W CZL�VrYXO�li , " . I I I I I I . I .1 - 11 1, '.
� , , tm, I I I
. � � I I . I � 1;:'All �t' wto �-#i(tv"\ ,vw - � � 1. . ' -5 t4 i , � � � I . I I � . .
� � . I . I . I . � �, " ,l)l,:; ,�I� X) ,;�, ut ao � te. I . � 4 . I I I I i . I k
I 1. . I . I + ; '_l. ! ,_ ,%t TO lql-_0�5 E;C-OWEo�-rk-", uvt.m w � ml , , . I I I
� I � . . . I .
, � I - . -
I I . I I I
. I � � I " 6(-Y\ ' -1 'P6rA I L . � . . :rAt� I � - ,'� . I
11 I I � I � . I I � � I I 11 ll�� + I - - I .K ?�` I ,, � � . - - , I�141�,VA. -t��t'!�'tZ IrACA Ll-rle� MU`I;T V�- to U-vze�k-nar'l � . I I I � .
I � . .. t J, r..:, t X;!, ki , p v m r,l �r_ . I � � I �
. I � � I � I I I I . - I � . I I
I . . I I
, I
I . I � I I . I � I (b . I � _0 , - I , % uq T', -' I � I
I I I I . � I I I � I . I . I � . ki � %\ � 1 4 1 1 I , ?Q02, -1 usW:111RO lt�v> t_-WU;)�oi�� CDW�M. �r�),D eAT-J��-ACTOr_ . AAWTAl0U,:�k I I . . . ll�l I I I I I �
� � � I � . , , -
I � I -) � cor�7� 40V . � I I
I I & MW : ?_ lAkx I I ( (�,4 � t Iv, � . ,�.vmlc> I;" ?aTr"\) i �U, !FO&, N. -SvIlEu , .
. ; I I I
. I . I . .1 I '. . . ) Ul�'n 1, - Q"-;,V' A, LAOV,:-f-Apirj�O Am I I . I I __,-� - -, �_ I I
� . � I '. : J,,�
I I � . � I . . I I ,,, I I
I 11 . . . I . k � ; (I-?- - � � I I I I
I I I � ,q I f + � I . . U;R,O,ZkOt,l V4',-' , 9.1 I I , .,
I � I � . t-w;::�-.f'-T�) �. - I . . � -
I I I . I I I . I � . � . I I : � . . . I � I I I . . I I I . k I I
I I I 1. � . I � I I . . � I I I I .� . � I I � I I '... 1�'. I
I I . I 1. I . . I k ti, I + � '. I ,
I I I . � I � ''I I I � I - I I I �io � ) , ! . . 11 j I . I I I I I I I " I , . I I I
I � I I . I . + . . I . . I I ; � ! � I . � . . � I I . I � I .
. I I � . I + - ,_,_,__l__l._ I I I . � I .
I , I I ( 0) 11 I � - .-- 1- ),-.- I . I I
I I ) I _ _ � , . � . . � . I.,
, I I I I I I � . . I . I I . �'lll 11 . � I ____ � I _�.,_ __ ;� __ I . I I � - I . � . I I I I . I I � I
I � I I I I I � I I � "I � � I . . . �: . � .
I � , � I -�_,r - I . �
, , I I . I I . I � - 1 -- � I I . � I . . . I I � �. , � .: # , , ,��
I , . � I . � . I I I I i - I "" � � , � ", I -_
. I . . ,
� - . . � " e I �_ I I . I � ,
- I I . . I . . ." . I - I ., . I � - I
I � � I ", " � I . .
I I I I . 1 I � . �. ,,� � . � 4 I I I I � .1 .1 " " I . I 'I- . � . I � I . I I I . I � ,� . I I I
I I ", I I . 11 I I il I I . s I ! � 1. I . I / I "I I I . . I I
I � I I '_�' I zk, " I i - � . + I I ; I va . .
I I . I . I � .. I . ,,, i I I � I � + I � I I I � I I . .
1, I I I .� I . I I ; I , �11 , 1. 1� I "I'l^ �_ � U/ " � - I I . I I , I � �l .
I . I I I I " I . I `b 1�. ",\\ Nom ,, . . I � I I
I *%
� . . . . . I � I I � 9 � � 1.� ': I I . Vic, '! _�,,_<N I . � �=vj is 0) t,t ry-milku I I . I I I I -�
I , . I � � I I . I . : - 1 __�4-1� " � 1 ,9�
1 1 1 1 � I . �� � i I . . '�' " : I : I 1� I �
I . I , , , 1�41..J,.N " �, : I � I I I
I � I . . � . I - I - " I . 1w I t...' ; � � I . I I I I
I I . I I I I . I � I I � I I � � . '_'�"' - I 11 - . I � 11 11 �l � I Z�\ I
I . � � I I � I I . � � I �l I � � I On \ ! . , P�q Owfxk 0� "�,Qo jktelt, I I - I I I I
:, � � I I � I . � I I I . I . . i � I I 11 .. , Illb I �� ^; 1, I I I tAO&-A T t_�Q(, A6 i . I - ! i � I . I . �, . I . I . I
I I I . � I I I I . � .1 � 1* I I I . I I ; i ?, t , � . . . I ,� . I I
I , . I I I � ,. . I I � � I . I I " , . I . I I NO � - I , t � - . I . I I . . L I ,
,
I I I I . I . I - . I i , , I. I I I , �, � 1� ! . I I I I I � . 1,
I I + � .
, - , . . I
- � I . I 11 - I - I I � ��
. I � I . I �, � I , T 1w � . I . I I
I I I I I I I I . � 1 12 I , ,i� _I I . . �
I I I . I I I I I I I , ,, - K I 11 .116 i , . .
I + . I . I I + I �"\ er j�o� -t & "'Ol � I I
� � I I � I ,� I � v -ac � .
- � I I I I I I I � . . I . I � I - I I " I I ; , . .1 tLc . � I I I
� . . I � I .
.
I
- I � , I . I 11 � . . I I . I 11 � I I . I � I � � . "I' I . I I I ., �. . I . , , I Q.q. 11 I I I !, I I I I I .. ;;4 J' I :
. . � . � 11 I I I I . % � I 11 � . .
I . I . . . I I ., � � i .... . I . I -_ . 11.
I I . I I I � 11 � I � . I � I
. I -
I ., , I .. � I I . I � ., I I I I . I . . I I I . . � I i I I I . I 4 I ; ? � I � . . � II I I � I I __-4- ,,,
I I � 11 . I I � N I � I I � � . .
� , . :5 �
11 �. , I I . I I - . I I I I p f I - ( I(* ,�
� I I .1 I . , I I � I . . i Pi I . I � 1 ?�9 . . ----. . I � ,
I I � 4 1 . � I. I � I I � . I . �, . ,� � Z' . �; I , I I . . \ . � . . I I . % " I � I , O " 11
11 I .� � . 4 1 . 4 1 1 11 . I i . ,� I I 11 I � ; I I . I . . . I . . . . I , . . ____) V -_ -
I I I
I . I . I . I I . I . I I � I � . I I � I . . I I (16 � . . I I I . I I I
I., I I I � I I I � � I � , I i", i � . � I I \ . I I
I . I i , f I I I ; � I �
I .1 I I . I I . I I . . ,� I . _m_ � I " .1 I i I I 11 I I I . . . � I I . � ,
4 1 . � I .� . - � I I , / ,�c 11 . 7q, ,3 -,,,. . . I I . � I I � ) ,
I . . � I I I I , � . ,
I 11 I 1. . I I � I -1. I . I � . ; /; , li I i .. I � . I 11 's t 1, I � I . . . I ., " .1 .
I I I I I � . � I � I t I , � I 11. I I
I � � , ; � j I : - � � I . -1 � I . I I'l I
. I I I I !, � I-
� � I I I � I I I 11 � . I . I I . � I I I � I � I � I 1), ", I � I I . ,;( � \ I , " V, I I I I . I 11 k'' I . .) I , I 11
I I . I I � I , I . I . I \ .. I I . �� . . I . 1 4 ______ �l ��
� � I I I � I ! � I I , (
,
I I I I . . I . I .. �. . I � I . 4 -, , I ., i I I 1\ Ix � 4 17�) � � . I � 11 � , � I , �.l I I '_.__.__,,, I I I . I I I I � . � � I I .11 11 . I il-1, I I , I I
I I �
I 11 I � I . . I . I . I I I I I . I �� / . I I I 1� / cl � � __ , to� ,0(� uqw,!ii & ttA.'O ; t � , , . ft�. I . _ I . I . . . I , Ol 1 k - ,�
,
,
-
I I . I I I I I � I � I I I I I I I �? � "" i .1 I . 1, . ft.. ___.. . I � . . _"; . I I ,
'1� I I � (0) I t 1, . 11 : , . k, � 11 I . . I .: � I � . � �_, I I
I . I . ) I 11 � . I I . , I I I � I I I . I I I ��;) R , ,
.
11 I I I . I I . . - I I I � � : .1 I t .�l I " ^ .. I i ; . I . I . , �l
I - I . . I � I � . . I I . I I L I - ! I r � \ I , I I - , I I
, I I /,\,�, k0tA � I �L i'15 i I I . I
I � I � . I I I U . t 11 . I I � (" . " . I 1, I , -
� � I I I . � I I I - . . �f f tum_ ,; ) t- i wavi � I �, 11 , " I,,_ I - I , � I I . . I I I . . �l , 11
� , I I . I I I I "I I . I . I . . I �j ��f w�� I 1\, - � I .. �l i 1, " ., . � �., - I . I 1-1, I I �l
,
I �l I I I I � I � I � f, Atc,.., �,' I!, . I � 6 �vj't, v,��Jtj �,t� _ ... . I � � �
I I . I . e �� I . ., " � � . I � P% " I .
- f %, . - I . I
I I I 1 I 1. I I I . " 11 I � I � I ) ; � . I � kl, - -_ I . . I . � I " ,
I I . ( I �
. . I I . � I _,� � � . . �:
I . I
I .-
I I I . I I I . I . I 1_. . I 'd. I I I V4. I . . 1. I _ � I . . I I ", I I" I .
� I I I � . . I I I " . . I I I f u t"Z51 .,,� , I i I � --- * ' ' . , I . I I . . � I I �, 1, - I I
. I . I � I I . . . . � � : . , I � � ; I I I ! . IN JA . I I I 9- 1, "'
I I , I t"14 ,liry . 11 u
. ; i o . � � � A't �; ll,lt '1� " __
��"
I . ; � (�) 1.111, \l, I I :: I I , " . 4061 mAlL., 1- I % � ____ , . � 1.
I � k I i I I . i I I � f 6w it) p � I . � -
- I I I I j I I . . &t4o ; - " ' I I -
I � .
I . � . , - - �
I I I I . I I I., I I I . i! , I I . I I I , '. . � . . I I N113 I I I I ,
- . � (Ill �.4 � I , b � . I � - .
� � I . . ; _',
I - , - lz� 11 I ! I � I I I
, � , I � . - � � I � 7z 11
I � I I . � I . I � I `/ I I i I �' I I �� I - �t , , ",:* - _... ..w'.
i� I . I � I . . I I I � � / . � I - + I I . k . 41�'�--��_R_ -_ I 19
; . I ! I K � , . .. I . ) . I , , , I'll
I I - + I � . I , I I
I I ; I I t I �
i I I I . I � . � '_._ I ,
I " . , , I + m . _�
I 1 I � I (4,f�jt � . �
. . I I / i to , . I - I omit twL I& mul a- hl � C�,;�t,, �, ('L i, �' - . I ! I . 1, I
, � 11 ? I I �' I 11 I -11 � . I I I . ��. I � �
�
, I . � ; I - . I ! . - � _.
I ,� � I I � t � I � . � ,,, '?ffi
- 1, . * , . I I . I . �� . I I . 11 ,,, ,,�l Z7 � � ""I'A ";
I I I 111A�, I I
i. . I .1 I � . I I . � I � i I / 'I 1�. . . I 11 � � . --� - - UA),5A ft", (� ,ft,o 1 . � I � I I . !! �Ly_ � -
I I I I . . I � . I I ' I P. "3 I � � � \ --- --- - I _. :,_, . _. - � - - � � I I 11-- 11 _111.1 � � - I - I �l �?, �, *,, �, - , -7� -,
i. , I . . � . ' 4 f 11 � 1 � - -.1 � - ---.;I--. � - - - ^ -1 , "' . I - I �
- I-,--- -, - _ . � I I I - - _ - - _ I I I � � � I I � . I __ - -_ - - . . - i I .
� I I . � -_ I -_ I - -_ __ ___,___l . � __ _., - - , - -_-- � , �-- - .__�__ _ I . � I , � I i � I I � � 11 \ � I I I I � . _. ", I � I . . I : .
I I I � I I I - I - / I � I I / - - - I I I � � , I
I I � I 1� I I � I . I .. . I .1 � / I . . . I
I I I I 11 . I I I I � . I �. I ,
I
. .11 I � I I I . I � I � .� )-t , I � . I � I 1�., � 11 , """' I I , _ . __., . I I i I - . I 111154 - I , 11 � , I I
I � I � I I I I . I . . I � ? , . / 11 I f , Qtjk��, ) .. � I ` ,�. .1 � I . r / . I . . -, "I'll, I I I I . - . � �
I � I . � I �
I � 1� . . � . �l � , I I
. I ., I . . I . � . I . I I I 1Y . . t / I I �l A � � , , � . . f I � '_11_1 . I " I 1"
I . I I � . ^%,110 c, � . 1, i I � "I
k . I . * I , I ., I
I I � I I I 4 . I � � I I / 1 �� , / . I I ,
. . I I . I I I . I I . I I I � . I � . C vl�ll . . (146, . I � 11 I
. I I . I 11 k�t .13 ) - , . I I I I I .1 . I . � . "I .
I I I . I I I , , I I - � / . � I I I I - I.-
. I � . I � I I � I . . I �l . � I � . I I I , I � I I I . I . 1( . __ / � I e . I . . I 'I"ll I , I I , I � , � I
. . . , 11 - _,_� _� - I
. I I I � � 11 - / � I . "I" , I
. I . I I I . . � . � I I j . I � . 0 � I . I , , . I
. � . . I I I I I I I I I i I i � I . I . � \"-,. . ! . � � � I . I . �.11l . . I .. �1,111'111" I
I I : I . I I � � . " � I I , -,,, . 11 - I 11 , I , .. �l I � � I
I I . 1) I �
. IN . I ; I ? 11, . , I . � I . ",", I
,
,
I I I t kl- I I , I . I
,
. I I . . I I . I � i . I , I .I � li)j\ � 11 � I . I � � � I,- " I � I � � . , . - ---y \��,,_,- 'mmi'As T,p,c)l'l, " . � - - � 4 1 1 . I
� I I 11 I I � I I I I 11 . I . . + I . � I . I . X, I 1 12 1 + .� . � I I . I . I .�. /I I I I I . - NOTE .. t (qi� i u\,�As -r4 cr�, . � . . �. I . I I I I
� . I . . � i I I I ll� - I i ., Wil� � il � .. � �l ! I ! - i . . � ' I - � . � 11 , I .
I I I , I . ��l * I � - , , , * i ���w , . -�Oo��_ --R)cr��!,\r-j*r. -T-o k � I '_ I 11 I
, , -
. � . . - I I .1 I . f I ,, � L I 06, I I , , / � i - , i � I I 4 I . . . I , , I I 11 I . I I : . I I .. I I �0 Vv_(�) I . '. . � � 11 .
I I I I � ww" - . / , . . . .1 I f O"'O
� I I,- I � 6, Ovet-, s �* � / I I I I I . 11 . ,�, . I I ; . I i CA . I � I .. I I
.1 1. � ll._,_� I �. _11111� �. I I � I .1 11 I ,��tktl I " __-� I.; ;, - .--i �� -_,> V . I . I I . . I . . . ,. I . i I I � � M-AAr-1 ?lpe . - � � . - , I I
, I I -, - " . . I I ", � I , , . 11
I __ ", . . I . I . I . ,E3� __ � , ";, I , ;_ __ , " .1 1 " __> - - �l . I 11 111 ;11 .11 _/ . / I . � �. I v . �, I y 1�.; . � I 111"ll Ig I I I
`.,� or�� � . � '' I 11 I . I I I :z . . I � � 1. I �
,
. � _1, . I I-, __ - L�j )AT I , , � . � I �
. � . . I __ � , , . O ` I I . I I I . � .. . . . . I I F +
. I . . I � . .1 I .,, � I
" I I ", �','� . . I I . -:_ - .. IA. !x",pAc.l:-�,, -1 . .. ��'l I k "" tu . / I ? � . I I
. I
. I . I . i ! . I i " I . � , I . kt I 1, � 1, , . I . I � I I I I 11 i I . .
�
. I , _""' I . $ . � : . I < - , , � �/A 15,? , , I . I I . I- . �, '.. � � - co I I " . " I
I , , �', , . I 1�, 't i - . . � U I I
I / � I � .1 � I . m"I'll, I
.1- �, � V! I . I I , I � . j 0 ( I I I . . - � I � . I
. " I 1. 1, I � - I + �� I . � � . !AJ�O�� VE5% , I I . I 1-1 I I . - I I . 1, I 0. �, I I � � �
I I ."',_ I I '_� 1_� � . , , ..,'\ 4�11 , I . I � . , �fi, I . . I
I I I 1, I . I 5� I �,, . I I I � I, 11 I - . I I I - NA 1. I . . . I . � I A I
,
I ." I . I I ,w I � , . I I / %I' r I .
, , / - .1 �� , 1. I . . .1 I . . . I . I � I .
�_ I 11 .", . I . I 1'� \ . I 'I-.,.---"' ____ .. V1:11 � .. I . �l . 11 I I I
'. I _, �- �'.'_ . : � . I I � . I I t. wj v,- � 0� �., . I ,5',�l I I * I I I . lk _'l , 14- � I I
� I I I _ ��,, I * , . I- � � . I I
I � I � ) � I � "" i - I . . . � I
I . _� ", , ll-);� ",_ . ." 1, �l X. k" I I , . . I I � . � . I I '. - \ " 0� . . . . I ,� : -
I I ; I . � . I .. . . � I , _. � I �� � 1� I . ,
, "', I . . � , i / , I I ---., + 11 ; I I I �_ I 1 A3 ,
+ k, I I . �
I I 'id . Z I
I - . ; -,, . I 'l- I, ,
, � I � . V, " e �, . -
� ___ � . . I I I , I I . + ,. . , � e � � , � � 1, I . I I I : I . ., � . 11 I -, I . , , -
" . . � I , � � il, W_ . , . . - ,� " � -- - � TO le�5 . ,�,�,,, I
I
I � I . � I ("I,,- 11 - 1. I y 1 ql�l �yl (A I '� , . rc� f 4 � , 14 . I
� � � ., -"I, . I I 11 I I , I 1. . I � .110 1-7e, : �_ Au" mvi"'45nur :*",�W!b A�KT_ . . 111, 't
I I _ . I '' � I � � I I � � UxOt�l -t:�_bvN 0- I . . 1. I � t - I I I �, I I , I It . . - I It, \� . I + 1. , " �L . �
� � I", . :, � I . I 4, I � I I I I I � � � I I , I .1 . I I . I i"
r I I_,. � . I 71 1 � . I I I � . . 4 I I , " , 1.
I . � . I . . � , . I , Ar. , -710a- I 1. I I I ': 1, I I - . .1 I "" � I
I I �ww, , , . , � � 1.1.1- �. . � I I I I .
, �, , I . I I _t . � I I I I . , - 'oo I I
i . -, I I . I . I . -- -_ , �. S �' colAlkest - * ! . I . . 1� - 11 � I f 6� '' "�� I 1, �: -ri64,t LvISAD sr,-?zAAmA . ,=�'4'0m, -T- -rim(, " I I :
11 � � I I I 1. . I . � - � I � 11 I 11 I I .. � 11- I � ,� ,
-,. . � � : I ... �. jir. I 11 . I I "
11 I I . . . . - � 1. " I �m " , ! �,,_ t, " " I . t . I . . . I I I .1 . I -
) I . ,kl' , I I I I
� I � I . I � I 11 I . . , -:) I . . � - , ,, ,
'
I I I, �� � . . - , : A-0, cw-_V-,�l � .---- %'a�, wiv ; I � ! 11'et + T fSol P., tit I I " / , I "I . ULIOI (Z,; , . , �
I � I I I I I -I-, "I I I . - . .� I I I I I , I------- A�� � UVA, � - , - I � . I I . i , , , � '. I � �), " I I I It' t, � . 1'1�� � � I ix I , a I m I . I _rO - - '�MOW, I , ,
,
I I . I . 11 � I ,�. I I S��i,s .1 . N '. , I �� � : I 11 �\ . At � Ter,f, -lkyyriv , 11 � I . I � .1, 11. I - . v ".114 S. �Ku� _*�s A?*t'pF,O\h�T , I I -
I I . I � - I I I " - : . I ; I .- ''I � I 1 JI! 1 t ", .��j I ", I ? I I. . 1. .1 f n, i i. 1� . I I I I,- I . + . I . 1� I I 11 I ,� I I . I I I I 4 �� '�,\" , �
I I I 1 I � , . . I I 1, , '' , "'� I - I , I I . ". I I . I �l . I I \ "" � I , I . . I I , �
I " - � . I �.olilm �,I�l ,
I 1 <____� � . . 11 : 11 11 ot- uatv tm,i 1� I � I � flxjloa� 6r� 10 � , I . 0
. � . I . I
I . I I , I I , , . �,", ,, 1. I I � �.'�. I I I � � I ,l I .,w � 1.�l �� I., - iSlrG �A - 1: I 1, - I I `-�' - .." � '�
. I . I I ,. I I - I ��, I '' . . I I
. � I I .1 � � I � I I I I k illi ��_IA Qt � � ��.l tr�.
I �: , - _�l , I I , , 7 � I . I I I I 'lAA`tA(OFl - sl - ,kil? =
-1 : �,,� -'VRAilkl AUU60 ,_o` ��_,
I " , � I . . . I �, I 1. ,
,
, I � . I . .
I � I . 1, . . I I , " , I 11 � I I I . . 1� �� . I . I � I � ,
I I + I 'I � . . , I
� I � . I I I . I . I
. I : � -1 I 11 `,,� I � . .1 �l I , , � I , I ,�", . I . I . 14 I . I I I ; I I � �, .. . � � I . . . I ,� .
� , I I I � I � , . . , / i I toucebj,�,() I - I , � I
- I I I � I . I : ", i , , �� 0 .11 �/=,� -1 � ,(�4, 5 Utr,wtil�v, q'. " .
11 I . I . I 11 �+,_ I 1. . . � �� / .. ,,, e I 1 �p . I I I I
I 11 . . I I I I I I " � I . e I . � . '10 Y, I lf� "I " , I � I \ I ll� I . I . I I I ) , , ': I
� I � � I I I I I ' " I . v � 11 . I . I I - I . . I.. . . I I . 1. I I I � I I . � � I I � " I '0_ , "
I I . I I � 'Q ' - . . I � I I . . I ,� I " ; I I . . . .1 I 1, I ,� 1. _j '' � . _ "
� . � . I I . .1 �., I I I . I 1110(11. � I -
I � I �l �� Ie Awl 0 I -_ 12A,b ! I
I I . I � . 1 -4 1 � I i �1.1'
. I __ . I I . . . � . , �4' ,� ,
I . � . . I I . I I . I I 11, I I IV. ,., /, j � , V � I 1. I I � L � I I �
1. I .1 . � � > � . I � ",-, , , : -1 F'' Lt ''O 'l, I X ./ �4 1 i �l I - I I � . � - , 4 I , , . � -1 I " � . , I ,
11, I I . : I . � . . � , �� �-` I I 1, I I - I � I k��, , i - I . I . .�, ", . I I I I ,. , : ll.r� , �l
I I I � I � � - : I , - . , ( \v . . . I 1, i I I
I . I I � I - � I I �, + , I j I I � , v
I I .1-, . I - fi� I - � / Y % " I ;l) I _�___-,� ,., , .� . I
I I I I I I � �,_��, y , : to , I I ?,Q
� I i Owl' I . , _, I " 11
3 1� . � I I- � 'I', . � I I I - . .
, . � � � , � I I I I I I I - ll�, 'I :' ��.rjc�fi-r Ulf � � I I % _!� 1 I. �,� "" �- I . I � '' 7 ; _ " : I 11, I I
__ I I ��_ " � I . I �) N6 , . . � I �,�','�,
I ,
. . �
All, I I I I I I . � I 11 � � � - , _;511 � \[Aiv. vi,41 , . I - V. t \ 71 � � � , I I I 11 �,-- � 4,, ll�,�, . I /I , -trl 124.1t, 1 1. I � � � I I 1 pe�l � �'� � I 11 I
I . . � - TOP Q� I 0, I . I , �_,i`.__�4_�,��-. . . I I . + . . - 6 ft, � �,b . I I I
, I I I � I � - ",-k� �, �� r ,,, ; . - � �, , . I I I � I I
, I I � 1 �,'11,0�'4 ,V t Ir- ,,, I I I - � . . . 11 , ,:,
`1 , . . I . . I I I � - 1 � I., . I , I , , ,,, �,/ , ._ � . I , I -, . � I : � ', V. . � . � I � I I I I I ; -,, - �,, �� ,
,,, I . I , 0�, ,� I I � , , � � � .
" I I I ., �� , �1; ,,, I , .1� �_ O � ,--� / , � .
� I I . � I I I �� -:. c I lf� ''. 11 � �,(Otllllcq vw1o'? . I � . , I Ig I z I, 1�,-s I . I �, 1�1 .
I I I , 0 /�,), "! , I % . � � I . � . I I
I , , ,if .1 - : , , I I '. �- , I I - ., I I I � I 1. 11
Q � I � I .1 . � ,.; I � :�, lkle ( �. ,_�,;`. ,I vw , . I I I + 11 I I I " �� I I _ �
I � �
I I I I + I I 11 � I , I __ . :) .+_:.� 6"i ,__� . � �.. . . I . � " - I ) � � I I . ,W.4\ � \ , ,"m,1�10, , I � I . . I I I I I I I , I �
I I
�
1. I 11. , - , . I � ," "I I I
� . 11 I 1: --: , �. �I � . I , 'l I I . � I . , , � I .
7 1 1 1 '_ 11 I I t "� tTIJAWT-4t.k " � � . � . k -
:1 I O I .. , I 1. � �� Y - wtov 010 -
/ � " '('- � , , �. I , "I t-, �\ \
I . . W
I I I I I . I . I . I I . I I 1, i - , . , - - , \ , �A ? - I , I ,w �q " , I I 1.� I I - I
I I I . - I � � - , I ,
� ,.��_�ll � 'k I + . I I I
11 I I 11 - . I , I I I / q`k10( . a�_ , : . I . ", I I �' I �
I � �� , � , . I . I � I I I ., � I � - . "', I , - ; .1
I I � I I I -1 + I !, � 11--. I 1 5;� - 1; ' I . . I . j I
� � ,� I I I I I . � I � � I I � I . I � I . I I I . 11 I I , , , , " 1 4 , . .11, I . � � �'. I . . � . � I 1. I I I I I I .. I . � . I �
. 11 I I 11 I I I I ''I --,, f , �,�, 11 I .1 I - . . I I , . P �, � � ."', - . I � . � / I I � � � , �
" I I I � . � I - I � I I I I I I I � 1 1. � I , * ' ' . . � � � . . I . � jl,� . I
I , I I . I I : I I , M_ � , I : L���;;;Z_�, �.. - , 11 11 "AlA _�_rlU rL,V,W- . . I : � I . . . i � � I I 'I'. I
.� � I I � � � , I . , � I I , I � , ll� 1_�� : � _� I I I If
" I I . . 1114 _�I�x � - � . , .
.
� �
. � � . I I . , I , � 7-II � d I '' I -i I , " �
I I I I 1. ,. I I I I I I I I I � 11 1. I � (()I , 4 I i$ . I % I I I � , , I A . I �. . . I I . � , �',
, I . I I I . I I . �
, � , . I . I , . . . 11 ,, ,
11 11 . . 1 4 , I . � . . I . I . I I �, �
. . I . I I I I . I . . I 1 7 � . . . I . . . I i �. , . � � . I I � �,- I �. , I I
I . , I . � I . � .._,� . , 11 , -11, I I I I � I - , ,I +1Z, , � _� . ... ,�. � I -1 I I . . I I , .1 .f
I I " . 11 I . � I � . I I - . I I I'll . .� cl , I 1j. (��. _,._�,/ I _-, I --- . R, - u4j. ! I � I I I . � . I I , � �l
. I I I � -,- _ , , !
� � . I I I I I I .1 . - I I . � 1. I �o,, � I
, I . . . I I I + �l . � . � I -11". 1. 1�, '' - I'll . I I �.. .l: . . , I " ____ -, --,-- " -, - "' , . . I I I , 1_ 11 I I I
1 4 � 4 . . I 1. _ � I � I I ' 7f , ---- -:=L,:��,=4_- . - .. � 1�
I � � � I 11, 111, , "��t� ��t�--:,�`--�!-'�`��:�-- _��' I
, I .1 I . ,,,,,' / , j 1. , 4 . I . . : �R-_fka)�gfm.�) -t,�v�i'v)t . .,___.�:L_0,0��,IA � (tr I
- I ll_�, I , \_ `lp_lD 1��%, � . U IV ,�Ojl � '\Q�,
., \
� : . pr
�
I 11 11 � : I I � � �� �, , 1, � - , YAW I
I I I I . I � � I � �� 11, '' I �� - �� AA� . A - . . I I � � I � ... . p � .(mt . � �
, I
I I . I . - I I I , , "" I � I 1-1 , tit � - . '(!::::;6' " -�r� 1 �"�':'�*"" � � !'.: , - , I , �,,.. . . " ,4 I
. 7�� 1* . � . \ z I jv .
. � I I . , ��_ ��
I I I I . . I . . . � - I ,� j I .1 . � I � , `,�, , 1 , - , I I ��I? I . .. I � I . 11 11 I �. I + I . . . � I I � I I . � I , I I
I I 11 � I . I I . . I , ,,---, , , ,_ . - .11. I 11. _'. I'll., � I I I � '11U\104 -14 . I I I � I � I I ;
I
, -
I .. � I . � . I � I I I ... � I ,"I fN),; 70 e::�?;", 7 (', llb� � " tit t�, 1"? t . tfj,-:�t, � p , " I'l ,,� I I I . . . � I
,
't
�
I 1 : i I _ , � ,� �
it!� I? � ( u , ti,
; , , . I . " . . " - ) __ -__ _ . _ �, 1. , ,
",
"i"', " " , , I . I � I I � , " � 'p' 4r E I , _ -11 57 . . ,j ') b[,�Atkv_ f'T,_,___ t �. � I I I "I I I
I
� I . I � I . , I I .,�__ . .- .. . - � %. . I . �tt� " ', I , I . I . . . � I I : 11 � , ,,, �',�
III', � . I . �. + I I . I I � I . I . I , " , - I , � I I � . � I I � � . - I , -- 1� '. - . . 11 IZO � I I I . . " I � I I . I � k , . .
. I � . � � c , !�_ __ 11 . '' I
,
. � . . � . I'll
. I 11 I . I I I . I I �� I .1 .1 I I . I I I I I I I I I I . 111.1 . I I I I . " - I I . . � I � ,,;, I _-� -_ ��
I � .
11, I . . . I , " . I - , '011,11" C P'. j I t� , . - -1. .-.: ... , .. � � , ,1,01�� dlfw, . -I � T, � - I . I ". � , , j I'!,
�� , I , 1. I 1 I .11 1- _1 -Y .
I f F- ,1�t , . . ,
� . . � � � .._ . I � . . I . - , . " _ I . I 1lX,("u4 Lws , I I , I . . . '' f, , I
I : I I I - " I , I I I , � , I— 1, �� . - -�� , I I � , _.., � _'. , ,� � , � . . I � I � . '. _.� � P .
� I . I . 1. � , I � il, . , , - , � C;so , . . . � - '_ � 11 I , I I � I � . . I - I
I I I I I I I I . f , - I , 1 I I I I I . I . - 1. . . . . ....___ ., . I I I .. . I I � 1. I I � . 11, I
I I I 1. . 11 . . I I I I I", I :. � I" "I.-* I O#T , I /' '' I . .. 1. .1, "' _.., � ... I .11, I I I I . I . � .1 I � _� "I
R11 I �, � I - . � I I . I � :, �. I �_� I I., ". I - . I . -_ I I I I ' � I . + , � t - _ I . I I I I . .1 . I I ,!.,
I I I �l I I . I W (Aw'� �: * � I ,2 , - , - , � '' . , , , -'. ., " . - - I . I � . I _ - '. . I I � I I � ".
� . "I I I I � . . I , Qlt� . . , � . / , fjt,; , jjt___--�Rr--*-_O-����� ' "i ��' � I I . I I . _ .1 _ _!.,_1 . . I - I . . . � I I
I I . . I I I I . . Wl 1, I ,. I ., , * , �, ILP +. , I-, ., . -1 U, - . .., 11 '' . I . I . . � I I . '': I
I I � . I � I I lll� .1, It, 1. ,.. I I . , . . . � . '. . 11 ._-L I I ,j ' -, I I I I + .�. I . . . I � I � - I I . .1, I I I I I .� 1�, ,I,,- ,
I . . � I * I I . � .
I . . - I I I . I , � 11, . I I I I - - I
. � I I .. I I , -. - *% I . . . �l ,,,,
1. I . I , , 11 , . . 11 1-4-,O`.rlo�� -. i�
I I I I I I , I , o I , . . 1- I - I.' I— ,�-, , �l I " 'w�t.yq '
� I . I . 4 1 , � ". . - i�t I . I . '� �t j%j 4;' , ... geti, �,( � . �: , ,
� , � 1-� � ,V . . . I , . , 1�fyl +L�f �A,, �
Ili I I . � I 1. . I . w I � .. I I .: I tt A *wul, ,., I q . .1 . . � ,� I .1 � ', � . I , ----. v IQ kU " 1'' A lus\ �
1,111 . I., � I . I . � , _______�� 141 -
11 � � I I . I I . I �11 - � " - � * . . ��I,(9 , �' I . , I I I I . , I I . -, lip, 1), C t / � ________:_ � � . . � + . 1. I
" I � I - � � , .. , . I 1 7� 92t . . � I I
'I, I � I I I � . " - uqe# .. � . , 141 I . . I . . . I . � .. I I I "'. aF" , , �, �, .�. - " I I I . I . . - - I I . � . � 1,
.1 I I I 11 . I I I .A , ,. I I I - --- . . I ( - , (� I ce �u . �� I � :tAM:.' UWMA4�TOY� __r6 , WlqSQv4_ SOILI�),"IKEIFO��r I I I., �111`
I . .. I . . , , �, 1, 10 I w , , � 11 1. I . i .46, . � I �J� (11U6 -�,�._.__ L, I . .
It 1% , , " (`�> * lor,`I( , 10 . 11
I I � � I � I -, , . I I , 6 x, ,,� , . eb ,C -
� . I - - I �w . '': _ " ", � 2 �, �� _'l � , % I � , I - i - I
I , I � . I
I 111.1 � I 1. I -1. I I . , I I I , , * , . . . , .1 , ... . I I � . I � V41 t)uwl, m(,J�j ."It.") 4 --- ), , , 1. . I I .
�� I'll � I I I � , I I I I I I .. I I I . I''."- k -r- ,jNj(,�"-vp,AAi,)S, ", - �l . tr' � jfj`jl Lili)''Lo . � . � �. �. . 4 1 . . . . . . . I I !�'6 11 . . � I 1 4-11 1 1 ,�, �f � . . I . . I � � I I
1, I I 11 . I . , . � , I I . . .: . I . " I �. I , 1$ x I � I . 1. . . . . . . I I ''I I � fe C,�� � �, , I . i� I :.,FOK 5f�� sT7Aeb\(l\rl Vv?,\�A I
r I � �, catimli'C'r " � �M�q � . ,(��w �01 � � 1001 ll�ld�� .1 I I
I'll, I � I 1. .. .
I . . . . I I � . I I "I � . I 1. �; � 1.
I I I I I I . . .. IKE) t N ftr�,'S , 0 , � QA , OM � : i - . I . . I I � k ( I . i .
,
� � k, � I . I I I . I " IF to, o� q Aft), t�u�ltt , � , ilo: 4, , , , " - I . . I . I I - � 1 �, . I I . I . . I (o 4� -A-FISK I
�� I I I � I .1 I I I .mr! I I �. I - . .. I- . , --ii I I � I I , c 1-n �, 1(7,7 � I + .1 � - . I � I
I I . . . : � j � . I I I I 11 . . 111 I I .
I I � - I � i . 11 I � I I . I I I I . I � . � I I . I . I � I I I . I "
. . I ,: I I I I . . . I I I (�O tltT?,Q (.r �qyA PAUS, 11 + Or SOjL,e,,, ? I � I
. I I . k,k ' I I . I I � - , . . . . , I �01 .. . . � . . . . I \SpoKr I ... 'll I I � . ,-. . I
��l
I � L .
�
�,l � I I I . , - . I . 101 1111i , . . I �11 I I I
I �; - � " I . I . . . I . � . I � "-- I I . . .... � �, , I
I I I I � I I . I . ,� ,� _ - 1 ,'� " � - I - IR 61001 � . ___�, I - - I - " * I , .; *1 . � ,
I I I .: . . . I I I I I � � L ., - - , . ., , , - 1. . s . � I . " . I _. . .,
I �!�:,:I, '' , ...... it I U�r hl`.,ltlKrulp*l_,& 4, �� I t i . . . . . . � � . . � . I I I I
,:��ll � ,,,;w , , -� � I , _j-"._' ,.;,: '+, I � ..,; �_ - * I . . . . . -, I I I - I . . I I I � �llp I �. I
I . . . . I , ,
,
, , 1, I I .
"I I ,� . I � I _��"' . . Lenh-I'l Lktwl �fl �v -.1, I � . ",
� I "I" I I � klk! � Ak"(111 fA lll;�li P� li, I , f:_,� '',:,:"�, " I .
I , , . *,�,,, � �to
11, 11 I , . 1+ . ___ ., �1: - I . � . � t, q. UP I ,I , I . -, � . I � I I � � � , I I ,
I I I I . I I . I � -� "". I . . I I
I— . . I ... � . . I �. . , . � �
� , I I � 11 . r � t I I � . -._; 7 I I - - 11 * I I -f- - -1 1, 'I', i - . I
� . k I . 'Ot I � . I I . . � I 11, !�)j _ � . " � V! � I I � . . . I I I � - ,"Vl
I ,� , � .. . . . � I I I . � 11 I I I-, �
I I 11 . . ,� � . I - I I . I I I I I -1 __.11l.__',_ ...... - I � I I, I � � I
I'll I 1, � I I . . , . - IV -it) 41 , Ft,4 W., I I - , � 4 . I . : , , p KO Jr, ct .- bt�c) . � �
I . I � I I �01'ql�� b� . . . . I � 'A ��
� � � � . � . I . . , , Ili - I . I . . �, . . I : I . 1, h, I
�111 � . I - I I � I . . 1111, " . I I I I � I �
1� I . � I I I . . I . -.111- ". I . , I I I I . I ,� �l . ,�
, �11�
I I I . . -111_ , � � . � � ,
I , I . I � I . I . . . I I I - I . ,,,, � , - � I , � - - , . . . I I � J�� � I I ,�
� . + I - I . 4 � . I . I . - I I I ., � . I I '. I I I � l I I M
I . . . � I � � . , , I ", � I . "
I - : ; . . � . , , T, �Lzf�, ��ll I I I ,
I I I I I I I I . . . . . I I I . I I . , . 1, . I , " "" '' , I , 11- I I ,.� �, �� 'l -_ , * ,; " i . - I .; *i�rm�l 4��_ALV Y ll/,�.;: �.,v , I , I �
"M I � ( , , . , /'� r . I ,
"
Mi I , I -_
11. . , , , I _ - I I
1� I I : I . . I I I I � .." --..,. 1. . I � " '' . , , . I . ,IAOM r. I , lll;n . . �)IA oN , -, :Fok N ell�
I I 11
I . . . I � . - . � I _� + _11____�_ I , I
.�
4 . , � ?�_ R) ll��ll 0, t,� v � A_l� ( wl, - I _ 11 . o I'll ,
I I I . � - I � I . I . ---..---�-.-�----------�-,.--,-�. ... . . Il I I � 11
I I I . I I - � I 11 1-1 ", I
I . I I I . I I � I I - "I'll lll'�111111 111"IM, I i 11
. I . - , I �
I I I . I � /-I- I . - F I 11
I . � . I I
� I I I i
0, I I � I � � I I lk .w �� - � - , -_ I 1��_ I— "� A 4 1 , -"- � -------__ I � . C_6rt�u_Meo i��O�Abll,-i�q,D ?,SDUC�Wo' ,\�� �YVA I W'�1�1, , , , . I
'� I � . I
, ' '
g4,�, �l I I I . . � I . I . I . � : I I . I �j �l - I . . 1 4 i . I I I I " . � ;�
. I . I � � � . - : . )(4. J'��'O ' :' �'j 1, " - I '() .11 - I - � -I �.." . I I 11 �
I Cj�jj.��, i! !11 I t , . . . I . � I I . I I 1
i/1111" 1 1 U) Kit , �M "k,"K, '741 1 - (�, , � __�,, , I �
I. . � , - i � 111''i I �
,!�X; . . I � I I I I I I I I . c� l,' I � I 1 4444 I I �
I I � . I I I . � _ . I i I . . �l I . � I
I � � I ; � . : I 11 ,, I .. I
. . I
I I � I I
, I I . I I I � '. I . - I c 1�v ScAm--- ?"t-.tqv-\T-1 k 1_1 (". . I I V I I'll
I ��, - � I I I I . � I I . � I - � I I � . � �i,. . , � . I � ,� I ! . . � 5wvw, �Lz CARD �,.�,\va;,� I . .,� 11",11" ... I I I I I I
I I I I I . I . I . . I /l: , . ; � I I . I'll 11 i I � � I .
I . 4 -1 I . I I I . I . . I "I � I tA . ,� I
11'11'11� + . . I I I I . . I . I � I - mk � I ()-
. I I I . � I � . I � � I I . I . - % I'll
I I I I I . . - e "T 4
I , �, . I � ' '� � ,� �, . 1� " I . .. I I l,Ot:,4?QZA '�UU,\ + 4 1-0 COU I"'- , �01?, �A(-r,- W ' 11 .... ''I . I � I �
� I", -
11,
� I I � I'll " `� ,
X, � I . . � � � ? -n(Allk� �-, 11t) ,STOKM ,
I I I I - 11 4 �A ,V MAVA ArNI) .
,_
. . I � ,:", I . I . . I
I . I � , , . I I v , ... �, I `-, U) t,_�va, pleav/1 , I , , - . .
, I I I . ir- 4 iir,i- el::�fp, ,i 5 � . I �
I'll"ll -, I I , , . � -, � -1 I
111 , I � I �OR7 .
0 , I � �;l AO I 11 1�
� . I -) I- I - I ,
tv I I . I , _r '-r '� 5- -t,j,.j-A'j7 -7� - _A_rf � � __. ___ � I
, � - I 1�3.x f__ " Is W r _1 � I
. . . � . I Z�j H 05 P,:�r;'-_ r12,�'t, . - i +-, I I
g�, . I � I" I � �,"* , " , c . . � . I
11111 . I I I . . I I I . �, , I
.
. � I I , . .� N 3 ,� I
, � I ��-h%k S4,�i�-N .� . I I
I I , I . I-,- . . . I � I I v . � �l � ,. I
� , I I . � - f - ,,, , -)-. , . k . I I � I , I I'll I � �
I I � . I . �!, I i -�_ r,l,!-:>� /, e -,-> I Osq ,:��("t_-�;� ("','11� . I �
I I . � I I " - ,r) � . . . I �,
I � I I I I . I . . 11
�" \ I . . 11 . . I . �
11
'111111 � . . I I . I . . . � 4 : ,; I
I
I
" , . I . . I I � I � I . I , � . I . : -
I I I � I . I I
� I � I � . I � I I . � . . I I I � I I
"I I , . � I I I I
111 � � I � . � . I I r . I I I � . I : � I I I I . . ,'. I - I I . . I I . I ! i : I
"I I I . I I . 11
"
I . I I I
I ", 4
111111 I � I . . . � I . � I i
�lmlll I . . 1
", I . . I I . . - � - __ - , I f
� I
, . I . I I
"I . r . I I
I
I . . . I
1'�, I . . 11. 7 � L'i'll LA . , / �'. I r. I A� I : I . I � I I . I . . I I >A�l I I
I I
I ....
I
. I � k, Ltv r AT,�VE ��SNOTEU, /
I � I . I � .:�I,�PI�3; . RECEIVED - I , 1, I � I �
ll,,', � I . I , I I . I �_ '1,11�
I'll . I .. C:;;L Fll�' �_\� 0 11 ; I �. 'Il . I I � 11,
�l : IL , . . . : OTED +
� I " E � j,"! � '_z �_
11 . I I I , - �,/ � . (�)l , I , 1-1 _______,____.�___�._, I I , I . O :VA�tt-:.� - I �
I I W), i -I e �
, I I -_ _ I '' , ��� �
,
. ,
1\1 . I� I I I 1, 1,
I. I - . �. I _� . 11 I � _ .. - _ - �..-, . .1 11 it . 11 I , . O
,',m','g� . 1 4 1 1 1 1 � . . . MAY 1 7 1993 11 , '' % I
gp" I . 1, "I'll,
, ,,,, . / I I I . I . I � . � . I .1 . /b � . . I I 11 I'll -
11 . I I . . (I V!, I . I � �l I ',',,I
I
� � - t�� -, , il i, , . . .
I ; ,\" . ''O't ? .r -to u ,m,; --koviv, 1; rm" m� I %O - -
111,1, . . v;,l,(, `41� , . 1, 4(0 1 �r ,
11"I'll"', 1 4 1 PERMIT C UNTER I Ri;)- - f�,�,,,!'
1p'Pl I I .
, m',� � I � I � I I . I I . 11, ,��,7 , ,
" ,
I " "I I N N
1111111 I I I I . � . ���;; � � , . � -, � I
,�
" . � I I I 1� � I . 11 � I � 11
. . I I , I " ''I . 1,
,
ms ';� , - � I I . m 11 . I - I R'll"ll-
, I I -TmEET FILE, . I'll, ""
. 1,
1111, ,
��., I . S I 11 "o"'
_ . __l* q
00 I . . I . I , I p;,,,,,,,,,,,',,,,sq
11
" I . I � �� . �f','_,,
,�i
,,,
�_\c
L /I ",_
,
, ,
_*
,
i 11
--.rl
I
I c____t
11, ,
1111, . I � � I'll /* �
"'' . I I I I . � .... I V,m�,&,-,;,,�,
. � . � ,
I . I � � � � . . ... I . . I 11Al"I
. I I . � � . I " ,
,
I I � I 11 � I ,
��"iii,_ � . I - � I 11 . . � - "'
��
� ,
I � . � � I ,
,,v . 11 . . `11
,�,,, I . I . I � I � - � � . i " 11
I I
" I I I . � I , I � I I I I . . . I .,! - -
�M�,�' I . � � .. I I I A . � I I -A lZI, f"ll"",
I I I . . I I I I . I I � I I I t,
� I . . . I I I � I I - I . I � I . lV�,"!,"I
I I I I . "', O J,
I . I . . I I I � �� . + ,_
I I � � I I .1 � . I � I � . I 11 . ... ..
I I I � 1. � I I � I I � � . . I . . . .1 .. I . � "",
. I � I .1, 1 I . 1. I � � . . � I .1 I Ir I I � I , � , ,,,
. I I I w I I I � I . "I "',
i �W'_,,' -
I , I I -_ li t "' = ,�,,� , ,�
I I . . "' 11 -
I � I'll '" I I
�� ,,�,lY,-",!!"l7,)",,,, --l-111.11m 11 0
1 ____.l � I. I � I I I � - I . I � . '.111
�,. . . lIq I I " � 1� I I � . I I I I . - . . I I I I I I 11 �
I
I I
I I I �
I, 11 I � � I I 11. I �
, I I I - I � .
E661 I I AV,
O-VAIZOZ 4
al
02
cv- Q S) cl-�// Q