Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
16202 72ND AVE W (3).PDF
16202 72 N D AVE W JAl / ADDRESS: ,(/1 769 TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 0 "'V 6 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS: �y ' ��/� `�� DETERMINATION: onditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DA PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: /1p � SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: SOILS REPORT DA STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc Clugston, Michael From: Clugston, Michael Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:11 AM To: 'Phillip Lehn' Subject: setbacks at 16202 72nd Ave. W Hi Phil, After our phone conversation earlier today, I did some research to determine the setbacks on your property at 16202 72nd Ave. W. The parcel is zoned RS-12. A regular rectangular RS-12 lot that fronted a street would have 25' street and rear setbacks along with 10' side setbacks. Your parcel is considered to be a flag lot, however, and so has 10' setbacks from all property lines. It is a flag lot because it has less than % the minimum lot width at 72'd Avenue West. The minimum lot width for an RS-12 parcel is 80' but at 72nd your lot is only 20.5' wide.. I think some of the confusion may have arisen from a misreading of the Building Setback notes on the face of the original/corrected Greenness short plat. If you look at the highlighted text on the attached copy of the 'Short plat, it indicates that although steep slope setbacks were vested with the short plat, the rest of the setbacks shown were for reference only and would be determined at building permit. . I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Best regards, Mike Clugston, AICP City of Edmonds I Associate Planner 425-771-0220 michael.clugston@edmondswa.eov corrected S-95-163 MC hig_ 1 >' CITY OF..:DMONDS _ � _ OO PUBLIC WORKS DEPART. T FOR INSPECTION CALL Permit b,�10o l��v� SIDE SEWER PERMIT .7/7,5 15M Ext. /2�20 Issue Date 779_,%'n*) ?A� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE * LY_NNWOOD i� 1. Address of Construction k 75r,,, 2. Property Legal Description (include all easements) PUBLIC WORKS 1� 3. Single Family Residence '� Multi -Family No. of Units [� Commercial 4. Owner and/or Builder �= t-�r.. • 't_. r. --� % (JS 5. Contractor & License No. 6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: Now` Yes (If Yes Right-of- way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig -0/4/2 51 64/4 ) before 1 excavation). 1-800-424-5555 1 z 7. Cross other private property: Yes No Y Easement required - u attach legal description and county easement number. 1 w READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN: 04 a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on >4 their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to 1 construct side sewers in the public right-of-way. 1 w b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each H installation for one year. wC. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6") z side sewer line. o d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30" to any structure. 1 M e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade of 2% (1.150) and maximum grade of 100% (45°). 1 H f. No turn in side sewer greater than 45° (1/8,bend) is0allowed 1 between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45 (1/•8 1 bend) and Wye with removable cap. 1 g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected 1 to side sewer system. 1 h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines 1 through other than granular soil. 1 i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. 1 j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original 1 conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure 1 due to poor compaction of fill. k. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved by the City. 1 1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working days notice required. DATE: 1 I certify that I have read and shall comply with the abov . PERMIT FEE: DISAPPROVED By: Date: B • Date: ul CONNECTION FEE: ,APPROVED By- Date: O w * PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO- ------------ ------------------------------- t4.vjkD- NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS n LID NO. 2-10 ----- - ASMT. NO. -- -------------- OWNER G.Rp-c..F . ..... Lps,-Rowe --- -------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR ------ F-usx ------------------------------------- ---- PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS --- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. ---(or7 ---------- ------------ --- BLOCK NO. �q--- a--_---- - LY-RNWQ0D LINE .................... ------------------------------------------ ----------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------------- EEHEE- NAMEOF ADDITION - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- jr.2.02, rMwo Aw- 4! 4"PV.c. 16 op 1.5,op 'Y PWW-0001 -11/75 (REVA 1/78) 11DR 1 Ile -DRtVEWAY 0 44 4.510P CARPORT z > Approved: DATEBy ------- ------------------ i Water Service Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS [ " LID NO ................... .ASMT. NO................... OWNER........................................•----............---...............................---.. CONTRACTOR ..---...................................... ......-..........................---..... PERMIT NO...16B7.S6 JOB ADDRESS . 16.Z: O Z - 7Z AdA VE'... N!:..... ............ ..... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO....................................... BLOCK NO. .................................... T—a K- Of f,DI f ' PWW-0001.11175 (REV.11/78) .................................................................................................................................................................. NAME OF ADDITION ..:....................... .... ........:............................................................. 7/d 3- 1 — � __>Nl - �_ wYTRgce 1. " 1 I Approved: /o-zg• 96 /'qRT DATE .... �..................... By .... • TREET FILE (WILE NO. Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 46 1. Site Address/Location: lj�avA -7.qwd 4)-e- Gt) loi" 5ou 2. Property Tax Account Number: _S/ 31 oo n 66 7 0.-3 S 7 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓ yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? h6.0 s.p, e m- 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. ✓ Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: meadow ;shrubs ; mixed L_ ; RcV Olmv9a &9p 19y.- City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, SAY 18 1994 �M�Nln'sE,�,i�. s and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date Applicant Representative: 600k,e- K. A. Name Yb-YD� A) . Street Address S ea-A%ie. 3 3 City, State, ZIP Phone %Fly— SSN c Signature Date City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Emoke Rock Determination #: CA-94-102 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16202 72nd Avenue West Property Tax Acct #: 5131-000-067-0357 Project Description: Non -project specific Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX 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; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Before any permit application may be applied for, submit to the Planning Department a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Any slope over 30% with more than 10 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. 2. If the results of the above survey determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). 3. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds C mmunity Development Code. L � 7211 Name Signature Date r , r • 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - STH AVE. N. EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX 12061 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT _ Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation - Engineering 89p-199 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: May 25, 1994 , To: Emoke Rock R. A. Parker & Assoc. 15036 Aurora Ave. No. Seattle, WA 98133 Subject: Critical Areas Checklist Transmitting: For your information: As you requested: For your file: Comment and return: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Note attachments: Comments: Please briny in a copy of the Critical Areas Checklist when applying for a building permit. Planning Division Judy Kenney 0 Incorporoted August 11, 1890 • 0 0 . G#; Cyr EWE ,0 N1DB - BUILDING DEPARTMENT WORK vL, ADDRESS ZO OWNER._ H APPROVED DATE: BLDG. OFFICIAL PERMIT N U M 13ER pS'Z 2. RECEIVEC) SFP 9 2 +ac4 PERMIT COUNTER ClTY COpy L +Ne1J1 P i N m g,11 �1�-OII m J011i" TO SUrmlzT I�oX�/ Mom, ,T 01Li= MRTF�00%L. 2u MIN. AWAY r GNIMNfaY W - 3/8"x I L" t GgLAJ I: - Ilv lul w —,1;e-WaIJI ewAeq -ou- MIL- �.t.IPy rXwriw6r l/z." iwo;, W ., rfDeJ�l GoU.,D�I2 FLA6441W,r plxly-r I Y,* MIZ T r -, z ew u,i P Lr,-HW A�GN IT�GT OF-FIG� � �a 1iYOOJ7STC7Y� I IoZO Z - 7Z ND AVM, W . I;bMOfJ p--r7 1 \/l/& 41602- q • I z • 95 ZO& - 7Q Z -6e (aj 0 0 FLUE, COY AND EQUIPMENT INSPECTION CHECKLIST Each year before a stove or fireplace is put into service the chimney flue should be throughly cleaned of soot and other residues. Prior to installation of a solid fuel burning appliance in an existing masonry chimney, the following items must be inspected by the owner or professional chimney sweeper. This form must be completed and submitted to the Building Division with the permit application. 1. CBRdNEY LININGr Is the chimney lined with fireclay flue tile, firebrick or other approved lining? J No Is the lining in good condition? No voids, cracks or deterioration? �s No 2. CLEARANCE TO COMBUSTIBLES - Are all combustible materials, i.e., wood framing members, a minimum of 1" away from the chimney walls? Yes No 3. GENERAL CONDITIONS: Is the exterior masonry in good condition, free of cracked or broken liners, rotten mortar joints or structural defects? NA Yes No 4. EQUIPMENT: Have you read the manufacturers instructions for.the equipment installation and is the existing chimney compatible for installati Yes No I hereby acknowledge that I have read these inspection requirements; have personally inspected the chimney; that the information given is true and accurate; that I am the owner or the duly authorized agent of the owner. Signature DATE 9' �� ' �✓� CBEMMY SAFETY: Please observe the following warnings in order to install and use solid fuel burning equipment 1. Use all appliances in the precise manner described and tested by the manufacturer. 2. Follow listing instructions for clearances to combustibles. 3.. Inspect chimney flues and appliances yearly for needed repairs. 4. If creosote accumulates in the flue and starts to bum call 911 immediately. 5. Keep an extinguisher on hand and make sure all your smoke detectors work WDSTVEHO.DOCILGI 1/94 PLANNING DATA NAME:. hm SITE ADDRESS: ZOZ -7%� NO, WIDATE: 1011Z,149 ZONING: �s_ 1z PLAN CHK#: �K-� CORNER LOT (Yes/No) SETBACKS: FLAG LOT No (Yes/No) Required Setbacks: i Front:25' Left Side:Right Side:0 _Rear:2s Actual Setbacks: Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N) �I LOT COVERAGE: o ` p Maximum Allowed: "b5 a Actual: I BUILDING HEIGHT: 11 N17q Maximum Allowed: ZS Actual Height: Datum Point: Datum Elevation: CRITICAL AREAS #: q — IQz' —WIVTO10 Wak, qW-- SEPA DETERMINATION: LOT ,L r %&fPik/- W- 4 S JA l x -Z/2, 11-4 3 c rn c" P EXlyryr ,pew .4b, tp! , �l o w " `'$' 6at¢e / � r NSW ►�N Aso,. STairz 2�ie. - fm 3q, �` ►%uta►,l� vRa! urn/ / I 4v%;t7Y l v *+Mlr MAT I 8 ,7 00 � I ZONE Oft PAIZARX, SETBACKS: FRONT___,.__.. 31 ' 00" N �o SIDE_..- rt w 'O-------- BEAR N 1:2 o" ` OTHER_... t N p-, ° 3 -77oo N HEIGHT_______ SITE PL AN )FENCE APPROVED BY PLANNING Opp 3 . 2 �Q • �.Q a � 1 RECF.�uF� J,U N 19.1996 ENGINEERING DESIGN REPORT fv 1` t rk 0 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT CITY OF EDMONDS BY SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 310 208TH ST SE BOTHELL 98012 481-9687 June 18, 1996 r s TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Project Summary Downstream Description Detention Calculations .C. SECTION I PROJECT SUMMARY .. PROJECT SUMMARY Consisting of 1.75 acres, the site is currently occupied by a single family residence and is landscaped with sparse trees. It will ultimately be developed with three new home sites, all accessing via a private driveway off of 72nd Ave W. After considerable interaction with the City, it was determined that the drainage should be accomplished without infiltration, and instead surface runoff should be kept on the surface to the maximum extent possible. As a result of this and the interests of the owner, a detention system was developed using a small sealed pond in series with an underground tank. All of the discharge from the site will be to the same location as the existing runoff, namely, to a swale in the southwest portion of the site. SECTION H = DOWNSTREAM DESCRIPTION DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS Essentially no off -site water enters the property, as the ground slopes down to the north on the north side, down to the west on the south and west sides, and is intercepted by a natural berm on the east side. Site runoff leaves the site near the southwest corner in a vegetated swale. Little or no surface runo is evident or approximately 50 feet Bout of the site, at which point ground water begins to surface. As shown in the attached sketch, a channel begins to form in the swale soon thereafter. The channel turns west and flows over a steep hillside and is then collected in a piped storm drain system. Erosion is occurring in this area, although, it does not appear to be of a nature that would damage any existing developments. No capacity problems were evident in the site visit. In order to minimize impacts to the area of the downstream system that is eroding, detention is provided for a 100 year storm and the release rate for the 2 year storm is kept to '/z of the existing runoff. As a result, this development should have a minimal impact on the downstream system. PiJeCl J�to c'JiOtN S Sec�b�+ 8 1. BROAD VEGETATED SWALE, NO CHANNEL 2 VEGETATED SWALE WITH SHALLOW CHANNEL 3. NARROW SWALE WITH CHANNEL 4. CLIFF WITH WATERFALL; ERODING LEHN SHORT PLAT DOWNSTREAM SKETCH SECTION III DETENTION CALCULATIONS oav J. - r-��e-5't Ski-��VI�iL ��C�S 1-- —� e - _�.. .. _.t _.. ._ •_ .. .- - ._r.— i_. __. __ _. ... _ _ � _f_Vr y fw . /'Oor r F��1� e.� .___ ._ r_.:_17e� : :jOo,l L! ILI__. • i �.. er _' Y _ _�ra;.S r 01n�-:'. kovS�..uti�.. foY,+%t,. tZ3 -0-,._tteAVe-e�[ dLSS�_'_) ...�.r._�a:S�_..aKd �..s.Pc�r-J�.....�v�:��S. _ 0��__,._ 1�_'l S•.1�� __y'� ��� i Df0_7 Ate. '!�o_-- cIra�'h. �au)oj Crows 4-Le ;.proPG,s �! c(.t�-e�.�t'oK •..�pv� d...:T�r a;���=�={-p {-fie w'e4s�' clo��.�'�g..{�; �ci;;d� �.�xf' _�r�� x� 1'K`w lw< &n cj _ vt_._{�L�e- 5'(��"B ..csi aa_ _{-C�t 41 r-�pG_ �$:_SwtG(L &%AJ .i -lS'vOa.__c�_,4,.r pwo _Wt���.�JB r ts__proPo�ed. _-. c Ha. tl , _'Ji u c�_�:n-4_� __X.:.w� tl-_loe _:ros ,•d � o_ u._� �'i� _�r�-a4r, l • ' _..�w►• p e c Y �'o v9 : _;�, i i %� _L-, ^._ N'• _ C t�( --4`�� .- .. ,.d•=---- _� t �(�e r •!. _�.._.����,v�kss/s.�4r_,��-,•��r,�a9 ;._�1.�30!�L_ rE _•C-rn!'� ?_Z;(�r�:sty �•L�c��row `P _ry c'n v G �l Y �t a _. AI e _-__._-- •- -_,�. _ �er�tc'oV9.._/� _=...t•-38.1)e,. -_ _ r��a__o_�w _CoKCpIT LYcio .5_ _�_`�2nc, woc-,s''or.�_..�-�-v_�� F _S._-.a 20L..I zi- c';iZl% •.. -? _ «_ : #--_ .w;._ :.a .--, - - ,�..}..,,_,•r,_,�,•.{..�,..3, , ! S - �„T,_�,,,..,_;..:,„,_,,,,,{q,_�..�..__._.{..�..�.......-�_:_.,.. r �•_-•.e.: i _._:-'--a-...� F -f i i i � � .:.:}—�--fl:r.. �_—•• r f y f i s 1.—.+.—.•.+i.—.� .:'� • .::. �.::,,..�- �.�+ f ....aav+r.F�/c:�4�1`a'e.T-v�}jr�nt _��.� mar t (k�(r..t-� ft,��.:ao �.Ls...�'rup�.-�-. ,��. �...�..�.:► ' ._,.d_:_--� ....�....�:.�.�. � - a - __._� 0 �e �4tVLE?� �t�•G7fic� �' "C-C'I2o VL W1 CIO 6 ra1e ,.� tp�.��•aVrs — Cxs t - .o,t2a ax 0 � a el,, �F ao 4 i L=.3Zo rr e.", LA t96s a tk 'an _-- - -- � Iof vlop-- a • is oo_JQ� 8 i'o ASSVWMC_ e.S. _ &l ,JSec..o.4 i _ Ic0 { /7G� C-4 �� r co vt, c.Q wfr k� On 1, 3 �e ,e l2 d L., a .j Vt 1 C, 9+ . V. o v`t-e. c'K r L.,%IkS� O'C'LV' ✓ u o �t Ik'V., tW t• l i ..•:Sr4r��t�� rya-.��_4.uJv�_.,G-v��ea...�.o�t .._(.o_T._._¢ .__...T�i`J _ o.r TZ'o�._.. _—:_.__ . ._ �. � nn rr _ . _ " _ . r . _'�%• e vl olv 4-e. _,. is _ _ r Is e to r l'C� � �� 44A Sa i.w e u s lee O.ver�u�c� f_7.SLFe,¢3 1��. c, S(o�Oe. t -- _i�►'pg�Gv�f..r�:_311L_F °� 0i __ _ --�:•••;� t'z. - 1, S � . _ _ ._ ._...�.�... �'z..s - , .. z .5 . _;... _ _ .. .. SIC , 5�--�e__rJuo � �4►� L`�.?.�j�._d� ec.Tx--ct _ t� o �iG Cl e s tr� 61 �d .-(gyp d Qt' A& c.. � t' �. t'UA v u.t, c 1p . Sb o . c LA .�f. w�' l c..l�o . �a�� _ .0e'd v //rCse. 1=o r c.-e--//s _fDok;__Wi << clt'Scf�liy� G }I�v�OV 1.� G0. SVv`Face N.°c.�.Sss_- lV,ver tr s v e �- �c _..treSl'G�Y'. .ta .� Sl, _•SW.I��i --- 'i-% e I..e�� �ti�D•!��prC, 4+as r'G� Case-1 y+CAL-It � � _ � _; .ref ONG( N'.ti� re. S 3 1'Y'tI ��VV�e, r-3.AAL---f tk f-�+ 'Ht'•'� }Tv i ov-.°e p�K �P-iti (' l Q M w�,t:ccr��'�._G<< _ ��Psd�'s��w.;�r���,jjj'. :J� STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN C 3 40 35 COMA 2 47 tu Os. AB DE N 30 10 s 25 '25 5 s 13 C4 L 's 'SENT A 55. YAKI so it 10 30 M . It "45"' 0 35 DA 16- 2 . 65 45s WASHINGTON a 3 25 8 K o' PPL "I.G�EN E 10 0 10 20 30 40 15( MILES Figure 25 NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume Ix ISOPLUVIALS F 2-YR 24-HR PRECIPITATI N IN 25 Prepared by U.S. Department of merce TENTHS OF A INCH National Oceanic and Atmospheric ministration National Weather service, Office of Hydrology Prepared for U.S. Department of A 'culture, Soil Conservation Service, En&ee g Division 124 123 122 121 III-1-44 FEBRUARY, 1992 .q. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN 124 I 705 3085 110'( W 4 8' 75 80 1 85. W/ 1W 1 OQ; 471_ 123 122 45 4 40- -� 1 } ( 1¢ 55 FnIL�'r MAR�O F. .p� SIAtr:� i. l umanlnu 1 un 10 0 10 20 30 40 40 MILES .• , . I Figure 30 I /S ISOPLUVIALS 100-Y 24-HR PRECIPIT{ TION 50 IN TENTHS OF I � � i 124 123 940 C 3 CM() / Alf SS504535 NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume IX - 65 iPrepared by U.S Department of l merce t National Oceanic and Atmospheric ministration National Weather Service, Office Hydrology Prepared for U.S. Department of A ulture, Soil Conservation Service, Enginee g Division " VW if �eSe9V�e°�t fit _Y41��- ¢ ':rf` .'_. � y'_�'�`Y'•S�: _ �j'i�_��'ti .-Gt_V�yt .0 V^ln�C�c•G .� . -CO�Y`V�`y ��Z. JD"L'T"KL .. _ Qc9rle. v �;��_ _- - � � �::�z - o-E- � . `i� • - v-d c� �o �t_ t � o � �c�,. .'Z� � . -�'CoY � . f�' ��-'� �d^ Ye ,f - ►�• -G-t,� _tov�L 4�C_v_ -�.e( � �'�c..c,� tr was vovHd v+,e-cl , ' �..__ .eat C_[c_4-,t o ..9 c,r a� �� �Ow ..;L• i ._ _ - 2 (1 ` _ _. (l�V'.'E. � � V Q I O� � �, V' �! �O �. �%. 0 J G ... .. .._ i• Yx Z t� - cJ. O o(,. e. o r �d, v �� � Vc c 1 S t oMG +-yl.g..1Y� � - �. _ ~O. VV. V V \. � .� t/ V VS f� I • .. � 't-- �� J 1 1 - _ _ _a c :_v. w --►-� .� eu s�_�_ a t _._.a _4 _ ,... 0. S a 0. D ¢C s - tj�r �r �ICw�P►,iOIG�!'' V't��aSe j `�V"Otil�l 011ertK�o� �C'pC .n Yr00(.8 —f 0. (`t M�•f. its.; a•-...-- - - �{ -_-: .... _ ice; _ j r.. ' .. } .. ... � - - 4 22/96 • Site Development Service • page 1 Greenness Short Plat BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: al NAME: 2 Year Predeveloped, SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 1.49 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 1.50 inches AREA..: 1.38 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 73.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 18.42 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.11 Acres CN..... 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.2500 TcReach - Shal 20.00 ks:5.00 s:0.2100 PEAK RATE: 0.03 cf - VOL: 0.03 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: a2 NAME: 10 Year Predeveloned SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 1.49 Acres. BASEFLOWS: _ 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 2.00 inches AREA..: 1.38 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 73.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 18.42 min_ IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.11 Acres CN. ... 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.2500 TcReach - Shallow L: .00 k8:5.00 6:0.2100 PEAK RATE: 0.05 cfs, VOL: 0.05 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a3 NAME: 100 Year Predeveloped SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 1.49 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 1.38 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 73.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 18.42 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.11 Acres CN..... 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.2400 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.2500 TcReach - Shallow L: .00 ks:5.00 s:0.2100 PEAK RATE: 0.20 cfs VOL: 0.12 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min K.. 5/22/96 Site Development Services page 1 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: cl NAME: 2 Year Postdevelooed SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 1.49 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: -TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 1.50 inches AREA..: 1.09 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 80.00 TIME OF-CONC..... : 6.44 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.40 Acres CN..... 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 75. ens:0.2400 p2yr: 1.50 s:0.4300 TcReach - Channel L: 31 .00 kc:21.00 s:0.1160 TcReach - Channel L: 0.00 kc:0.00 s:0.0000 PEAK RATE: L.1.4,cfs VOL: 0.07 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: c2 NAME: 10 Year Postdeveloped SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 1.49 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 2.00 inches AREA..: 1.09 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 80.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 6.44 in IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.2 AREA..:- 0.40 Acres CN..... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.25 cfs VOL: 0.11 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: c3 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA........ RAINFALL TYPE....: PRECIPITATION....: TIME INTERVAL....: TIME OF CONC.....: ABSTRACTION COEFF: PEAK RATE: �� - •• •- - •.-. 1.49 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA 3.00 inches AREA..: 1.09 Acres 10.00 min CN....: 80.00 6.4 min IMPERVIOUS AREA 0. AREA... 0.40 Acres CN..... 98.00 0.52 cfs VOL: 0.21 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min 5/24/96 Site Development Services page 1 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- STAGE STORAGE TABLE UNDERGROUND PIPE ID No. DET3 / Description: Detention Tank-f✓/ Diameter: 8.00 ft. Length: 65.00 ft. (12.ejvc.Q -Pco, P-v%d- Slope...: 0.0000 ft/ft STAGS <---- STORAGE ---- > STAGS <---- STORAGE ---- > STAGE <---- STORAGE ---- > STAGS <---- STORAGE ---- > (ft)--- cf--- --Ac-Pt- (ft)--- cf--- --Ac-Pt- (ft)---cf-----AC-Ft- (ft)---cf-----Ac-Pt- 100.00 0.0000 0.0000 102.10 684.18 0.0157 104.20 1737 0.0399 106.30 2760 0.0634 100.10 7.7232 0.0002 102.20 730.26 0.0168 104.30 1790 0.0411 106.40 2802 0.0643 100.20 21.759 0.0005 102.30 777.02 0.0178 104.40 1841 0.0423 106.50 2843 0.0653 100.30 39.820 0.0009 102.40 824.34 0.0189 104.50 1893 0.0435 106.60 2883 0.0662 100.40 61.075 0.0014 102.50 872.30 0.0200 104.60 1944 0.0446 106.70 2922 0.0671 100.50 85.018 0.0020 102.60 920.80 0.0211 104.70 1996 0.0458 106.80 2960 0.0680 100.60 111.33 0.0026 102.70 969.74 0.0223 104.80 2047 0.0470 106.90 2996 0.0688 100.70 139.74 0.0032 102.80 1019 0.0234 104.90 2098 0.0482 107.00 3032 0.0696 100.80 170.04 0.0039 102.90 1069 0.0245 105.00 2148 0.0493 107.10 3065 0.0704 100.90 202.09 0.0046 103.00 1119 0.0257 105.10 2198 0.0505 107.20 3097 0.0711 101.00 235.73 0.0054 103.10 1170 0.0269 105.20 2248 .0.0516 107.30 3128 0.0718 101.10 270.83 0.0062 103.20 -1220 0.0280 105.30 2298 0.0527 107.40 3156 0.0725 101.20 307.31 0.0071 103.30 1271 0.0292 105.40 2346 0.0539 107.50 3182 0.0731 101.30 345.08 0.0079 103.40 1323 0.0304 105.50 2395 0.0550 107.60 3206 0.0736 101.40 384.01 0.0088 103.50 1374 0.0315 105.60 2443 0.0561 107.70 3227 0.0741 101.50 424.07 0.0097 103.60 1426 0.0327 105.70 2490 -0.0572 107.80 3245 0.0745 , 101.60 465.18 0.0107 103.70 1478 0.0339 105.80 2537 0.0582 107.90 3260 0. 101.70 507.26 0.0116 103.80 1530 0.0351 105.90 2583 0.0593 108.00 . 750 101.80 550.26 0.0126 103.90 1581 0.0363 106.00 2629 0.0603 108.00 326 .0750 101.90 594.11 0.0136 104.00 1634 0.0375 106.10 2673 0.0614 102.60 638.73 0.0147 104.10 1686 0.0387 106.20 2717 0.0624 /. -Z . A-Vi s4ocay voke,ov, Lit 0#0 7 2S 6 r� -(kllv L9r��° Ct .0 alAj uu",�j , '.9 t 0 5/24/96 Site Development Services page 4 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. rstrl Description: Ori ice_Flow estrictor Outlet Elev: 10000 2,�,_$ . Elev: 98.00 ft�3 Orifice Diameter: Elev: 105.70 ft Orifice 2 Diameter: 0.3900 in. - Dv�TCca I 1.0100 in. `�Q.'��cez STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > (ft) --- cfe--------- (ft) --- cfS--------- (ft) --- cfe--------- 100.00 0.0000 102.20 0.0061 104.40 0.0087 100.10 0.0013 102.30 0.0063 104.50 0.0088 100.20 0.0018 102.40 0.0064 104.60 0.0089 100.30 0.0023 102.50 0.0065 104.70 0.0089 100.40 0.0026 102.60 0.0067 104.80 0.0090 100.50 0.0029 102.70 0.0068 104.90 0.0091 100.60 0.0032 102.80 0.0069 105.00 0,0092 100.70 0.0035 102.90 0.0070 105.10 0.0093 100.80 0.0037 103.00 0.0071 105.20 0.0094 100.90 0.0039 103.10 0.0073 105.30 0.0095 101.00 0.0041 103.20 0.0074 105.40 0.0096 101.10 0.0043 103.30 0.0075 105.50 0.0097 101.20 0.0045 103.40 0.0076 105.60 0.0098 101.30 0.0047 103.50 0.0077 105.70 0.0099 101.40 0.0049 103.60 0.0078 105.80 0.0187 101.50 0.0051 103.70 0.0079 105.90 0.0224 101.60 0.0052 103.80 0.0080 106.00 0.0253 101.70 0.0054 103.90 0.0082 106.10 0.0277 101.80 0.0055 104.00 0.0083 106.20 0.0299 101.90 0.0057 104.10 0.0084 106.30, 0.0318 102.00 0.0058 104.20 0.0085 106.40 0.0336 102.10 0.0060 104.30 0.0086 106.50 0.0353 STAGS <--DISCHARGE --- > (ft) ---cfe--------- 106.60 0.0369 106.70 0.0384 106.80 0.0398 106.90 0.0412 107.00 0.0425 107.10 0.0438 107.20 0.0450 107.30 0.0462 107.40 0.0473 107.50 0.0484 107.60 0.0495 107.70 0.0506 107.80 0.0516 107.90 0.0527 108.00 0.0537 108.10 0.0546 108.20 0.0556 108.30 0.0565 108.40 0.0574 108.50 0.0584 i� s • 5/24/96 Site Development Services page 2 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE NOTCH WEIR ID No. RSTR2 Description: NOTCH RESTRICTOR Weir Length: 0.2800 ft. Weir height (p) : 1.3400 ft. Elevation 107.16 ft. Weir Increm: 0.10 STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGS <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > (ft)--- cfS--------- (ft)--- cfS--------- (ft) --- cfe--------- (ft) --- cfe--------- 107.16 0.0000 107.50 0.1417 107.90 0.2933 108.30 0.2285 107.20 0.0071 107.60 0.1906 108.00 0.3036 108.40 0.1608 107.30 0.0437 107.70 0.2342 108.10 0.2977 108.50 0.0683 107.40 0.0912 107.80 0.2694 108.20 0.2734 -V 5/24/96 Site Development Services page 1 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE NOTCH WEIR ID No. RSTR2 Description: NOTCH RESTRICTOR uJac�� Weir Length: 0,2800 ft. Weir height (p): 7.1600 f-t.•< Elevation 107.16 ft. Weir Increm: 0.10 STAGS <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGS <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > (ft) --- cfs--------- (ft) --- cfs--------- (ft) --- cfs--------- (ft) --- cfs--------- 107.16 0.0000 107.50 0.1382 107.90 0.2782 108.30 0.2110 107.20 0.0071 107.60 0.1846 108.00 0.2860 108.40 0.1475 107.30 0.0433 107.70 0.2252 108.10 0.2786 108.50 0.0623 107.40 0.0896 107.80 0.2573 108.20 0.2541 eJ. 4 Go��'arc 5/24/96 Site Development Services page 3 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No. RSTR3 Description: COMBINATION RESTRICTOR Structure: rstrl Structure: Structure: RSTR2 Structure: Structure: STAGS <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE --- > (ft) --- Cfs--------- (ft) --- cfe--------- (ft) --- cfe--------- (ft) --- CfS--------- 100.00 0.0000 102.20 0.0061 104.40 0.0087 106.60 0.0369 100.10 0.0013 102.30 0.0063 104.50 0.0088 106.70 0.0384 100.20 0.0018 102.40 0.0064 104.60 0.0089 106.80 0.0398 100.30 0.0023 102.50 0.0065 104.70 0.0089 106.90 0.0412 100.40 0.0026 102.60 0.0067 104.80 0.0090 107.00 0.0425 100.50 0.0029 102.70 0.0068 104.90. 0.0091 107.10 0.0438 100.60 0.0032 102.80 0.0069 105.00 0.0092 107.20 0.0521 100.70 0.0035 102.90 0.0070 105.10 0.0093 107.30 0.0899 100.80 0.0037 103.00 0.0071 105.20 0.0094 107.40 0.1385 100.90 0.0039 103.10 0.0073 105.30 0.0095 107.50 0.1901 " 101.00 0.0041 103.20 0.0074 105.40 0.0096 107.60 0.2401 101.10 0.0043 103.30 0.0075 105.50 0.0097 107.70 0.2848 101.20 0.0045 103.40 0.0076 105.60 0.0098 107.80 0.3210 101.30 0.0047 103.50 0.0077 105.70 0.0099 107.90 0.3460 101.40 0.0049 103.60 0.0078 105.80 0.0187 108.00 0.3572 101.50 0.0051 103.70 0.0079 105.90 0.0224 108.10 0.3523 101.60 0.0052 103.80 0.0080 '106.00 0.0253 108.20 0.3290 101.70 0.0054 103.90 0.0082 106.10 0.0277 108.30 0.2850 101.80 0.0055 104.00 0.0083 106.20 0.0299 108.40 0.2183 101.90 0.0057 104.10 0.0084 106.30 0.0318 108.50 0.1267 102.00 0.0058 104.20 0.0085 106.40 0.0336 102.10 0.0060 104.30 0.0086 106.50 0.0353 • • 5/24/96 Site Development Services page 5 Greenness Short Plat --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> STORAGE <-------- DESCRIPTION --------- > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) 2 Year Design ................ 0.01 0.14 DET3 RSTR3 105.58 11 2431.22 10 Year Design ............... 0.04 0.25 DET3 RSTR3 107.14 12 3079.49 100 Year Design .............. 0.19 0.52 DET3 RSTR3 107.45 13 3168.13 A, y ��V�@�Tl fl�'1 V 'ov` Ipo v�d tr t -t ` .i ... _ ..5'd0 yC.AA — , _ •` !� � _. +� _ �—� �� ...r•ii__._. _ ' r••i.•_a..ir_._' r�__.�__�+_wr<r..nM_r--_.e+....�....�..+w.._ .-w.w_i j _.__ ..._.._ _... _. ..._ a _ _ _ LP ?- 1 S12 FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE. PHONE NO. : 4819687 R9FWjm, - 10 1996 02:21PM P02 EN 0 1996 kcl- Cra.l t~i GI t �rl+j --r e tr- is ptr Jw�.e -mow -pow- CIV Il` 1/1 i 3 4'� •er l' .� i G� G �Yi r t+ai w to NQ- P arS� Ole., 1ti�.t� G-zwo.C� (p��- 5 /�'Ct4rr=.� t�t��►� � '�'d�"� Q�.,,�, { t• ,� . W -0 r4 Cw .F, O �c = Clerk LDS PotAg?-d L flllll fI ! bG� rz.�d�►�.�L'oti s!„K 64 ' w v`0 2.08 tt A7{st�►� �c�t.t9 �✓ tonyr, �(ow +9v►o►^cy� ,.� (.mow Q�'�.4 Qtc+� Q�S`' ctS Cj n r io(vo*Wo,1 clogod) I44 o..,c ,n t �e "Ir'Vcl %N tA0 100yr tt:w i fiY'm.iGbot:C`t:f �✓'o��rdr•ct � ir�t . hte' ret:. P6VL!.T rc{ 7[ `6�94 latltt�l��1G Nd. '� 1`N ot'kY FROM.: SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVI PHONE NO. 4819687 Jul. 10 1996 02:21PM P03 ►., J U l 10 1996 ENGINEERING M 1 ti 1 y Oil 9 e� SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 8, 1995 Phillip Lehn Green Tara, Inc. 16202 - 72nd Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Short Plat of your property at the above address; Preliminary Drainage Analysis Dear Mr. Lehn: In response to your request I have reviewed the soils reports and other related documents pertaining to your property and its potential for development. I conducted a site and downstream review on March 17, 1995 and discussed impacts of drainage options with Doug Lynne of Earth Consultants, .who did the soils report. It is my understanding that you intend to construct up to four new residences and an access roadway. As shown by the enclosed sketch, the downstream area has steep slopes and is experiencing erosion. It appears that this erosion has been occurring for a long time and is very likely a natural condition predating upstream development. No structures or other developed property appears to be in any danger from this condition. It is apparent .that the erosion will continue whether or not your site is further developed. It is also apparent from the site review I conducted that your site currently drains through the swale described in the downstream sketch and that the developed site should continue to drain to that location. Two alternatives to minimize downstream impacts were examined. The first was to pump some or all of the runoff up to 72nd Ave. to an existing ravine that roughly follows adjacent to N. Meadowdale Rd. and ultimately drains to Puget Sound in a piped drain system. The second was to use a combination of downspout infiltration systems and detention 310 - 208th S.E. Bothell, Washington 98012 (206) 481-9687 A with controlled release. Because the first alternative involves draining the site to a new direction, it would violate the requirement that developed sites drain to the same location that they drained to in their pre -developed condition. This leaves only the second alternative, which is proposed for this site'. In.order for this alternative to result in a developed site runoff that most closely resembles the pre -developed site runoff, the following design criteria are proposed: 1. Downspout infiltration should be adequately disbursed. While it will be possible to direct part of the first dwelling's roof runoff to the drainage way along 72nd Ave. West, there is adequate space and soil conditions throughout the subject property to disburse anticipated downspout. infiltration for the entire development. 2. Controlled runoff should be designed to utilize infiltration also. This could be accomplished by providing a pond for at least a portion of the required detention that would have a dead storage volume. Thus, low flows would infiltrate and not drain out of the pond outlet. Further, the pond outlet system should consist of a flow spreader trench in the southwest corner of the site. This would enhance infiltration and spread out the flow to simulate existing conditions in the area of the downstream system where no channel exists. If necessary, an underground detention pipe or vault could be provided to supplement the pond. Adherence to the following standards will eliminate the cause by which this site would exceed the capacity or aggravate erosion of the downstream system: a. Release at 500 of the 2 year predeveloped storm for the developed 2 year storm, b. Release at the predeveloped 10 year storm for the developed 10 year storm, and c. Release at the predeveloped 100 year storm for the developed 100 year storm. 2 The results of this proposal would not be to eliminate the current downstream erosion problems,- as the proposal will continue to feed the ground water runoff. However, the proposal will very closely simulate the existing.conditions and not significantly aggravate the erosion. In addition, the proposal will result in surface runoff only during larger storms, and at rates equivalent to the rates that are currently leaving the site. Thus the downstream conditions will experience only a very minor change in runoff characteristics, which will result in no significant increase in the existing erosion problems. Sincerely, David C. Dougherty, . encl. I 3 I, lip ZOOJ 5f- sw 1. BROAD VEGETATED SWALE, NO CHANNEL 2 VEGETATED SWALE WITH SHALLOW CHANNEL 3. NARROW SWALE WITH CHANNEL 4. CLIFF WITH WATERFALL; ERODING LEHN SHORT PLAT DOWNSTREAM SKETCH JLJW&a onsu Inc. • Geotechnical Engineering and Geology 12893 N.E. 15th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98005 / Phone: (206) 455-2018 December 3, 1979 E-1165 Ira Paul and Partners 2134 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. Ira Paul Subject: Geotechnical Eng ineering Study Proposed Russell Residence. 16200 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and within the scope of our proposal dated September 7, 1979 this report presents the results Of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soil con- ditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation and retaining wall design. The scope of our study included test pits, laboratory tests, geotechnical engineering analyses, and the preparation of this report. Our study indicates that the site is underlain at shallow depths by firm natural soils. The proposed dwelling may be sup- ported on conventional footings bearing in these firm native soils. The following sections describe the study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building location were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 1. This is based on a Site Plan by Ira Paul and Partners, P. S. It is planned to construct a two-story, wood -frame dwelling with a three-story tower on the east side. The house will be located near the top of the existing slope. The first floor is planned at approximately El. 308. Planned building loads will be on the order of 2500 pounds per lineal foot along perimeter walls. Ira Paul and Partners December 3, 1979 E-1165 Page Two For the proposed first floor grade at El. 308, we expect that a maximum cut of about 6.5 feet will be required along the east side of the - building. If any of the above design criteria change, we should be con- sulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be pro- vided the opportunity for a general review of final design. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field investigation was performed on November 6, 1979. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating three test pits to a maximum depth of 7 feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations as shown on Plate 1. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by tape measurements from staked building corners. Elevations of tests pits were approximately determined by interpolation between plan contours. The location and elevation of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The field investigation was continuously monitored byan engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained repre- sentative bulk soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 2, Legend. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 3 and 4, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpre- tations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. Representative soil samples from the test pits were placed in closed containers and returned- to our laboratory for further examination and testing. visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples. Field moisture determinations were performed on each bulk sample. Results of the moisture determinations together with classifica- tions, are shown on the test pits logs included in this report. The results of the sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 5. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located on a west facing hillslope on the west side of 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is approximately 133 by 156 feet in plan dimension with a total of 'Earth Consultants, Inc. Ira Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page Three about 40 feet of relief. The site is stepped down towards the west in three benches with rockeries and concrete stairs.. An old dwelling was located in the northern half of the site, with concrete slabs, footings and stairs remaining. Vegetation along the hillside consists mainly of grass, some shrubs and a few older fir and hemlock trees on the south side. No seepage or surface i water was noted at the time of our investigation. j Subsurface The site is immediately underlain by up to 18 inches of silty topsoil. Below the topsoil, the test pits excavated on the site encountered medium dense to dense clean fine to medium sand and sandy gravels to the depths explored. This sand stratum is the advance unit of the Vashon drift called the Esperance sand and was deposited as the Puget lobe of the larger Continental Glacia- tion advanced into the Puget Sound lowland, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. This sand and gravel was deposited directly in front of the advancing ice sheet by glacial meltwater streams. The ice reached a maximum thickness of approximately between 3000 4000 feet in this area. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits dur- ing our investigation. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General From a soil engineering standpoint, we conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided our recommendations are incorporated into the project design and con- struction. The primary geotechnical factors that should be con- sidered in site development are: 1. Disturbed materials below the site. 2. Surface runoff. s3. "Old rockeries and building foundations. The site slopes were observed to be in a generally stable condition. Since benches had previously been formed on the site along with construction of rockeries, the potential exists for some disturbed and/or loosened material to be present within the building area. Foundations for the building should therefore be extended to a depth below that of this possible loose zone. In conjunction with the above, it is essential that surface runoff on the slopes be properly controlled. Uncontrolled, Sur- F- Consultants.Inc. Ira Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page.Four face runoff could cause excessive erosion which could result in possible slope instability. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of the project which should be incorporated into the project design and construction. This report has been prepared for the exclu- sive use of Mr. and Mrs. Allard Russell and their representatives for specific application to this project in accordance with gen- erally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other war- ranty, expressed or implied, is made. Foundations The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread and/ or continuous footings founded on the medium dense to dense nat- ural soils beneath the loose surficial soils. We recommend that the building be supported on natural soils only. Footings should be at a minimum depth of 36 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A minimum width of 18 inches should be used for continuous footings. No footings should be located closer than 5 feet from the edge of steep or benched slopes. The footings should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3500 pounds per square foot, for dead plus live loads. All footings should be tied together in a continuous rigid grid, which can span local irregularities in the subsurface. We suggest that all footings also be designed to structurally span a distance of 10 feet. A one-third increase over the above bearing pressure may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. For footings designed in accordance with these recommendations, we estimate that total settlements will be less that 1 inch with differential settlement less than 1/2 inch. All footings should be examined by qualified geotechnical per- sonnel to verify that soil bearing conditions will be as antici- pated. Floor Slabs Floor slabs, if used, may be supported on the recompacted nat- ural soil. We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of free draining granular soil be placed beneath all slabs. A vapor barrier should be installed between the floor slab and underlying soils in areas where moisture is undesirable. Lateral Loads Resistance to lateral forces may be developed by passive pres- sures and/or friction between concrete and soil. Passive pressures firth Consultants. Inc. t Ira Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page Five may be assumed to be equal to those imposedby an equivalent fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used for soil - concrete interfaces. Basement Walls Basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by retained native soils or backfill. Walls that are free to deflect one -thousandth of their height at the top should be designed to resist the pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 35 pcf. If walls will be restrained at the top, they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. The above design pressures assume a maximum wall height of 8 feet and that no surcharge slopes or loads will develop above the walls. If these assumptions are not considered valid, we should be.contacted for the appropriate design criteria. Subsurface Drainage Footing drains should be planned around the proposed struc- ture, as well as the basement. In addition, a detailed evaluation should be made during construction to determine if any additional subsurface drainage measures are warranted. Surface Drainage Positive gradients should be provided adjacent to the build- ing to direct all runoff away from the building and towards suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of water should not be permitted. Surface runoff should also not be permitted to flow in an uncontrolled manner over the.top or on the face of any slopes. Also, the discharge from roof gutters should not be allowed to enter the perimeter footing drains. The flow should be carried in tight lines to suitable storm drainage facilities. Site Preparation We recommend that fills, except for minor amounts should be avoided on the site. The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all debris, including old foundations, rockeries, buried tanks, vegetation, tree roots, and existing topsoil. After excavation,to finished grades, the resulting sur- face should be proofrolled to detect any loose areas or soft spots. Any such zones noted .should be overexcavated to their full depth and replaced by structural fill. Proofrolling operations should be monitored by Earth Consultants, Inc. If -fills are used, they should be benched into firm natural ground as they are placed. Earth Consultants, Inc. Ira Paul and Partners December 3, 1979 E-1165 Page Six Any required structural fill should be placed in 8-inch loose horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-70. On - site soils, where free from organic matter and if not excessively moist, may be used as structural fill for dry weather construc- tion. However, some of these materials contain a moderate amount of fines and may be difficult to compact under wet conditions. Hence, if wet weather. conditions are encountered and if fill is to be imported, we recommend that the materials be predominantly gran- ular containing no more than percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. All fills should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer. All permanent fill and cut slopes should be made at an inclin- ation no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Temporary con- struction slopes should be made at an inclination no steeper than 1:1. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with suit- able species of vegetation soon after completion to reduce erosion potential. Slopes Based on the results of our geologic reconnaissance and our test pit study, it is our opinion that the site's slopes are pres- ently stable and the development may proceed as planned. We conducted a reconnaissance of the slopes and found them to be generally stable. The existing slopes have a ground cover and vegetation that protects them from excessive erosion. This vegetation and cover should be allowed to remain wherever possi- ble. Exposed slopes should be planted with an adequate fast growing cover to reduce the potential for erosion. All downspouts should be connected to yard drainage lines draining off the building site or into a wet well and not allowed to flow over the slopes. The intent is that yard drainage from the improved building lot over the top of the bank would not be greater in volume or velocity than exists in the natural state unless mitigated by storm drainage improvements. Additional Services It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommenda- tions may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and F> onsultants, Inc. 0 � I :LS \�5!5\ tit• �� '��� \ \ NO ow or • I l !, l l 1 I �� � � � � \� 00 pJp' • I I TP-1 l 1 I I �I Property Line I 3 a c N N LEGEND ® TP-1 Approximate Test Pit Location Contour Interval 5 ft. Existing Structure Approximate Scale O 10 20 40 60 ft. Site Plan Undated Ref. Ira Paul a Partners, P.S. Earth :► Consultants Inc. GEOTECMMICAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Test Pit Location Plan Proposed Russell Residence Edmonds, Washington Proj.No. 1165 Date Nov.'79 Plate I t MH JV11 ul V 161 N�i urIA4rn L-- I i Lk SYMBOL SYMBOL TY L OESCRlPTIONS aOAVIL ...;a. .p° 0n.0 GW "ELL -GRADED MAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND AND CLEAN GRAVELS .G e• ' 0 0 AD SORTURt1. LITTLE GR NO FINE$ 111/•N N .- t1•••I GRAv(LlT SOILS ..,. . : . •• • %! • ••• •, GP POORLY-GRAOEO GRAVEL@. GRAVEL - COARSE .� }.. P'. ;G SARG MIXTURES. LITTLE pR No CRA1Nt0 Fiat$ SOILS MORE THAN Sm # GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAv[L-SANo- OF COARSE FRAC' GRAVEL$ WITH FINES SILT MIXTURES T10a RETAINED (•Ir.•trSa ••e•r/ N ON a0 A SI(Y( Iug) j GC CLAYEY MAVELB, GRAVEL-SAMp- CLAY MIXTURES SAND • .• i • • SW 0Iy,_-4RAO9O SAMOS, GRAVELLY AND CLEAN SAND • • • • 7Mp1, LITTLE OR RO IIaQ 7 MOT U,111• « w tl•061 TOR(SOX oF rAtlbAl If fO1L$ SP 00"LY-GYO[p 1Aap1, GRAVELLY SAND[. LITTLE;oR LARGER T"AN NO RO PINES 200 flcv( SIZE MDR[ THAN SDTL OF COARSE FRAC- SAND$ $IT" Flocs SM SILTY SUM. [ADO -SILT MIXTURES "ON ►ASBIOG (AFP•s.•M• ••••.•t •1 NO. . SIEVE Ib••1 SC CLAYEY SAo01. $AND -CLAY MIXTURES GSORWIC SLTI Aop vER1 LIRE ff� ML SIX'~. ROCK PLOUR. SILTY OR CLATfY FIRE SAGO[ OR CLAYEY Fiat a SILTS LIQUID LIMIT SILTS WITH-2 T r IMORGA1rC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM OILS 7011l AND L(BS THAN SO CL PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAY[, .CLAYS }AASIT CUTS. SILTY CLAYS, L[AR OL ORGANIC GILT[ "a ORGARIC SILTY CLATS OF LOX/ PLASTICITY MH ISORSISI�C SILTS. MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOW FIRE SAND OR MORE T"A" SOX SILTY SOILS OF MATERIAL IS BOLTS SMALLER T"AN no 200 sieve AND CUTS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER TNAN SO CH =ORGANIC CLAYS OF "1$11 512E PLASTICITY. OAT CLAYS OH ORGMIC CLAYS Of MEDIUM To III@" 1LASTICIT7, ORGANIC SILTS "IGOLY ORGANIC SOILS , •1 y - — �- PT I FEAT, "UMUE. •r BOILS _ MIT" "IG" ORGANIC COIITERTS Humus and Dutf Layer i*n2?* Uncontrolled with Highly Variable ROTE: DUAL ITNSOLG ♦R[ USED TO INDICATE SONDERLIRE SOIL CLAISIIICATfORG SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART T"t DISCUSSION 14 T"( TEXT Of T"1S REPORT 17 NECESSARY FOR A "OPEN UNDERSTANDING OF T"( NATURE OF TIC MATERIAL FRESINTEO 1N T/11 •TTAC"ED LOGS 1 2"O.D. Split Spoon Sampler Ring or Shelby Sample P Sampler Pushed � Sample Not Recovered Earth 1 .g Water Level (date) Consultants Inc. TS Torvane Reading LEGEND Qu Nnetrometer Readings iVlrater Observation We" 1165 Pf oj. No. Date Nov • 179 Plate 2 1. Logged By DK14 Date _11/6/79 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 E 10 15 TEST PIT NO. -.I Soil Description Elev. 3?O± W M1 2k n�*ft Tpsl Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist: 3.4 8.8 GP Brown, clean, sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, moist. SP Gray, clean SAND with gravel, dense, moist. No groundwater encountered. Logged By DKW Date 11/6/79 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev. 305+ 0 5 10 15 Tpsl Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist. 8.5 Shy SP Brown SAND with some silt and gravel, medium dense, moist. Groundwater not encountered. ,I Earth �j Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proi. No. 1165 Date Nov. ' 79 Plate 3 Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 Logged By DKW Date 11/6/79 USCS TEST PIT NO. 3 Soil Descriotion Elev. 31 ± W (96) . Lab Data Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist. SP Brown, clean, gravelly SAND with occasional cobbles, medium dense, moist. 54 SP Gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist. Groundwater not encountered. Consth ultants Inc. IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOG TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE EDMONDS,. WASHINGTON Proj. No. 1165 Date No 79 Plate 4 9 Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists April 4, 1995 Green Tara Incorporated 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 9,8026-4904 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect Subject: Visual Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnical Engineering Study Update 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Russell Residence 16200 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington E-1165, dated December 3, 1979 Greenness Residential Development Site Plan, dated January 8, 1995 Dear Mr. Lehn: E-1165-1 We are pleased to present the results of our visual site reconnaissance performed on February 9, 1995. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to observe the existing site conditions and to modify or add to the recommendations contained in the referenced study if necessary. Shallow hand excavations and exposures on the bluff were utilized to provide subsurface information for Parcels A and B of the proposed site development. Based on the results of our reconnaissance, it is our opinion the recommendations contained in the referenced study remain applicable for the proposed site development with the additions and modifications contained in this document. In general, subsurface conditions across both parcels appear consistent with those encountered during the original investigation. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. 1805.136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 =. Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 27J-6608 r� Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 Project Description E-1165-1 Page 2 We understand the site is to be developed with four single-family residences, two on Parcel A and two on Parcel B. At this time, final construction plans are not available; however, we anticipate the homes to be wood frame structures with either concrete slabs on grade, or wood -joist supported flooring. Foundations are anticipated to be conventional continuous and spread footings. Three of the four residences are anticipated to. be built into the face of slopes. At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available. However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate wall loads of approximately two (2) kips per lineal foot, slab loads of about one hundred (100) pounds per square foot (psf) and column loads of about twenty-five (25) kips. If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The proposed site is located at 16202 - 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is bowl shaped with drainage down to the west from an elevation of about 320 feet near 72nd Avenue West to about 255 feet in the southwest corner of the property. A fifteen foot high ridge runs along the west property line. This ridge is located at the top of a bluff that drops about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet down to another residential development along the edge of Puget Sound. The parcels have slopes ranging from about 10 percent up to about 65 percent. Relatively level areas are located above the bowl and in the bottom of the bowl. Along the north edge of the bowl, there is an existing house that will remain as part of the proposed development. Earth Consultants, Inc. 0 0 Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 Subsurface E-1165-1 Page 3 The site was explored for the study performed in 1979 by excavating three test pits in the vicinity of the upper two houses and by ten hand excavations for the current phase of work. Hand excavations were performed in order to confirm the consistency of soils with respect to those observed in 1979. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, the test pits encountered up to eighteen inches of silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) overlying poorly graded sand with silt, or poorly graded sand (SP-SM and SP). The poorly graded sands were observed to be in a medium dense to dense condition with the overlying silty sand being loose to medium dense. Groundwater was not observed in any of the test pits for the original study, or in any of the hand excavations performed for this reconnaissance and update. Additionally, seepage was not observed on the upper portion of the bluff face. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Green Tara Incorporated and its representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Slope Stability _ During our site reconnaissance, the site slopes were observed for signs of instability. At the time of our reconnaissance, there generally does not appear to be any evidence of instability such as head scarps, hummocky terrain, or vegetation patterns which would indicate past slope failures. In addition, indicators of potential future instability such as tension cracks, or seepage zones were not observed. In our opinion, the site appears stable based on our site observations and experience. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1. 0 Green Tara .Incorporated April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 4 Additionally, the proposed site development should enhance slope stability by providing subsurface drainage and retaining soils, based on our understanding of the proposed development. Removal of the ridge at the top of the bluff, as proposed, would also enhance the stability of the bluff by reducing the driving forces. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. After stripping operations are complete, filling operations to provide the design slab subgrade elevation may then commence. The ground surface where foundations or structural fill are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be observed by a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, slabs, pavements, or any other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. During dry weather, most soils which are compactible and non -organic can be used as structural fill. On -site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather and the moisture content of the soil is near the optimum. However, laboratory testing indicates the native silty sand and sand with gravel and a trace of silt contain at least five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with more than five percent fines will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. Earth Consultants, Inc. i. LJ • Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 5 If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to use an imported free -draining granular fill. Fill for this purpose and for use in wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. In order to provide grades for the driveway, it may be necessary to place fill on a sloping grade. In our opinion, the placement of fill on slopes is generally acceptable; however, where r the slope exceeds 25 percent, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope. This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth,of two feet into medium dense to dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward -sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches. Plate 1, Slope Fill Placement, schematically shows the keyway and benches. Foundations Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the information in the referenced study and our observations of the site, it is our opinion the proposed buildings can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous foundation system obtaining support as described in the referenced study,. Residences may be built into the site slopes, provided the footings are placed such that the face of the footing is a minimum of ten feet from the slope face (Plate 2). All footing excavations should be observed by an ECI representative prior to placing forms or reinforcement in order to confirm conditions are as anticipated. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -Grade floors may be supported as recommended in the 1979 study. Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture content of the underlying soils to rise. This results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal evapotranspiration. As concrete is permeable, moisture will eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection is provided. Earth Consultants, Inc. R. • Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 6 To minimize these problems, suitable moisture protection measures should be used. Various alternatives exist, including concrete toppings or additives and synthetic moisture -resistant membranes. Information on the product usage, installation and warranty should be obtained from the manufacturer if these products are used. The effectiveness of such measures can be improved by installing a capillary break under the membrane or damp -proofed slab. A capillary break, if used, should consist of a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel. If a moisture -resistant membrane is used, care should be taken during construction not to damage the membrane and the seams should be sealed. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Retaining Walls Retaining walls and foundation walls that will act as retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf for walls that are restrained at the top from free movement. These values are based on horizontal backfill. For retaining walls allowed to yield and a backfill slope of up to 2H:1 V, an equivalent fluid weight of sixty-five (65) pcf may be used for design. The equivalent fluid weights assume that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on walls. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added'to the above design lateral pressures. The lateral resistance design values (friction and passive pressure) given in the referenced study are applicable for retaining walls. _ Retaining walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material conforming to the WSDOT specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). The free draining material should extend a minimum of eighteen inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall. Drain pipes located in the free -draining backfill soil should be perforated with holes less than one-half inch in diameter. The drain pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with 3/4-inch rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric. Earth Consultants, Inc. Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 Seismic Design Considerations E-1165-1 Page 7 The Puget Sound area is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. Structures are subject to damage from earthquakes due to direct and indirect action. Direct action is represented by shaking. Indirect action is represented by foundation soil failures and is typified by ground failure (rupture), liquefaction or slope failure. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Due to the existence of medium dense to dense soils and the lack of a near surface ground water table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction induced damage at the site is low to minimal. The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that site coefficient of 1.2 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Deep Cohesionless or Stiff Clay Soils (Soil Type 2) should be used for Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Site Draina-ge During construction, water must not be allowed to stand in building areas Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the proposed residences. This gradient may be reduced to 2 percent in paved areas. Earth Consult, Inc. £. • Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 8 We understand that, due to the sloping nature of the site and proposed daylighting of structures, it will not be possible to slope the ground surface away from the foundations on all sides of the buildings. Therefore, where surface gradients are toward the structures, suitable collection and discharge methods should be utilized to remove water from the building areas. Two options for collections and discharge of water are a concrete lined swale, or allowing the gravel backfill for the retaining walls to act as an interceptor trench by not covering the gravel at the surface with topsoil, or other relatively impermeable material. There are drainage options other than those mentioned. ECI will be available to discuss drainage with you. Groundwater is not anticipated to have a significant impact on construction since no seepage was observed during the original subsurface exploration or the visual site reconnaissance. However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches., Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the structure, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Where foundation walls will act as retaining walls, the retaining wall drain can also be used as a footing drain. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Earth Consultants. Inc. i Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 E-1165-1 Page 9 State law requires that temporary slopes be inclined at specific slope ratios depending on the type of soil exposed on the slope. Based on the information. obtained from our field exploration, the site soils expected to be encountered in excavations would be classified as Type B by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). Any temporary slopes should be observed by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., during excavation in order to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide timely recommendations should differing soil conditions be encountered. Should slopes not be able to be cut back to this slope inclination, or cuts greater than twenty feet in depth be required, we can provide temporary shoring design recommendations upon request. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined 2H:1 V or flatter. Recommendations for support of other permanent slope ratios can be provided on request. All cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any, case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently -exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions inthis area. _ No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this document are based upon the data obtained from the test pits and our site reconnaissance. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Earth Consultants. Inc. • Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 Additional Services E-1165-1 Page 10 As the engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Douglas S. Lynne CA/ Staff Engineer Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Fri Manager of Geotechnic -� �raAL� DSL/KRC/kml JEVIRES ktlt90,�- Attachments: Plate 1 - Slope Fill Placement Plate 2 - Footings On or Adjacent to Slopes . Plate 3. - Typical Footing Subdrain Earth Consultants, Inc. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING FINAL SLOPE GRADIENT `'` jlt=p1=111 Illslll I SEE TEXT IH y� . IIIrI N V� ' r.:. �% � •.`,.:�. EXISTING GRADE J %l 11 _ �IIT111 TYPICAL "BENCH.. _•.�...: III_ MINIMUM 4 FEET WIDTH II'�U I '•KEY" • I11=111=111 Ill _Ill EXISTING III GRADE LEGEND Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent tines [silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve I or other material approved by geotechnical engineer. aKey way fill is same as structural fill described above. Key way should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the slope face. ---- Approximate original ground line. NOTES: • Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating key way or benches. • Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. • Final slope gradient should be 2:1 [Horizontal: Vertical I. • Final slope face should be densified by over building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. • Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. • Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. • Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT Earth Consultants Inc. Greenness Residential Development CR•aMmkal Engh,erm Grob & Frvlrotvnental Scientists Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Dated 3/23/95 1 Plate 1 Fount Foun& Elf Pro]. No. 1165-1 1 Drwn. GLS I Date Mar. $95 1 Ch J FOUNDATIONS ON OR ADJACENT TO SLOPES Greenness Residential Development Edmonds, Washington ecked DSL Date 3/23/95 Plate 2 Slope To Drain__e o o c •° 6 inch min. o° • ' •'.o -.. a o. e. .. • :.� o o O •- •� �.�: o •o• .•�- .ape;• :. .. -° ° .o . o •. .•' 'ems.• '. ..' . 18 inch min. 4 inch min. • .•o - , e• • ° ° - Diameter Perforated Pipe! • o o Wrapped in Drainage Fabric 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. - 17-77--71 Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the WSDOT Specifications. ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants Inc. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Greenness Residential Development Cl+ontiMld �S�rs. GCobgWS i Fsvtrorvrx:ntal 5[4rnlbts Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 1165-1 1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL I Date 3/23/95 1 Plate 3 DISTRIBUTION E-1165-1 4 Copies Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn 1 Copy CT Engineering, Inc. 180 Nickerson Street, Suite 302 Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Mr. Charles Griffes Earth Consultants, Inc. t Earth Consultants Inc. l 1 Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists April 4, 1995 Green Tara Incorporated 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect Subject: Visual Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnical Engineering Study Update 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Russell Residence 16200 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington E-1165, dated December 3, 1979 Greenness Residential Development Site Plan, dated January 8, 1995 Dear Mr. Lehn: E-1165-1 We are pleased to present the results of our visual site reconnaissance performed on February 9, 1995. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to observe the existing site conditions and to modify or add to the recommendations contained in the referenced study �. if necessary. Shallow hand excavations and exposures on the bluff were utilized to provide subsurface information for Parcels A and B of the proposed site development. '°Based on the results of our feconnaissan ee, it7is our -opinion -the -recommendations -contained 1 in -the refere'nceii stud" emai'h"% I t— 11e"`for the' `"ro` 'ose'd si a dew.elo �,ment with t=he adtli` i ns Y _ a__t?p_� ___._�.. ,_ p p t o a.. l .�. a i_ t O S ���parcelssappear �SpGe`.v, nrT.,.,,,,.,.,.-. _ ....._.-.,-....Y•x�R*TF.��,y''�es.,+r.r•.,�v"J•a YLr ..w Y ppear consistent with those encountered during the ofiginal investigation ' We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. 1805.136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 Ira Paul and Partners December 3, 1979 E-1165 Page Six Any required structural fill should be placed in 8-inch loose horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-70. On - site soils, where free from organic matter and if not excessively moist, may be used as structural fill for dry weather construc- tion. However, some of these materials contain a moderate amount of fines and may be difficult to compact under wet conditions. Hence, if wet weather.conditions are encountered and if fill is to be imported, we recommend that the materials be predominantly gran- ular containing no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. All fills should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer. All permanent fill and cut slopes should be made at an inclin- ation no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Temporary con- struction slopes should be made at an inclination no steeper than 1:1. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with suit- able species of vegetation soon after completion to reduce erosion potential. Slopes Based on the results of our geologic reconnaissance and our test pit study, it is our opinion that the site's slopes are pres- ently stable and the development may proceed as planned. for eros'koi . All downspouts should be connected to yard drainage lines draining off the building site or into a wet well and not allowed to flow over the slopes. The intent is that yard drainage from the improved building lot over the top of the bank would not be greater in volume or velocity than exists in the natural state unless mitigated by storm drainage improvements. Additional Services It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommenda- tions may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and F= 'onsultants, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, GREENNESS 4 LOT SHORT SUBDMSION - PORTIONS OF TRACTS 66 ff 67 OF MEADOWDALE BEACH SECTION 5, TWP 27N, R 4E W M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VOL 5, PAGE 38. 0 N APPROVED BY PLANNING �. C��_,- no /loj0y APPROVED AS. NOTED BY E �INnEERIyG ,(( Date: lt8 l2zo �a� /9�14 pg-vio2lS GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS TO CONNECT TO EXIST. SYST. LEHN DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 10202 72ND AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA93026 T/F: 425.745.8949 C: 206.963.8949 LEHN ADDITION & IMPROVEMENTS OWNER/CONTRti16202 DMON CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE 72NDAVE. W. EDMONDS, WA99026 FOR EROSION CUb I ROL AND DAMAGE 6-25-04 Set-- becks Front AX Sides N,. SITE PLAN 1' = 40' A ear CITY C®PY Hei Other t Re iced Actual - �.• C l V t p -- — ' JJN 2 5'2004 a PERMIT COUNTER N O N� 10 o JOHNSON fV N N N N N N N N N �J N89'37'00'E I I 1 \ / 2 5' 25. 346.35' -LOT 1 �r _ _ C R`"p ° L� i EXISTING RESIDENCE s• PROPOSED ti �p % G ON 'ER6RmSe EXISTING 1\ _ _ r- - _ OFFICE / N' v �STIN _ -t NE1y�. GCE G e o G RF - iS FT TBACK / \ o• v 1 O` SANG FROM Too N W N8 �� W 2't7: o Z N o W 69.za BRADLE Z Q X 14 B9' 37'00'E 156I0' � z GTI 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. AN GENERAL NOTES Ni >. SITE PLAN ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODES, ORDINANCES ff LAWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS. VERIFY ALL VARIATIONS OR DISCREPANCIES WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK IN QUESTION. NOTED DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. EXTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE AND/OR FACE OF STUD AND INTERIOR PARTITION DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. NEW, HEATED EXTERIOR WALLS AND PLUMBING WALLS SHALL BE OF 2 X 6 STUDS (W16 OC AND NTERIOR PARTITIONS SHALL BE OF 2 X 4 V 16 OC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. N CASE OF CONFLICT WHEREIN THE METHODS OR STANDARDS OF INSTALLATION OR THE MATERIALS SPECIFIED DO NOT EQUAL OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAWS OR ORDINANCES, THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES SHALL GOVERN. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ALL CONFUCTS. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIRCATION AND COORDINATION WITH THE OTHER CONTRACTORS TO INSURE COMPUANCE OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIRCATIONS, THE ACCURATE LOCATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND OPENINGS FOR MECHANCAL , ELECTRICAL, STAIRS AND MISCEL ANEOUS OPENINGS. ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS, FLASHING, COUNTER FLASHING AND EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE WEATHERPROOFED. OPENINGS SHALL BE CAULKED, SEALED OR WFATHERSTRIPPED. BATT INSULATION TEARS AND JOINTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH TAPE, PROVIDE FIREBLOCKING, DRAFTSTOPS AND FIRESTOPS PER UBC, CHAPTER 7AND SBC 708. ALL. CONDUIT AND PIPING SHALL BE CONCEALED. SERVICE WATER PIPES IN UNHEATED SPACES TO BE INSULATED PER WSEG TABLE 5-12. A SMOKE DETECTOR SHALL BE PROVIDED ON EACH FLOOR AND IN EACH BEDROOM / SECTION 310.9 UBC 97. THE ADDITION'S SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL RECEIVE PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING'S WIRING SYSTEM AND HAVE BATTERY BACK UP. BATTERY OPPERATED SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE OWNER IN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE EACH LIGHT OF SAFETY GLASS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED WITH A PERMANENT LABEL THAT IS VISIBLE WHEN THE UNIT IS GLAZED. SAFETY GLASS SHALL BE USED IN ALL 0) GLASS DOORS, (2) GLAZING ADJACENT TO A DOOR WHOSE NEAREST VERTICAL EDGE IS WITHIN 24' OF THE DOOR AND WHOSE BOTTOM EDGE IS LESS THAN GO' ABOVE THE FLOOR, AND (3) GLAZING HAVING AN EXCESS OF 9 SQUARE FEET WHOSE EDGE IS CLOSER THAN IV ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. VERIFY W/ARCHITECT AND WINDOW SUPPUER. GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES (The following apply unless shown otherwise on the plans) CRITERIA 1. ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1997 EDITION). 2. DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA ROOF LIVE LOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 PSF FLOOR LIVE LOAD (RESIDENTIAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 PSF WIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 MPH, EXPOSURE "B" EARTHQUAKE . ZONE 3, SOIL Sd, R = 5.5 SEE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL LOADING CRITERIA 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS, MEMBER SIZES, AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK. ALL DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED AS GUIDELINES ONLY AND MUST BE VERIFIED. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY BRACING FOR THE STRUCTURE AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS UNTIL ALL FINAL CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND THE METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE CONTRACTORS WORK. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS NO OVERALL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OR ACTUAL AND/OR DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SPECIFIC WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE AND/OR FOR ANY HAZARDS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF ANY TRADE CONTRACTOR. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS NO DUTY TO INSPECT, SUPERVISE, NOTE, CORRECT, OR REPORT ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY DEFICIENCIES OF THE OWNER, CONTRACTORS, OR OTHER ENTITIES OR PERSONS AT THE PROJECT SITE. LEGAL DESGRIPTION LOT I, GREENNESS 4LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION - PORTIONS OF TRACTS GG a 67 OF MEADOWDALE BEACH SECTION 5, TWP 27N, R 4E W M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VOL 5, PAGE 38. LEHN DESIGN COLLABORATIVE 16202 72ND AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA98026 T/F: 425.745.8949 C: 206.963.8949 LEHN ADDITION & IMPROVEMENTS 16202 72ND AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA98026 6-25-04 6. CONTRACTOR -INITIATED CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION. CHANGES SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS ONLY WILL NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. INDEX 7. DRAWINGS INDICATE GENERAL AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE Al TITLE, SITE PLAN, GENERAL CONDITIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED BUT ARE OF SIMILAR CHARACTER TO DETAILS SHOWN, SIMILAR DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED, SUBJECT TO A MAIN FLOOR PLAIV,EXTERIOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ARCHITECT AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. ELEVATIONS 6 WALL SECTION B. SPECIAL INSPECTION OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED A3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 108 AND 1701 OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND ✓ P �� MAN & LOWER FLR. FRAMING PLANS ff STRUCTURAL NOTES THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS BY A QUALIFIED TESTING AGENCY DESIGNATED BY THE jM�ar RETAINED BY THE BUILDING OWNER. THE ARCHITECT, STRUCTURAL ARCHITECT, AND RE �/ .r�►,= -���i 1 ENGINEER, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH COPIES OF ALL IN- r'R GENERAL INFORMATION SPECTION AND TEST RESULTS. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION (CYLINDER TESTING ONLY IF F' c=2500 PSI.) EXPANSION BOLTS AND THREADED EXPANSION INSERTS •7/t PARCEL 00513100006704 EPDXY GROUTED INSTALLATIONS j �� /� TYPE: VN GEOTECHNICAL ,�G�ONSTRUGTION � ��� �[e4r*yt vvF�.ROUP6,DMSION: R-3 ` SOIL TYPE: UP TO 18' OF MEDIUM 9. FOUNDATION NOTES: ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESSURE AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE AREA ✓� DENSE SILTY SAND(SM) ASSUMED AND THEREFORE MUST BE VERIFIED BY A QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER OR 1 OVERLYING MEDIUM DENSE TO APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. IF SOILS ARE FOUND TO BE OTHER THAN ASSUMED, NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR POSSIBLE FOUNDATION REDESIGN. DENSE POORLY GRADED SAND (SP-SM a SP) FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON FIRM, UNDISTURBED EARTH AT LEAST 18" BELOW ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, FOOTINGS SHALL BE CENTERED BELOW COLUMNS OR WALLS ABOVE. LOT COVERAGE BACKFILL BEHIND ALL RETAINING WALLS WITH FREE DRAINING, GRANULAR FILL AND PROVIDE FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE. SITE AREA = 18,84G SF ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE = 3596 ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 PSF EXISTING HOUSE = 1,533 SF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE (RESTRAINED/UNRESTRAINED) . . . . . . .55 PCF/35 PCF EXISTING DECK 6 BRIDGE =40 SF COEFICIENT OF FRICTION (FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5 INCLUDED). . . . . . . 0.3 GARAGE E OFFICE =50 SF TOTAL EXISTING LOT COVERAGE _ RENOVATION 2,0515 SF OR 13.896 ADDITION'S LOT COVERAGE =135 SF 10. DEMOLITION: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE NEW LOT COVERAGE= COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION. SHORING SHALL BE INSTALLED TO SUPPORT EXISTING 2,628.5 SF OR1496 CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED AND IN A MANNER SUITABLE TO THE WORK SEQUENCES. DEMOLITION DEBRIS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DAMAGE OR OVERLOAD THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION LOADING (INCLUDING DEMOLITION DEBRIS) ON EXISTING FLOOR SYSTEMS TO 40 PSF. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK FOR DRYROT AT ALL AREAS OF NEW WORK. ALL ROT SHALL " ,3348 REGISTERED BE REMOVED AND DAMAGED MEMBERS SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AS DIRECTED '') ��(��� 1T�:C] 1 BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT. i 1 i I CONCRETE s...3r,lkl 4i W,;SiiLNGMN 4 +� 12. CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED, PROPORTIONED, CONVEYED AND PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UBC SECTION 1905, 1906 AND ACI 301, INCLUDING TESTING PROCEDURES. CONCRETE SHALL ATTAIN A 28-DAY STRENGTH OF V c = 2,500 PSI AND MIX SHALL CONTAIN NOT LESS THAN 5-1/2 SACKS OF CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD AND SHALL BE �-� `. : 1 i E C E 1 V E D PROPORTIONED TO PRODUCE A SLUMP OF 5" OR LESS. �] �J It. JD N Z 5 2004 STRUCTURAL NOTES CONTINUED ON A3 `I 41\ PERMIT COUNTER STREET FILE t r 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Manual for GREENNESS by Green Tara Incorporated Phillip Lehn, Architect 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 206-742-6813 July 8, 1996 s r �s ma r �■!! rim 4M IM WN o a y y � .Tj ++ • vv • ,Cl/.� �, / . / i / l 1 1 l . E)(STING RESIDENCE Alll,ll!1-•`.\'�'��`, \ \\ \�\� \�\� �� _\COS HEitgggy`_._ `\\ n�M � ���-I �\, 1 EC>ETgBLE 3, ai `'s 9 OFFICE/SAGE g -\� \ \ O°9 mi A ls4//io ED A `•� fly. '� ..., � \ N .v • '� • \ - ,r � s. Rya, .l 1 1 -1f • ' POND ,/ •�.• / —�Lp .ii •�� I `mod, I !� 7 - '� J I 4 r. \. . "i / ; / •- / / VIEINPOIN � ' ' \ 7• � � /a � / / \ 1.•�--:-t ''.y, E �\ .� I ;6•sk .71' \ V� ',yam:• � . I / U� 1 lU ` / MLw 4. 7. Nz ;�. ' •/ j 1i „t, �� e� R •MJ,wt°a'ltr � �!A..�y,/ oo I I I xzbo 3 ��� /� //\\ ' \\ t �e / • l / •� /'3 4 a n 1 � � I� \' ��� ��i'/��� //// �„ /� �a��y+e, .`\..,,\ � 4s�v�°NY- 'e'/'-_ .�;.. // ' ''jl.%w�^hE ��"fiar �. (r � � � o +° •1 U � �I I .. "'iVI PROPOSED SITE PLAN r �` . = r ? o ii • 'f 1 1 �: o _10 v. sty O mvnm• •��y"w��tinfd"�Rur•TWI.n p 1 1 i 1 1 P 1 1 l 4 GREENNESS PROJECT MANUAL INDEX July 8, 1996 I. SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS General Contract: 1.00 Work Description 2.00 Tree Protection 2.01 Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control 2.02 Clearing and Grubbing 2.03 Site Preparation Sub -Contract: 2.04 Hydroseeding and Sod 2.05 Landscapeing II. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES December 3, 1979 Geotechnicai Study April 4, 1995 Study Update III. EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DRAWINGS December 1, 1986 Side Sewer Drawing 4" C.I. Water Line Plan April 1983 Sanitary Sewer Plan & Profile IV. POND LINER INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS A 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I. SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS for GREENNESS July 8, 1996 GENERAL CONTRACT SECTION 1.00 WORK DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.00 TREE PROTECTION SECTION 2.01 TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL SECTION 2.02 CLEARING AND GRUBBING SECTION 2.03 SITE PREPARATION SUB -CONTRACT SECTION 2.04 HYDROSEEDING AND SOD SECTION 2.05 LANDSCAPING GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 1.00, Page 1 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED WORK DESCRIPTION SECTION 1.00 - WORK DESCRIPTION PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES �r A. General scope of the Contract, Work by Owner and Work by others. 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS A. Coordinate with related work specified in the Drawings and other parts of this Project Manual including: Section 2.00 - Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control Section 2.01 - Tree Protection Section 2.02 - Clearing and Grubbing Section 2.03 - Site Preparation Section 2.04 - Hydroseeding and Sod Section 2.05 - Landscaping 1.03 SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS: The following drawings, dated , are those mentioned in these Specifications, and are hereby made a part of the Contract: A. Drawing Number and Title: 1 - PLAT PLAN 2 - TESC - GRADING PLAN & PLAT ROAD PROFILE 3 - DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN 4 - 72ND AVENUE WEST IMPROVEMENTS 5 - POND SECTIONS & DETAILS 6 - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS 1.04 COORDINATION: A. CITY OF EDMONDS Planning Division John Bissell, Project Planner 771-0220 Engineering Division Gordy Hyde, Coordinator 771-0220 Don Feine, Hydraulic Engineer 771-0220 Public Works Ron Holland, 771-0235 B. UTILITIES Snohomish PUD Rich Afdem, 670-3208 GTE Rich Edwards, 499-5144 Washington Natural Gas Doug Usatello, 356-7520 Chambers Cable C. CONSULTANTS Earth Consultants Inc. Kyle Campbell, P.E. 643-3780 SDS Dave Dougherty, P.E. 481-9687 Meyring Associates Max Meyring, Surveyor 778-3101 July, 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 0100, Page 2 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED WORK DESCRIPTION 1.05 SCOPE OF WORK A. WORK INCLUDED: The Work consists of that described in the Drawings and Specifications, and includes but is not limited to: 1. Street widening, water, storm drainage and paving improvements to 72nd Avenue West. 2. Providing Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures as required. 3. Protecting selected trees to remain. t; 4. Clearing, debris from the site. grubbing and removing all 5. Installing required site drainage improvements, including storm detention tanks, catch basins, pipes and a PVC lined pond. 6. Stripping and stockpiling topsoil from all areas to be graded or covered by improvements. 7. Excavating, filling, grading and compacting the site as required. 8. Excavating, backfilling, and compacting utility trenches along the plat road, along Johnson's and Lehn's property line, from the plat road to the pond and from the plat road to and along the new herb and vegetable garden foot path. 9. Relocating existing water and sewer lines.and installing new water and sewer lines as indicated on the plans. 10. Providing and installing conduit for new power, telephone and cable television lines. 11. Providing, installing and compacting an acceptable gravel base along the temporarily unpaved portion of the plat road. 12. Providing required rockeries. � 13. Removing and disposing of the existing residence's driveway and parking area pavement. r 14. Paving: a. the existing residence's driveway and parking area b . that portion of the plat road leading from 72nd Avenue West to the existing residence, C. the most northern 200 feet of 72nd Avenue West, J d. patches and thickened edges along 72nd Avenue West. 15. Relocating power line from existing lamp post to new lantern near Project entrance. 16. Enhancing, evenly distributing and fine grading stockpiled topsoil. 17. Clean up July, 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 0100, Page 3 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED WORK DESCRIPTION B. WORK NOT INCLUDED: While not specifically included in the General Contract, the General Contractor is responsible for coordinating and integrating his work with the following work by others: 1. Snohomish PUD's undergrounding of power lines along part of 72nd Avenue West and between Johnson's and Lehn's property line. While the PUD will dig their own joint utility trench to the new transformer to be located at the northeast corner of lot 1, they are relying upon the Contractor to regrade the right-of-way along Green Tara Incorporated's east property line, to level two areas (the first, between lots 3 & 4 and the second, located at the northeast corner of lot 1) large enough to accommodate their equipment, and excavate and backfill a joint utility trench along Johnson's and Lehn's property line. 2. City of Edmonds Department of Public Works' relocation of existing water meters, installation of new water meters, testing of the new water main, approval of side sewers and subsequent provision of a grinder pump. 3. Washington Natural Gas Company's installation of a new gas main along the East and North property lines. 4. GTE's undergrounding of their telephone lines to the Lehn's, Johnson's and the three undeveloped lots. 5. Edmonds Cable undergrounding of their television lines to Lehn's, Johnson's and the three undeveloped lots. 6. Hydroseeding and sod application. 7. Pond pump and filter installation. 8. The Owner's transplanting and landscaping requirements 1.06 PERFORMANCE BOND A. The Contractor shall provide an acceptable performance bond to indemnify the Owner for that portion of the contract which the City requires the Owner to provide a bond for. 1.07 INSURANCE A. Provide evidence of adequate liability insurance and a Certificate of Insurance for the complete scope of work acceptable to the Architect and Charles Kee of The Insurance Store, Lynnwood, WA (206) 774-5622, listing "Green Tara Incorporated" and "Phillip and / or Mariam Lehn" as co- insured. 1.08 SEQUENCE OF THE WORK A. Contractor to provide the Owner with a detailed outline, describing the sequence of work, relocation of existing and connection of new utilities, proposed time schedule, and proposed staging and storage areas three days before the pre -construction conference. July, 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 0100, Page 4 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED WORKDESCRIPTION J 1.09 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES A. Job Telephone: Provide a telephone on the construction site throughout the duration of the Project. Pay all charges and permit all those connected with the work to use, provided they pay for any toll calls. 1 B . Tem Utilities: Water and electricity for construction in quantities �� Y judged reasonable by the Owner, will be furnished to the Contractor without charge. Ascertain where these services will be available, make temporary connections as required, and remove same upon completion of the work. C. Drinking Water: Furnish, from a proven safe source, for all those connected with the work. Pipe or transport in such manner as to keep it clean and fresh. D. Temporary Toilets: The Owner will allow all those connected with the work to use the toilet located on lower floor of the existing residence during the course of the work. Maintain in . sanitary condition and, upon completion of the work, surrender it to the Owner in as good condition as found. END OF SECTION July, 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.00, Page 1 SITE WORK - TREE PROTECTION TREE PROTECTION SECTION 2.00 - TREE PROTECTION PART 1 GENERAL - 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES A. Work includes providing and installing materials and methods to protect P g g specified trees and shrubs during construction. 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS A. Coordinate with related work specified in other parts of this Project Manual including: Section 1.00 - Description of the Work Section 2.01 - TESC Section 2.02 - Clearing and Grubbing Section 2.03 - Site Preparation Section 2.04 - Hydroseeding and Sod Section 2.05 - Landscaping 1.03 MATERIALS A Tree Protection Fence: Temporary fence for protection of specified vegetation to remain shall be a minimum of five feet high chain link fence. Metal support stakes shall be at least 24 inches longer than fence height. 1.04 EXECUTION A. TREE PROTECTION 1. 48 hours prior to commencing work, the Contractor shall arrange an on -site meeting with the Owner to mark vegetation to be protected. 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to initiating clearing/grubbing and topsoil stripping operations. Contractor shall install a tree protection fence at the drip line of specified trees to remain and at the perimeter of specified ,plant masses to remain. Stakes shall be installed to 24 inch minimum depth and spaced at twelve feet maximum or as necessary to provide stability. Installation of tree protection shall not damage bark or root structures of trees. 3. Trees not indicated to be removed or transplanted, with or without tree protection, shall not be injured or defaced in any way. 4. If time Contractor that the tree at any the judges protection of a designated to be saved is incompatible with work required, or if operations necessarily threaten the health of a tree, notify the Owner immediately and do no further work affecting the tree until an agreement is reach with the Owner concerning procedure. 5. Use of Tree: Do not use trees which are to remain for any purpose such as crane stays, guy anchors, etc. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS WA Section 2.00 Page 2 , g SITE WORK - TREE PROTECTION TREE PROTECTION 6. Storage of materials, parking or driving vehicles or stockpiling inside the drip line of trees to remain shall not be permitted. 7. Interfering roots and limbs approved for removal shall be removed by a skill tree surgeon approved by the Owner. Loss of roots shall be balanced by careful limb pruning. B. TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE PROTECTED: Trees to be protected shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. The red and yellow Japanese maples located on the site's eastern plateau 2. The large cherry near the center of the plat road's circular curve. 3. The group of three trees near the proposed orchard including: the apple, the filbert and the bristle pine. 4. The 48" cedar and 20" broad leaf maple near the proposed pond. C. TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE TRANSPLANTED: 1. The small Katsura tree south of the existing driveway; approximately 30 feet to the south edge of the new entrance. 2. The rhododendron tree near the existing garage; approximately 15 feet to the south edge of the existing residence's new driveway onto the new plat road. 3. Approximately one third of the cluster of lilacs near the existing garage; to the southwest side of the new pond. One third to the garden steps near the existing grinder pump. One third to the south side of the plat road's circular curve. 4. The ornamental the near the existing garage; to the north side of nY g g g the existing pond. 5. The small weeping birch near the existing driveway; to the existing brick terrace near the site's northwest corner. 6. The small Hawthorne bush near the big cherry tree; , to an as yet undetermined spot. 7. The low growing blue spruce near the existing driveway entrance; to the south edge of the existing residence's new driveway. D. TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE SAVED: While not currently considered endangered, the following should be carefully preserved. If during the course of the work, conditions warrant their protection, these plants should also be surrounded by a protective fence. 1. The Lebanese Cedar, Monkey, Holly and Empress trees and Mock Orange shrub along the site's southeastern property line. 2. The row of Giant Sequoias along the north property line. END OF SECTION GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.01, Page 1 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED TESC SECTION 2.00 - TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES A. Work includes the' prevention of on- and off -site degradation due to accelerated erosion, siltation, and dust associated with construction activity. 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS A. Coordinate with related work specified in other parts of this Project Manual including: Section 1.00 - Work Description Section 2.00 - Tree Protection Section 2.02 - Clearing and Grubbing Section 2.03 - Site Preparation Section 2.04 - Hydroseeding and Sod Section 2.05 - Landscaping 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Contractor shall provide the erosion and sedimentation control facilities to prevent erosion and stop sediment -laden waters from leaving the site. No clearing or other construction shall take place until the required facilities are operational. 1.04 PRODUCTS A. Straw Bales: Locally available. Must be wire bound (no twine) and tightly bound. B. Filter Fabric: Mirafi, 10OX or approved equal, securely attached to approved 2 x 2 wood posts at 4 feet on center. C . Gravel: Gravel shall be 1 " to 1-1/2 " washed gravel or pea gravel. D. Quarry Spalls: Quarry spalls shall be 4" to 8" 1.05 EXECUTION A. EROSION CONTROL 1. General Site Grading: V-Ditches shall be installed where necessary to collect surface water run off from graded areas. V-Ditches shall route water to siltation ponds where filtration of silt loaded water will occur prior to release from site. Energy dissipation in the form of gravel berms or straw bales may be required to reduce velocities in ditches. July 1996 (GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.01, Page 2 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED TESC 2. Siltation Pond: a. Siltation pond (s) may be required to control the flow of water from graded areas. Any such pond shall meet the minimum requirements set forth by the City of Edmonds, Engineering Division. b. Maintenance: Silt pond (s) shall be routinely inspected and cleaned out to insure their proper functioning. 3. Stockpiling: a. Soils temporarily stockpiled shall be graded no steeper than 3:1. b . Stockpiled wet soils shall be shaped and arranged so they are free to drain. 4. Placement of Straw Bales: a. Straw Bales shall be anchored with a minimum of (2) stakes per bale. They shall be located as such so that water from the siltation pond or graded areas is required to pass through the straw bales. A minimum of one (1) foot freeboard is required on the straw bales. b. Straw Bales shall be installed circling all new yard inlets and catch basins after their installation. Said bales shall be removed upon paving or planting the surrounding areas. C. Maintenance: Straw Bales shall be inspected regularly to insure proper filtration of water is occurring. Silts shall be cleaned out away from the face of the bale and new bales installed when required. 5. Temporary Sodding or Seeding: In areas of extreme erosion, as determined by the Architect, the use of temporary sodding or proper spray application of soil stabilizing mulch materials mixed according to manufacturer"s recommendations, may be required. 6. Silt Fence: a. Silt fences shall be installed across V-Ditches, interceptor and diversion channels, and around soil stockpiles as required to trap sediment. b. Silt fences shall be used in combination with straw bales, gravel berms, and rock in areas of high flow velocities and siltation. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.02, Page 3 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED TESC c. Maintenance: Silt fences shall be inspected regularly to insure proper filtration is occurring. Silt shall be cleaned away from the face of the fence and stakes shall be re -secured or replaced as required. B . RESTORATION OF THE SITE 1. Once final drainage patterns / systems have been established or installed and are working to the satisfaction of the Owner, the Contractor is responsible for restoring the ditches, ponds, etc. to finish grade requirements. END OF SECTION GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA . Section 2.02, Page 1 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED CLEARING AND GRUBBING SECTION 2.03 - CLEARING AND GRUBBING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES A. Work includes but is not limited to the following: 1. Cutting, removing and disposing of vegetation, or other unwanted materials from the ground surface. 2. Removing and salvaging or disposing of pavement and site appurtenances as indicated or required for new building and site preparation. 3. Grubbing work shall consist of removing and disposing of such materials from below the ground surface. 4. Removing materials from site. 5. Protecting from harm any trees, or other objects selected to remain, where they conflict with work. 6. Removing of all below grade items, except those selected to remain, where they conflict with work. 7. Removing of existing utility items which are no longer required but are within 3' below finished grade. 8. Abandonment of existing utility items in place which are no longer required but are encountered more than 3' below finished grade. 9. Selective pruning of existing trees to remain. B. Definitions: 1. The term "clearing" means removing and disposing of all unwanted material such as trees, brush, down timber and other existing natural objects, (except for those objects designated to remain), down to the surface level of the ground, plus other work as is described in this Section of these Specifications. 2. The term "grubbing" means removing and disposing of all unwanted vegetative matter from underground such as stumps, roots, buried logs or other debris to a depth of 1' below the level of the existing ground surface, plus other work as is described in this Section of the Specifications. 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS A. Coordinate with related work specified in other parts of the Project Manual, including but not limited to the following: Section 1.00 - Work Description Section 2.00 - Tree Protection Section 2.01 - Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Section 2.03 - Site Preparation Section 2.04 - Hydroseeding and Sod Section 2.05 - Landscaping July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.02, Page 2 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Work shall comply with the City of Edmonds Community Development Code and the current edition of the Washington State Department of Transportation Standards. B. The Contractor shall establish and maintain quality control to assure compliance with the Drawings and Specifications. C. Qualifications of Workmen: Use only well trained and experienced equipment operators and landscape technicians. D. Codes and Standards: The work being performed is unique and cannot be referenced to any standards or codes. E. Pre -construction Conference: Prior to the commencement of clearing and grubbing operations, there shall be an on -site conference for the purpose of establishing the procedures and methods to begin work. 1.04 JOB CONDITIONS A. Coordination: 1. Keep active utilities intact and in continuous operation. 2. Do not shut off or cap utilities without prior notice. 3. Maintain street drains and sewers open for free drainage. Provide filter fabric at catch basins. Clean drains as required to prevent build-up of mud and clay in drain lines. 4. Arrange with utilities for temporary relocation of lines as required. 5. Disconnect water and sewer services at their existing locations and connect to their new locations. B . Protection: 1. Arrange for disconnection of utility services which may be encountered on the job in accordance with requirements of utility companies. 2. Restore any improvement damaged by this work to their original condition, as acceptable to Owner. 3. Verify that all utility services to be demolished have been disconnected. C. Permits: 1. Pay all permits D. Dust Control: Prevent spread of dust during performance of the work of this Section. Thoroughly moisten all surfaces as required to prevent dust being a nuisance to the public, neighbors, and concurrent performance of other work on the site. E. Blasting and Burning_ On -site blasting and burning will not be permitted. F . Objectionable Noise: Work requiring air hammers or other noisy equipment shall be permitted only between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Owner. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 3 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED CLEARING AND GRUBBING G . Maintain vehicular and pedestrian traffic routes: 1. Prepare and obtain the City's approval of a Traffic Control Plan. 2. Ensure minimum interference with roads, streets, sidewalks, and adjacent facilities. 3. Do not close or obstruct streets, sidewalks or passageways without permission from authorities having jurisdiction. 4. Maintain fire access along access road at all times. 1.05 SUBMITTALS: A. Work Plan: Three days before the pre -construction conference, the Contractor shall provide the Architect with a written Work Plan describing the following: l . Work methods, equipment, phases and work sequences planned for the project. 2. On and off site storing and staging areas for equipment, materials, debris, and plants. 3. Time schedule for each phase allowing enough time for the City, PUD, GTE, Chambers Cable TV and Washington Natural Gas to complete their separate but related work. PART 2 - EXECUTION 2.01. PREPARATION A. Notification: Notify the Architect at least two full working days prior to commencing the work of this Section. B. Site Inspection: Prior to all work of this Section, carefully inspect the site with the Architect and identify all objects designated to be removed and to be preserved. C. Clarification: The Drawings do not purport to show all objects existing on the sites. Before commencing and during he work of this Section, verify with the Architect all objects to be removed and all objects to be preserved. D. Obtain required permits and permission from local governing authorities and Architect prior to commencing work. E. Remove large rocks along existing driveway and store on -site for their subsequent reuse. 2.02 CLEARING AND GRUBBING A. Clearing and Grubbing_ Clear site of trees, shrubs and other vegetation, except for those indicated to be left standing. Removal operations shall be performed in a manner to protect property and plants to remain. 1. Remove all surface rocks, debris, stumps, roots and other vegetation within the clearing limits as indicated by the Drawings and directed by the Architect. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 4 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED CLEARING AND GRUBBING 2. Excavate and remove roots larger than 1-1/2 inches in diameter, rocks, boulders, any remaining paving, and the like, as well as other unsuitable materials. Excavate not less than 12" below existing grade at asphalt paving and shrub areas. �. 3. Use only hand methods for grubbing inside the drip line of trees and large shrubs which are designated to remain. B. Felling and Trimming of Trees: 1. Felling: a. Use all necessary care to protect the roots and branches of trees designated to remain, and to prevent damage to persons and properties. b . Clear property of all debris immediately after felling a tree. 2. Trimming a. Trim only branches that are damaged during progress of the work. No other pruning will be required or permitted without the Owner's approval. Cut evenly, using proper tools and skilled workmen to achieve neat severance with the least possible damage to the tree or shrub. - C. StripRing of f Topsoil: See Section 2.03, Site Preparation for Stripping of Topsoil. 2.03 SITE IMPROVEMENT REMOVALS A. Remove existing above and below -grade improvements as indicated and as �- necessary to facilitate new construction. Care shall be taken to prevent damage to existing improvements which are to remain in place. 1. Pavement removals shall be accomplished by making a neat vertical saw cut at the boundaries of the area to be removed. Make cuts at closest paving joint. 2. Adjacent materials designated to remain that are damaged by the Contractor due to his operations shall be replaced at no additional cost to the Owner. 2.04 DEBRIS REMOVAL A. Remove all debris resulting from clearing work so that work can proceed without interference or interruption. Keep work areas free of debris and maintain in a neat and orderly condition. Dispose of all debris off the property. Keep all access routes used by demolition removal vehicles clean from demolition debris. Do not allow debris to accumulate on site. B. Keep all exits and exitways to and from the work areas free of debris at all times. All damaged trees shall be replaced at Contractors expense. 1 iJuly 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 2.05 FILLING DEPRESSIONS Section 2.03, Page 5 CLEARING AND GRUBBING A. Fill depressions caused by clearing and grubbing with properly. compacted native soils which are free of organic and other deleterious materials unless further excavation or earthwork is indicated. Place fill material in horizontal layers not exceeding 12 inches loose depth and thoroughly compact each layer to a density equal to the adjacent original ground. 2.06 EROSION CONTROL A. See Section 2.01, TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL of these Specifications and Sheet 2 of the Drawings. No Clearing or other construction shall take place until the required facilities are operational. 2.07 DISPOSAL A. The refuse resulting from clearing and grubbing shall be disposed of by the Contractor in a manner consistent with all government regulations. Maintain hauling routes clean and free of any debris resulting from work of this Section. END OF SECTION 1 I July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SECTION 2.03 - SITE PREPARATION PART 1 - GENE AL 2.4.01 SECTION INCLUDES Section 2.03, Page 1 SITE PREPARATION A. Work includes but is not limited to excavating, backfilling, rough grading, proofrolling, finish grading and installing the detention pond and new utilities as required by the Drawings and the Project Manual. 2.4.02 RELATED DOCUMENTS A. Coordinate with related work specified in other parts of the Project Manual, including but not limited to the following: Section 1.00 - Work Description Section 2.00 - Tree Protection Section 2.01 - Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Section 2.02 - Clearing and Grubbing Section 2.04 - Hydroseeding and Sod Section 2.05 - Landscaping B. Coordinate and comply with the December 3, 1979 Geotechnical Study and April 4, 1995 Study Update by Earth Consultants Incorporated (ECI); Bellevue, WA - Kyle Campbell, P.E. 206-643-3780. 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Work shall comply with the City of Edmonds Community Development Code, the current edition of the Washington State Department of Transportation Standards, and all other applicable codes and standards. B. The Contractor shall establish and maintain quality control to assure compliance with the drawings and specifications. C. Qualifications of Workmen: Use only well trained and experienced equipment operators and landscape technicians. D. Soil Testing: The Owner will engage the services of Earth Consultants Incorporated (ECI), a Geotechnical Consultant, to test soil materials proposed for use in the work and for quality control testing during excavation and fill operations. Under this Contract, smooth out areas for density tests and otherwise facilitate testing work as directed. 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Material Sample: Three days before the pre -construction conferenced (see CLEARING AND GRUBBING Section 2.03; 1.05 Submittals) the Contractor shall provide the Owner with a small representative sample of the rock the Contractor plans to use for the rockeries. July 1996 r . GREENNESS SHORT PLAT.-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 2 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SITE PREPARATION 1.05 EXISTING CONDITIONS The data in by ECI intended as representations A. provided two studies are not or warranties of accuracy or continuity of the site's subsurface conditions between test pits or probes. It is expressly understood the Owner will not be responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn therefrom by the Contractor. The data is made available for the convenience of the Contractor. be made by the B . Additional test pits and other exploratory operations may Contractor at no cost to the Owner provided that the excavations are backfilled and compacted as specified hereinafter. C. Monuments: Carefully maintain bench marks, monuments and other reference points. If disturbed or destroyed, replace as directed. PART 2-PRODUCTS 2.1 STRUCTURAL FILL A. Shall be on -site excavated granular (silty sand and gravel) soils free of organics and debris with a maximum particle size of 3 inches capable of being compacted as specified herein. B. Shall be imported reasonable'well-graded sand and gravel, with a maximum particle size 3 inches and no more than 5 percent fines by weight (material passing No. 200 sieve). Gravel content should be a minimum 20 retained on the No. 4 sieve. Imported structural fill shall only be used if on -site materials are insufficient or unsuitable. 2.2 NONSTRUCTURAL FILL A. Shall be on -site or imported well -graded granular material free of organics and debris. Maximum particle size 4 inches and no more than 30 percent fines (material passing No. 200 sieve). Material shall be capable of being compacted as specified under the weather conditions prevailing at time of construction. 2.3 TOPSOIL A. Obtain from naturally well drained portions of the site where topsoil occurs in a depth not less than 4". Screen to remove roots, twigs, refuse and stones larger than 1" in diameter. Do not obtain from bogs and marshes. Stockpile as approved by the Owner. 2.4 SPECIAL MIXTURE A. Equal parts topsoil, manure and peat moss, mixed thoroughly. 1. Manure: Well -rotted unleached stable or cattle manure, at least one year old, free from harmful materials, reasonably free from shavings, sawdust and refuse. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 3 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SITE PREPARATION 2. Peat Moss: Commercial grade, dark brown color, stockpiled and ' dried for at least one year. Acid reaction ph-4 to ph-5, low in woody material, free from mineral or other foreign matter harmful to plant life. 2.5 GRAVEL BACKFILL A. Gravel backfill shall be washed, free draining Pea or pit run gravel with 100% passing .1-1/2 inch sieve. 2.6 POND GRAVEL A. Rinse washed gravel backfill (see above) once again on site. Drill wheel barrel with holes to drain freely. Rinse each wheel barrel load with a pressure hose before delivering the gravel to the pond and covering the PVC liner. 2.7 PVC POND LINER A. Environmental Protection, Inc. standard 20 mil PVC pond liner or approved equal. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.1. STRIPPING A. Before excavating, strip available topsoil from areas to be graded or covered by improvements. Remove subsoil, debris, and stones larger than 1 inch in diameter and stockpile on site. 3.2 EXCAVATION A. Excavate as necessary for work shown.on drawings or specified. Remove rocks, boulders, slabs, pavement, existing foundations, and other obstructions. indicated B. Unauthorized excavation consists of removal of materials beyond subgrade elevations or dimensions without specific direction of the Owner. Unauthorized excavation, as well as remedial work directed by the Owner shall be at no change in the Contract amount. Backfill and compact unauthorized excavation with structural fill as specified herein. C. Overexcavation: In certain areas where soft spots occur in the subgrade, satisfactory sub -grade shall be achieved by overexcavation and replacement with structural fill material. Location and extent of soft spot areas to be verified by the geotechncial engineer in the field. D. Stability of Excavations: Slope the sides of excavations to comply with local codes and authorities having jurisdiction. E. Dewatering: Prevent surface water and subsurface or ground water from flowing into excavations and from flooding project site and surrounding area July 1996 GREEDINESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 4 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SITE PREPARATION 1. Do not allow water to accumulate in excavations. Remove water to prevent softening of foundation bottoms, and soil changes detrimental to stability of subgrades and foundations. Provide and maintain pumps, well points, sumps, suction and discharge lines and other dewatering system components necessary to convey water away from excavations. 2. Establish and maintain temporary drainage ditches and other diversions outside excavation limits for to convey water. Do not use trench excavations as temporary drainage ditches. F. Material Storage: Stockpile excavated materials as required. Place, grade, shape and cover stockpiles for proper drainage and to prevent accumulation of excess moisture. 1. Locate and retain soil materials away from edge of excavations. 2. Dispose of excess and waste materials legally off -site. � g Y G . Excavation for Pavements: Cut surface under pavements to comply with cross sections, elevations and grades as shown within a tolerance of plus or minus 0.10 foot. H . Excavation for Planting Areas: Conform to cross -sections, elevations and dimensions shown, within a tolerance of 0.10 foot. I. Excavation for Trenches: 1. Excavate trenches to the depth indicated or required. Carry the depth of trenches for piping to establish the indicated flow lines and invert elevations. 2. Where rock is encountered, carry the excavation 6 inches below the required elevation and backfill with 6 inch layer of gravel bedding material. 3. Grade bottoms of trenches as indicated, notching under pipe bells to provide solid bearing for the entire body of the pipe. J . Rock and Hardpan: Should rock and/or hardpan be encountered, Owner shall pay extra for removal and take credit for earth excavation omitted, at contract unit prices. 1. Definition of Rock: Any stone or boulder which cannot be removed by 1/2 cubic yard power shovel without continuous drilling, or by explosives. 2. Definition of Hardpan: Any material, not classed as rock, which cannot be removed with pick and shovel. 3.3 PROOFROLL A. Following site preparation and excavation for the pond, paved surfaces and roadways, the exposed subgrades shall be proof -rolled with 10 passes of a 10-ton vibratory roller or a fully loaded 10-yard dump truck. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 5 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SITE PREPARATION B. Over -excavate any soft, loose or disturbed soils identified by proofrolling and replace with compacted structural fill. ' C. Proofrolling operation shall be observed by a representative of Earth Consultants Incorporated (ECI). 3.4 BACKFILL AND FILL A. General: Remove debris and decayable matter before filling. Use ' approved materials only for fills. Make fills as soon as feasible to insure maximum settlement. B . All Fill used for the following shall be structural fill. 1. Fill beneath footings and foundations. 2. Fill beneath building slabs. 3. Fill within 3 feet vertically of the base of pavements. C. Fill beneath areas to be landscaped shall be non-structural fill. Fill deeper than 3 feet below the base of pavements for public right-of-way improvements and on -site roads and drives may be non-structural fill provided it can be compacted as specified for those areas. D. Backfill excavations as promptly as work permits, but not until completion ' of the following: 1. Acceptance by Owner of construction below finish grade. 2. Inspection, testing, approval and recording locations. of underground piping and conduits. Coordinate locations with Architect for as -built survey. 3. Removal of trash and debris. E. Ground Surface Preparation: 1. When existing ground surface has a density less than that specified under "Compaction" for the particular area classification, break up the ground surface, pulverize, moisture -condition to the optimum moisture content, and compact to required depth and percentage of maximum density. F . Placement and Compaction: Allowable thickness of fill lifts will depend on the material type and compaction equipment used. In no case place backfill and fill materials in layers more than 12 inches in loose depth for material compacted by heavy compaction equipment, and more than 4 inches in loose depth for material compacted by hand -operated tampers. For fill deeper than 3 feet below the base of pavements, lifts may be 12 inches maximum in loose depth. l . Before compaction, moisten or aerate each layer as necessary to provide the optimum moisture content. 2. Compact each layer to required percentage of maximum dry density or relative dry density for each area classification. 1 L� 1 r] 1 I 1 I 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 6 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SITE PREPARATION 3. Do not place backfill or fill material on surfaces muddy, frozen, or containing frost or ice. 3.5 COMPACTION A. General: Control soil compaction during construction providing minimum percentage of density specified for each area. B. Percentage of Maximum Density Requirements: Compact soil to not less than the following percentages of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 ("MODIFIED Proctor") 1. Lawn, Pond Base or Unpaved Areas: Compact top 12 inches of subgrade and each layer of backfill or fill material to 85 percent of maximum dry density. 2. Pavements: Compact top 12 inches of subgrade and each layer of backfill or fill material to 95 percent of maximum dry density. Fill materials deeper than 2 feet shall be compacted to 95 percent. 3. Utility Bedding and Backfill: Compact each layer of bedding and backfill to 95 percent of maximum dry density. C. Moisture Control: Where subgrade or layer of soil material must be moisture conditioned before compaction, uniformly apply water to surface of subgrade, or layer of soil material. Prevent free water appearing on surface during or subsequent to compaction operations. 1. Remove and replace, or scarify and air dry, soil material too wet to permit compaction to specified density. 2. Soil material removed because it is too wet to permit compaction may be stockpiled or spread and allowed to dry. Assist drying by discing, harrowing or pulverizing until moisture content is reduced to a satisfactory value. 3.6 GRADING A. General: Uniformly grade areas of work including adjacent transition areas. Smooth finished surface within specified tolerances, compact with uniform levels or slopes between points where elevations are shown, or between such points and existing grades. Round surfaces at abrupt changes in levels. Finish surfaces shall be free from irregular surface changes. B. Compaction: After grading, compact surfaces to the depth and percentage of maximum density for each area classification. C . Grade areas to the following levels: 1. Paving: To level indicated by the Drawings 2. Lawn Areas: To finish grades, allowing for 4 to 6 inches of topsoil. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED Section 2.03, Page 7 SITE PREPARATION 3. Planting Areas: To finish grades, allowing for 8 to 12 inches of topsoil. 1 D. Grading around trees: 1. Raising grades: (Not more than 16 inches) Place washed gravel directly around trunk before any earth fill is placed near tree. Extend gravel not less than 18 inches around all sides of tree, top approximately 2 inches above finish grade at tree. ' 2. Lowering grades: Regrade by hand to levels and extent indicated. Cut roots as required ' 3 inches inside bank, and paint ends with tree wound paint. 3.7 POND INSTALLATION A. Pre -installation: 1. Before installing 2" layer of leveling sand, all surface areas should be free of rocks, stones, sticks, rubbish and other debris. 2. Compact in accordance with the compaction schedule. 3. Evenly distribute a 2" course of leveling sand over compacted base. ' 4. Architect shall inspect and verify that pond geometry and surface conditions are in accord with the Drawings and Specifications. 5. The pond must be fee of all standing water or mud. B . Liner Installation: 1. Installation of the lining may only take place when the ambient temperature is above 60 degrees F. 2. Install liner in accordance with the attached "EPI Liner Installation Guide" and Details (4 pages) except for earth cover. ' C. Utility, Pump and Filter Installation 1. Install water and power supply lines. 2. Coordinate with the installation of pump and filter by others. 3. Make all liner penetrations in accordance with the installation guide and details. ' D. Earth and Gravel Cover 1. Natural Pond (Finished Elevations: 250 ' to 256) a. Hand install 12" of site washed gravel cover (see Section 2.4, Pond Gravel) over filter piping and level or slightly sloping areas of the liner. 2. Detention Pond and Freeboard (Finished Elevations: 256to 258.2') a. Hand install 4" to 6" of site washed Pond Gravel. b . Cover Pond Gravel with 4" of native fill. C. Cover native fill with 3" to 4" of equal parts of Topsoil and Special Mixture thoroughly mixed. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA Section 2.03, Page 8 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SITE PREPARATION E. Ornamental and Spillway Rocks 1. Place site salvaged rocks as directed by Architect. 3.8 ROCKERIES A. Construct by skilled craftsmen, using rock of the type previously submitted to and approved by Architect, of varying sizes, larger rock at base and accent points, smaller rock for cap. Form in accordance with Detail 2, Sheet 5 of the Drawings. Rockeries over 8 feet in height to be installed under periodic or full time observation by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. 3.9 PLANTING SOIL PREPARATION A. FINISH GRADING: Spread stockpiled Topsoil evenly over lawn areas, fill planting areas with equal parts Topsoil and Special Mixture, bring to finish grades, allowing for settlement. B. FINISH LAWN AREAS: If subgrade has not been freshly graded, scarify to a depth of 6 inches. Finish surfaces by raking smooth and even; compact lightly with roller. Level out surfaces; remove irregularities to facilitate natural run-off of water. 3.10 WET WEATHER PROVISIONS A. Schedule earthwork operations to minimize the potential for erosion, siltation, and disturbance of site soils. B . Compact exposed soil to reduce the infiltration of rain water. C. Direct surface water away from fills and excavations. D. Provide temporary pumping equipment to keep excavations and construction free of water. E. Soils that become too wet for compaction shall be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. 3.11 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A. Quality Control Testing During Construction: Allow a representative of Earth Consultants Incorporated (ECI) to observe, test and approve subgrades and fill layers before further construction work is performed. B. If subgrades or fills which have been placed are below specified density, provide corrective work as specified at no additional expense. 3.12 PROTECTION A. Protect newly graded areas from traffic and erosion. Keep free of trash and debris. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT-EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED Section 2.03, Page 9 SITE PREPARATION B. Repair and re-establish grades in settled, eroded, and rutted areas to specified tolerances. C. Reconditioning Compacted Areas: Where completed compacted areas are disturbed by subsequent construction operations or adverse weather, scarify surface, reshape, compact to required density and provide other corrective work as specified, with retesting, prior to further construction. END OF SECTION July 1996 11 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED SECTION 02.4 - HYDROSEEDING AND SOD PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES Section 2.04, Page 1 HYDROSEEDING AND SOD A. Work includes but is not limited to supply of all labor, materials, and related appurtenances required to install hydroseeded and sod lawn areas. ' 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS i I 1 1 1 I r� A. Coordinate with related work specified in other parts of this Project Manual including: Section 1.00 - General Description of the Work Section 2.01 - Tree Protection Section 2.01 - TESC Section 2.02 - Clearing and Grubbing Section 2.03 - Site Preparation Section 2.05 - Landscaping 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of Workers: Provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type of materials being installed and the proper materials and methods for their installation, and who shall direct all work performed under this Section. This person shall have a minimum of 5 years experience with hydroseeding and/or sod installation operations. Staff shall be of sufficient size to be able to furnish, deliver and install all materials as shown on plans resulting in prompt completion of the work. Submit statement listing quantity and type of equipment proposed for use on the job and the positions and competence of workers employed. B . Standards: 1. Seed a. All seed shall be State of Washington Certified Turfgrass Grass Seed. b . All seed containers shall list the following information: 1.) Name of Producer or Seller 2.) Lot Number 3.) Common name of the variety 4.) Percentage Purity of each species 5.) Percentage Live Seed of each variety expressed by germination. 6.) Percentage of weed or crop seed 7.) Percentage of inert matter 8.) Date when seed was last tested for germination. C. Seed shall meet all minimum requirements of Washington State Law for Certified Turfgrass seed. July 1996 ' GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS WA Section 2.04 Page 2 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED HYDROSEEDING AND SOD 2. Sod- a. All sod shall comply with the State and Federal laws, including quarantines, with respect to inspection, plant ' diseases and insect infestation. Sod shipments shall have a certificate of origin and/or certification of approved treatment when shipment originates in known infected areas. All sod shipments shall contain a "State of Washington Nursery ' Inspection" sticker issued by the Washington State Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industries. b. All sod shall be grown from State of Washington Certified ' Seed of the best quality available. c. All sod shall be Washington State Certified Sod. Sod grown on clay silt is unacceptable. ' 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Certificates: 1. Deliver to Owner certificates demonstrating compliance with seed and sod quality standards. ' 2. Submit two representative sod panels for review by Owner. Submit seed mix and percentage by weight of each seed type used to grow sod. Indicate sod source and contact name and phone number for sod grower. 1.05 SCHEDULE A. Submit a proposed schedule to Owner for approval at least 10 working days prior to start of work under this Section. ' 1.06 PRODUCT HANDLING A. Delivery and Storage: ' 1. Furnish products in manufacturer's standard containers bearing original labels showing date, quantity, analysis and name of manufacturer., 2. Store products with protection from weather or other conditions which would damage or impair the effectiveness of the product. 3. Sod shall be harvested, delivered and installed within a period of 36 hours. Sod not transplanted within this period shall be inspected and approved or rejected by the Owner or his representative prior to ' installation. I July 1996 1 1 I r 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.04, Page 3 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED - HYDROSEEDING AND SOD 1.07 SEEDING SEASON A. Seeding may take place only during the period beginning April 1st and ending October 15th. Do not seed or lay sod during freezing weather or when ground is frozen. 1.08 CLEAN UP A. Keep all areas of work clean, neat and orderly at all times. Keep all paved areas clean during planting and maintenance opperations. Clean up and remove all deleterious materials and debris from the entire work area prior to Final Acceptance to the satisfaction of the Owner. 1.09 LAWN ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD A. Lawn establishment period shall begin immediately following completion of hydroseeding or sodding and shall include any necessary watering, weed control, or repair and re -seeding of damaged or non -germinating areas. B. General: The Seeding/Sod Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials and equipment required to complete the work described herein in strict accordance with the drawings and/or terms of the contract. The Owner shall supply adequate water to the site. C. Watering Sod and Hydroseeded Areas: The Seeding/Sod Contractor shall provide all labor and arrange for all watering necessary for establishment of the seed and sod. In the absence of adequate rainfall, watering shall be performed daily or as often as necessary and in sufficient quantities to maintain moist soil to a depth of at least 4 inches. Watering should be done during the heat of the day to help prevent wilting. D. Mowing: 1. The first mowing shall take place when the lawn reaches 3 inches in height. Cutting height shall be 2 inches. 2. Mow the lawn a second time when it again reaches 3 inches in height. Cutting height shall be 2 inches. 3. Thereafter mowing height shall be maintained between 1-1/2 and 2 inches. E. The Seeding/Sod Contractor shall not be held liable for damages incurred to lawn areas caused by de-icing compounds, fertilizers, pesticides and other materials not applied by him/her or under his/her supervision nor those caused by acts of God or vandalism. 1.10 PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION A. Establishment Maintenance: Establishment maintenance of all hydroseeded and sod lawn areas shall begin immediately upon installation and continue until final acceptance. 1 July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS WA Section 2.04 Page 4 , g GREEN TARA INCORPORATED HYDROSEEDING AND SOD B. Provisional Acceptance Inspection: Notify the Owner at least 24 hours in ' advance of completion of all work and request a Provisional Acceptance Inspection. Following the Provisional Acceptance Inspection, the Owner shall prepare a list of items which need correction or repair by the Contractor. 1.11 90 DAY SOD/HYDROSEED GUARANTEE A. All sod and hydroseeded lawn areas shall be guaranteed to survive in a healthy condition through an establishment.period of ninety (90) days. The establishment period shall commence on the date of preliminary acceptance. ' All sod which, in the Owner's opinion,is not in a healthy growing condition at the end of the establishment period, shall be removed and replaced by the Contractor at his/her own expense. Sod that is replaced shall be of the same mixture and grade as the surviving sod. All replaced sod is subject to a subsequent 90-day guarantee period(s). 1.12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE ' A. A final lawn (hydroseed and/or sod) inspection will be held between the Seeding/Sod Contractor and the Owner at the end of the 90-day establishment period or after the second mowing, whichever occurs later. ' Acceptance of lawn areas shall be based on a uniform stand of grass. Areas which are bare or not having a uniform grade of grass shall be re -seeded or re -sodded by the Seeding/Sod Contractor at no additional cost to the Owner. Re -seeding and re -sodding shall conform to all specification requirements. It shall be the Seeding/Sod Contractor's responsibility to notify the Owner 24 hours prior to the anticipated meeting. ' PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 HYDROSEED A. Seed: ' 1. Seed shall conform to the standards for "Certified" grade seed or better as outlined by the State of Washington Department of Agriculture "Rules for Seed Certification", latest edition. Seed ' which has become wet, moldy,or otherwise damaged in transit or storage will not be accepted. 1 1 2. Seed Mixture Percentage Guaranteed by: Weight Seed Tyne Purity 20% Annual, Perennial or Hybrid Rye Grass 90 - 98% 40% Creeping Red Fescue 90 - 98% 40% White Clover 90 - 98% As available from D-F Marks Co., Woodinville, Washington (206) 485-3802 or approved substitute. July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.04, Page 5 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED ' HYDROSEEDING AND SOD B . Wood Cellulose Fiber Mulch: 1. Wood cellulose fiber mulch shall be specially processed wood fiber ' containing no growth or germination inhibiting factors and shall be dyed a green color to facilitate inspection of the placement of ' material. It shall be manufactured in such a manner that after addition and agitation in slurring tanks with water, the fibers in the material will become uniformly suspended to form a homogeneous slurry. When hydraulically sprayed on the ground, the material shall allow the absorption and percolation of moisture. 2. Each package of the cellulose fiber shall be marked by the manufacturer to show the air dry weight content. All mulch material ' must be acceptable to the Owner. C . Tackifier: Tackifier shall be of the type that binds the mulch to itself and to the soil. It shall be a clear non -staining latex based tackifier or a water soluble polymer. D. Water Soluble Fertilizer: 1 Water Soluble Fertilizer shall be a standard commercial grade of organic or inorganic fertilizer of the kind and quality specified ' herein. It shall be applied at 400 # per acre of 10-20-20 (10 lbs per 1100 square feet) or equivalent. 2. All fertilizers shall be furnished in standard unopened containers with weight, name of plant nutrients, and manufacturer's guaranteed statement of analysis clearly marked, all in accordance with State ' and Federal Laws. 2.02 SOD A. Class and Composition: 1. Washington State Certified Sod with no more than 1 % non -specified ' grasses. 2. Lawn type sod compatible in cultural requirements, horticultural ' characteristics and appearance to hydroseed mix specified herein. B . Thickness of Cut: Sod shall be machine cut at a uniform soil thickness of 5/8-inch, plus or minus 1/4-inch, at the time of cutting. Measurement for thickness shall exclude top growth and thatch. C. Pad Size: Individual pieces of sod shall be cut to 18 inches width and 80 inches length. Maximum allowable deviation from standard widths and ' lengths shall be plus or minus 1/2 inch on width and plus or minus 5% on length. Broken pads and torn or uneven ends will not be acceptable. ' D. Strength of Sod Sections: Standard size sections of sod shall be strong enough to support their own weight and retain their size and shape when suspended vertically from a firm grasp on the upper 10% of the section. ' July 1996 I 1 1 1 I 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.04, Page 6 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED HYDROSEEDING AND SOD E. Moisture Content: Sod shall not be harvested or transplanted when moisture content (excessively dry or wet) may adversely affect its survival. F . Age: Not less than 10 months or more than 30 months old. G. Mowing; Height: Before stripping for shipment, sod shall. be mowed uniformly at a height of 1 to 2-1/2 inches. H. Diseases, Nematodes, Insects: Sod shall be reasonably free of diseases, nematodes, and soil -borne insects. I. Weeds: Sod shall be free of objectionable grassy and broad leaf weeds. Sod shall be considered free of such weeds if less than 5 such plants are found per 100 square feet of area. Sod will not be acceptable if it contains any of the following weeds: quackgrass, johnsongrass, nutsedge, numbleweeed, Canada thistle, bindweed, bentgrass, wild garlic, ground ivy, perennial sorrel, and bromegrass. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 SEED AND SOD BED PREPARATION A. Finish Grading: Topsoil for seeded areas will be spread by the Contractor. Finish grade all areas to be seeded only as required to repair imperfections, to achieve a smooth, natural transition to adjacent areas, and to maintain positive surface drainage. B. Seed Bed Preparation: 1. Immediately after topsoil has been spread and fine grading completed, but before seeding, scarify, loosen, float, and drag topsoil as necessary to bring it to the proper friable condition. Remove any foreign matter larger than 2 inches in diameter. 2. Roll seed and sod beds with a water ballast roller weighing 60 - 70 lbs. per linear foot as required to achieve specified compaction per Section 2.4 - Site Preparation. Rake lightly to remove stones or debris with any dimension greater that 1/2 inch and bring finish grade to one inch below tops of curbs, walks, existing sod or other horizontal surfaces. Final grade shall be free of any depressions holding water and shall have a uniform slope. C . Hydroseed and /or apply sod immediately after bed preparation. 3.02 HYDROSEEDING OPERATIONS A. Hydroseeding shall be done with an approved hydroseeder which utilizes water as the carrying agent, and maintains continuous agitation to keep seed, fertilizer, tackifier and other approved additives in the slurry, mixed and suspended homogeneously until pumped from the tank. The hydroseeder shall be equipped with a set of hydraulic discharge spray nozzles, which will provide a uniform distribution of the slurry over the area to be seeded. The seeding slurry shall consist of these ingredients, to be applied at the following rates per acre: 1 July 1996 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.04, Page 7 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED HYDROSEEDING AND SOD Wood fiber mulch 1,000 lbs. / acre slopes 3:1 or less 1,4001bs. / acre slopes greater than 3:1 I Vl1 4001bs Seed(total) * 80 lbs Tackifier 401bs * Total grass seed mix weight Water used shall be obtain from fresh water sources and shall be free from injurious chemicals and other toxic substances and shall be approved by the Owner at least two weeks prior to use. Meters are available from the City of Edmonds Department of Public Works to tap the new water hydrant to be located near the project's entrance. 2. Mixtures shall be constantly agitated from the time they are mixed until they are finally applied to the seed bed. Mixtures shall be used within eight hours of the time at which they were mixed, or else they shall be wasted and legally disposed of off site. 3. Mixtures shall be applied with a high-pressure spray which shall always be directed upward into the air so that the mixture falls to the ground in a uniform spray. 4. Exercise particular care to insure that the application is made uniformly and at the prescribed rate. The spray method shall not be used during times of high wind. 5. Seed and commercial fertilizer applied by the spray method need not be raked into the soil. B. Protection of Adjacent Areas: Hydroseeding shall be executed without compacting, disrupting, or overseeding adjacent planting areas or paved areas. 3.03 SODDING OPERATIONS A. Moistening the Soil: During periods of high temperature and after all unevenness in the soil surface has been corrected, the soil shall be lightly irrigated immediately prior to laying the sod. B. Starter Strip: The first row of sod shall be laid in a straight line with subsequent rows placed parallel to and tightly against each other. Lateral joints shall be staggered to promote more uniform growth and strength. Care shall be exercised to ensure that the sod is not stretched or overlapped and that all joints are butted tight in order to prevent voids which would cause air drying of the roots. C. Sloping Surfaces: On sloping areas where erosion may be a problem, sod shall be laid with staggered joints and secured by tamping, pegging or other approved methods. J July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.04, Page 8 ' GREEN TARA INCORPORATED HYDROSEEDING AND SOD D. Top Dress Fertilizer: Apply top dress fertilizer at the rate of seven (7) pounds per 1000 square feet. E. Watering and Rolling: Contractor shall water sod immediately after installation to prevent excessive drying during progress of the work. As sodding is completed in any one section, the entire area shall be rolled. It shall then be thoroughly irrigated to a depth sufficient that the underside of the new sod pad and soil immediately below the sod are thoroughly wet. The General Contractor shall be responsible for having adequate water available at the site prior to and during installation of sod. F. Protection of Adjacent Hydroseed Areas: Sodding shall be executed without compaction or disturbance of adjacent seeded areas or vice -versa if sequence is reversed. END OF SECTION I 1 1 1 fl July 1996 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.05, Page 1 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING ' SECTION 02.5 - LANDSCAPING IPART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES �( A. Work includes but is not limited to supply of trees, groundcovers, shrubs, fine grading, topsoil, and planting mixture. 1.02 RELATED SECTIONS A. Coordinate with related work specified in other parts of this Project Manual including: Section 1.00 - Work Description Section 2.01 - Tree Protection Section 2.01 - TESC Section 2.02 - Clearing and Grubbing Section 2.03 - Site Preparation Section 2.04 - Hydroseeding and Sod 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications of Workers: Provide at least one person who shall be present at all times during execution of this portion of the work, who shall be thoroughly familiar with the type of materials being installed and the proper materials and methods for their installation, and who shall direct all work performed under this Section. This person shall have a minimum of 5 years experience in handling plants equal in size to those specified. Staff shall be of sufficient size to be able to furnish, deliver and install all materials as shown on plans resulting in prompt completion of the work. Submit statement listing quantity and type of equipment proposed for use on the the employed. job and positions and competence of workers B. Standards: 1. All plants and planting materials shall meet or exceed the specifications of Federal State and local laws requiring inspection for plant disease and insect control. 2. Quality and size shall conform or exceed standards in the current issue of the "American Standard for Nursery Stock" published by the American Association of Nurserymen. 3. Plant names shall conform to Standardized Plant Names (2nd Edition, '1942), American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature. 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Certificates: Deliver all certificates to the Owner. I July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.05, Page 2 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING 1. Invoice: Vendor or grower's invoice for each shipment of plants shall show botanical names, sizes, quantities, and root treatment of plants, i.e., containerized, balled and burlapped, or bare root. 2. Toxic Chemicals: Submit product and manufacturer names, rates of application, and anticipated uses of pesticides, herbicides, and fumigants. 1.05 SELECTION, TAGGING AND ORDERING OF PLANTS A. Inspection: Plants may be inspected by the Owner at the place of growth and /or upon delivery to the project site for conformity to specifications. Such inspection shall not impair the right of inspection and rejection during progress of the work. 1.06 SUBSTITUTIONS A. Substitutions of plants will not be permitted unless authorized by the Owner. 1.07 WORK SCHEDULE A. Submit a proposed work schedule to the Owner for review at least 10 days prior to start of work under this Section. After acceptance, no modification shall be made to this schedule without the Owner's authorization. Indicate the dates of each of the following items: 1. Tagging of Plants in nurseries 2. Delivery of other materials to the site. 3. Preparation of sod and hydroseed beds. 4. Spreading and fine grading of topsoil. . 5. Staking of plant locations on the site. 6. Digging and preparation of plant pits and beds. 7. Delivery of plants to the site. 8. Planting. 9. Substantial Completion of the work. B. In general, the work shall proceed as rapidly as the site becomes available, consistent with normal seasonal limitation for planting work, and with the coordination and sequencing of other trades as required. 1.08 PRODUCT HANDLING A. Delivery and Storage 1. Furnish products in manufacturer's standard unopened, dated containers bearing original labels showing quantity, analysis and .�. name of manufacturer. 2. Store products with protection from weather or other conditions which damage or impair the effectiveness of the product. 3. Notify Owner of all delivery times. July 1996 e GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.05, Pa 3 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING B. Plants 1. Shipping shall be scheduled to minimize on -site storage of plants. Stock shall not be shipped until the planting preparations have been completed. 2. Labels: Shipment of plants shall be clearly identified with legible labels stating correct botanical name and size of plant securely attached to individual plants or to bundles of like variety and size. bound in 3. During shipment, plants shall not be bent, stacked, or a manner that damages bark, breaks branches, deforms root balls, or destroys natural shape. 4. Transport plant material in closed vehicles or in open vehicles with the entire load properly covered for protection from drying winds, heat, freezing, or other exposure that may be harmful. Spray plants with antidessicant prior to shipping. 5. Install all plants immediately upon delivery to the site. If delays to planting which are beyond the Landscape Contractor's control occur after delivery, plants shall be kept watered and protected from sun, wind, and mechanical damage; root balls shall be covered with topsoil or mulch. Do not remove container -gown stock from containers until planting times. Heel in bare root plants in moist soil immediately upon delivery. Open bundles of plants and separate the plants before the roots are covered. Take care to prevent air pockets among roots when heeling in. Keep the roots constantly moist until planted. The heeling in grounds shall be a well -protected, shaded area approved by the Owner. 6. Handle plants at all times in accordance with the best horticultural practices. Lift B&B materials from the bottom of the ball only. Plants handled otherwise will be subject to rejection. Balled and burlapped plants which have cracked or broken balls are not acceptable and shall not be planted. 7. Immediately remove from site and legally dispose of all plants which are not true to name or which do not comply with specified requirements. 1.09 PLANTING SEASON LIMITS A. Bare root and balled plants shall be planted from November 1st through June 30th. At no time shall bare root plants be planted after leafing out. Boxed or containerized plants may be planted at any ■, time. B . No planting shall take place during freezing weather or when ground is frozen or muddy without the Owner's approval. July 1996 , GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDM NDS WA Section 2.05, Page 4 O GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING 1.10 CLEAN UP A. Keep all areas of work clean, neat and orderly at all times. Keep all paved areas clean during planting and maintenance operations. Clean up and remove all deleterious materials and debris from the entire work area prior to Final Acceptance to the satisfaction of the Owner. 1.11 MAINTENANCE A. Begin maintenance immediately after each plant and each portion of work is installed and continue until Final Acceptance at the end of the warranty period. B. Maintenance of new planting shall consist of watering, cultivating, weeding, mulching, re -staking, tightening and repairing of guys, resetting plants to proper grades or upright position, restoration of the planting saucer, and furnishing and applying such sprays and invigorants as are necessary to keep the planting free of insects and disease and in thriving condition. 1.12 ACCEPTANCE A. Provisional Acceptance Inspection: 1. Make written request for inspection after planting operations have been completed and at least 10 days prior to anticipated. date. Subsequent to the inspection, the Owner will prepare a notice of provisional acceptance along with a list of items requiring completion or correction by the Contractor. 2. Issuance of the notice of provisional acceptance shall constitute the start of the warranty period only for the portion rof the work accepted. B . Final Acceptance Inspection: 1. A final inspection will be held between the Landscape Contractor and the Owner at the end of the one-year warranty period. It shall be the Landscape Contractor's responsibility to notify the Owner about the anticipated meeting. Final acceptance will be acknowledged in writing by the Owner. 1.13 WARRANTY PERIOD AND REPLACEMENTS A. General: Landscape Contractor shall warrant that all plants planted under this Contract will be healthy and in a flourishing condition of active growth one year from date of Provisional Acceptance. B. Warranty Extension: Any delay in completion of planting operations which extends the planting into more than one planting season shall extend the Warranty Period correspondingly. iJuly 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED C . Plant Replacements: Section 2.05, Page 5 LANDSCAPING 1. Replace, without cost to Owner, and as soon as weather conditions permit, all dead plants and all plants not in a vigorous, thriving condition, as determined by the Owner during and at the end of Warranty Period. Plants shall be free of dead or dying branches and branch- tips, and shall bear foliage of a normal density, size and color. Replacements shall equal or exceed requirements of this specification and shall equal the average size of the surviving species and be of the same kind to match adjacent specimens. 2. Landscape Contractor shall not be held responsible for failures due to neglect by Owner, vandalism, or acts of God during the Warranty Period. 3. The warranty on plants shall be limited to one replacement unless installation of plant does not meet these specifications. Replacement shall be made promptly. Fully restore areas damaged by replacement operations to their original and specified condition. PART 2 - MATERIALS 2.01 PLANTS A General: 1. Plant Quantities: Total number of plants shall be as drawn on the landscape plan. If this total number differs from the quantity specified in the plant list it is assumed that the greater number has been included in the bid price. 2. Plants shall be nursery grown in accordance with good horticultural practices under climatic conditions similar to those of. the project site for at least two years unless otherwise authorized by the Owner. Unless noted otherwise on the drawings, all plants shall be of specimen quality. B. Specimen Plants: Plants indicated as specimen shall be exceptionally heavy, symmetrical, and tightly knit, cultured to be unquestionably superior in form, branching, compactness, and symmetry. C. Plant Health: Plants shall be sound, healthy and vigorous, well branched and densely foliated when in leaf. They shall be free of disease, insect pests, eggs, or larvae, and shall have healthy, well developed root systems. They shall be free from physical damage or adverse conditions that would prevent thriving growth. D. Plant Size: Plants shall be true to species and variety and shall 11 conform to measurements specified except that plants larger than July 1996 I 1 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED Section 2.05, Page 6 LANDSCAPING specified may be used if accepted by the Owner. Use of such plants shall not increase Contract price. Height and spread dimensions specified refer to main body of plant and not branch tip to tip. Caliper measurement shall be taken at a point on the trunk 6 inches above the natural ground line for trees over 4 inches in caliper, and at a point 12 inches above the natural ground line for trees under 4 inches in caliper. If a range of size is given, no plant shall be less than the minimum size and not less than 40% of the plants shall be as large as the maximum size specified. The measurements specified are the minimum size acceptable and are the measurements after pruning, where pruning is required. Unless otherwise designated, all plant dimensions shall conform to those listed in ANSE A60.1, American Standard for Nursery Stock, most recent edition. E. Labels: Label all plants with durable, legible labels stating correct botanical plant name and size. Attache securely to each plant. F . Root Treatment: Root treatments on all plants shall conform to the requirements of ANSI Z60.1 Plants shall be dug and prepared for shipment in a manner that will not cause damage to branches, shape or future development after planting. 1. Balled and burlapped ("B&B") plants shall have a firm, natural ball of earth of sufficient diameter and depth to encompass the fibrous and feeding root systems necessary for full recovery of the plant. Balls shall be securely wrapped with burlap and bound with cord. Ball sizes shall meet the requirements of the ANSI Z60.1. 2. Plants furnished in containers shall have the roots well established in the soil mass and shall have grown in the container for at least 6 months, but not over two years. Containers shall be large enough to provide earth -root mass of adequate size to support the plant tops being grown. Plants, other that ground covers, over established in the container, as evidenced by pot-bound root ends, will not be accepted. 3. Bare root plants shall have a root spread sufficient to insure full recovery and development of the plant. Take care to avoid injury to, or removal of, fibrous roots. Carefully protect roots with wet straw, moss or other materials so that the plants arrive with their roots in a moist and healthy condition. Remove broken and injured roots prior to planting. G . Damaged Plants: Plants shall not be pruned before delivery. Trees which have damaged or crooked leaders, or multiple leaders, unless specified, will be rejected. Trees with abrasions of the bark, sunscalds, disfiguring knots, or fresh cuts of limbs over 3/4 inch will be rejected. July 1996 1 i r_J 1 1 11 1 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.05, Page 7 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING 2.02 PLANTING MIXTURE A. Shall consist of a thorough mixture by volume of. 50% Approved topsoil 20% Sand (max. 10% over #1/4; min. 30% through max. 35% through #100; blend sand) 20% On -site native soil 10% Canadian sphagnum peat moss Fertilizer amendment per soil analysis B . Topsoil: The topsoil shall be friable surface soil from the A horizon as determined by the United States Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey. It shall be natural, friable, fertile, fine loamy soil possessing the characteristics of representative topsoils in the vicinity which produce a heavy growth. It shall be free from subsoil, objectionable weeds, litter, sods, stiff clay, stones larger than one inch in diameter, stumps, roots, trash, toxic substances, or any other material which may be harmful to plant growth or hinder seeding operations. It shall have a minimum pH of 6.0 and a maximum pH of 7.0 and be obtained from naturally well -drained areas. 100% of the topsoil shall pass through a 1-inch screen. Maximum Electrical Conductivity shall be 10%. C. If requested by the Owner, topsoil shall be tested for suitability for intended use and compliance with these specifications. Soil Testing shall be performed by an accredited soils laboratory accepted by the Owner's Representative. Cost of soil testing to be paid by the Owner. 2.03 FERTILIZER A. General: Standard commercial grade of organic or inorganic fertilizer containing the percentage of total nitrogen, available phosporic and acid and water soluble potash in amount specified below. Furnish in standard dated, unopened containers with weight, name of plant nutrients and manufacturer's guaranteed statement of analysis clearly marked, in accordance with state and federal laws. B. Soil Amendment Fertilizer. Shall consist of the following and shall be mixed by commercial fertilizer supplier at rates recommended by the approved soils testing laboratory: Ureaform or Urea Formaldehyde Superphosphate (0-10-0) Potassium sulfate Dolomite limestone Trace elements C . Top -dress Fertilizer: Complete fertilizer, wax -coated pellet with the following percentage analysis: 15 - Nitrogen 5 - Phosphorus 7 - Potassium July 1996 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.05, Page 8 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING 2.04 MULCH A. Mulch shall be GroCo, a composted sawdust/sludge mixture as available from: Sawdust Supply 15 S. Spokane Street Seattle, WA 98134 206-622-3476 or accepted substitute. Sample shall be submitted to the Owner's Representative. 2.05 ANTI -DESICCANT A. Wilt-Pruf, by Nursery Specialty Products, Inc. 202 East 47th Street New York, N.Y. 10017 or accepted substitute 2.06 DOLOMITE LIME A. Agricultural grade mineral soil conditioner containing 35% minimum magnesium carbonate and 49% minimum calcium carbonate, 100% passing No.65 sieve. Kaiser Dolomite 65 AG or accepted substitute. 2.07 WRAPPING AND STAKING MATERIALS A. Wrapping Material: Standard 6" wide burlap wrap as approved by the American Association of Nurserymen. B. Rubber Hose: Shall be black 2-ply fabric bearing hose with a 1/2" inside diameter. C. Twine: Jute, minimum 2-ply. D. Burlan: Shall be made of jute and shall weigh not less than 7.2 ounces per square yard. Substitute material shall possess equal strength, permeability, and resistance to tearing. E. Tree Stakes: 2" x 2" x required height construction grade Douglas Fir pre -stained dark brown. Height must be sufficient to be secured in a minimum of 12" undisturbed native soil or compacted sub - grade. F . Wire: Shall be 14-gauge galvanized wire. 2.08 HERBICIDE PRODUCTS A. Herbicide products, rates and methods of application to conform with registered uses. 2.09 PIT RUN GRAVEL A. Clean, washed 1/2" minus, no fines. July 1996 SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS WA Section 2.05, Pa GREENNESS S e 9 g GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 DIGGING AND HANDLING rA. Anti -Desiccant Application: Apply on deciduous trees or shrubs in leaf and evergreen trees. or shrubs before being dug, following manufacturer's instructions. After planting and watering, spray plants which need further protection. B. Bare Root Plants: Plants designated BR in the plant list are to be dug with substantially all the root system intact, and with the earth carefully removed from the roots. After they are dug, protect the roots by puddling or other means to prevent drying. C. Container Grown Plants: Plants which have been grown in containers shall have earth intact after removal, without being rootbound. Do not remove from containers until ready for planting. D. Ball and Burlap: Plants designated B&B on plant list are to have firm natural balls of soil in sizes shown in American Standard for Nursery Stock for their designated sizes; wrapped firmly with burlap or substitute in material as specified, bound carefully with twine, cord, or wire mesh; covered with moist soil, mulch, or other protection. 3.02 LAYOUT AND EXCAVATION OF PLANT PITS AND LANDSCAPE BEDS A. Layout: Layout plants or stake positions in locations shown on drawings. Owner will review proposed location of plants in the field and shall direct adjustments to exact position before planting begins. Owner reserves right to refuse inspection if, in his opinion, an insufficient quantity of plants is available for layout check. ' B. Excavation: 1. Take care and had dig pits or beds when encountering root systems of existing trees to remain. Excavate tree, shrub and groundcover areas per drawings and specifications. 2. Subsoil Removal: Separate subgrade soils from the upper topsoil portions as required and remove from planting area during planting operations. Loosen subgrade in pits and beds to a depth indicated on drawings and recompact per Section 2.03. Thoroughly scarify sides and bottoms of all planting pits. 3.03 DRAINAGE, OBSTRUCTIONS AND DETRIMENTAL SOILS A. Detrimental Soils: Notify Owner in writing of any soil or drainage conditions detrimental to growth of plants. IJuly 1996 1 1 rj 1 11 1 i 1 11 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED Section 2.05, Page 10 LANDSCAPING B. Obstructions: If rock, underground construction work, tree roots or other obstructions are encountered in the excavation of plant pits, alternate locations may be selected by the Owner. Where locations cannot be changed, submit costs required to remove the obstructions to a depth of not less than 6" below the required pit depth. Proceed with work after approval of the Owner. 3.04 PREPARATION OF SOD AND HYDROSEED BEDS A. Thoroughly scarify subgrade to a depth of 4" - 6", all areas to receive sod or seed which have become compacted beyond the specified limits indicated in Section 2.04. Remove all stones larger than 2" diameter and thoroughly break clods and lumps of soil. Recompact to 85% of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 and lightly scarify surface. B. Spread 4" of topsoil, compacted to 75% maximum dry density per ASTM D1557, in all areas to receive sod and seed. Fine grade (per Section 2.3) and rake topsoil. Maintain finish grade of topsoil 1" below top of adjacent paving or curb after compaction and before sod installation or hydroseeding.. Grades shall slope to drain, be free of depressions or other irregularities, and shall be uniform in slope between grading controls and the elevations indicated on the Grading Plan. C. Coordinate timing of sod and hydroseed bed preparation with hydroseeding and sodding operations. 3.05 PLANT PLACEMENT A. General: Protect plants at all times from sun or drying winds prior to planting. Plants that cannot be planted immediately on delivery shall be kept in the shade, well protected, and shall be kept well watered. B. Container Removal: Container stock shall be removed carefully after containers have been cut on two sides with approved cutter. Do not use spade to cut cans. Do not lift or handle container plants by tops, stems, or trunks at any time. After removing plant from container, scarify side of rootball to prevent rootbound condition. C. Placement: Use planting mixture to back -fill plant pits per drawings. Place plant and rotate to best advantage from adjacent walkways, etc. except cercidiphyllum which must by planted to conform to same compass bearing as grown. While holding plant in desired position, remove burlap from top and sides, cut and adjust to prevent formation of air pockets. Do not pull burlap from under the root balls. Cut and remove any twine or wire that may interfere with trunk growth. If any plastic wrap or other non -degradable materials are used in lieu of burlap, completely and carefully remove them before placing of backfill. Do not damage root ball. Place planting mixture around ball and carefully compact until plant pits have been backfilled approximately 2/3 full. Completely water, before installing remainder of the planting mixture, to eliminate all air pockets. Water again to thoroughly saturate top 1/3 of planting mixture after completion of backfilling. July 1996 1 F 1 1 1 Ll 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA Section 2.05, Page 11 GREEN TARA INCORPORATED LANDSCAPING D. Mulch: 1. Smooth planting area to conform to specified grades after full settlement has occurred. 2. Mulch all pits and beds with a 2-inch layer of specified mulch within 48 hrs. of planting. Feather mulch at trunk of trees so that depth of mulch at trunk is 1/2" deep maximum. 3. Immediately saturate planting area immediately with water. 3.06 GUYING AND STAKING A. Immediately after planting, guy and stake in accordance with planting details. Plants shall stand plumb after guying. Guy trees making sure that the rubber hose provides ongoing adequate protection for the tree trunk. Guy trees so as to provide adequate room for two years of tree growth. Trees damaged by guy wire will be subject to rejection. 3.07 PRUNING A. Prune Plants only after planting and according to standard horticultural practice to preserve the natural character of the plant. Pruning to be done only by personnel experienced in the work. Remove all dead wood, suckers and broken or badly bruised branches. Use .only clean, sharp tools. Remove and legally dispose of all trimmings offsite. 3.08 TOP DRESS FERTILIZER A. First Application: Immediately after complete mulching of tree, shrub and groundcover beds, apply Top Dress Fertilizer at the rate of seven (7) pounds per 1000 square feet. B. Subsequent Applications: Beginning April 15 and extending to August 15 of the first full growing season, make monthly 'applications of Top Dress Fertilizer to all tree, shrub and groundcover beds at the rate of seven (7) pounds per 1000 square feet. C. Soil Fertilizer Analysis: If requested by Owner's Representative, obtain soil fertilizer analysis at any time during the Top Dress Fertilizer period. Such analysis to be from an accredited soils laboratory. Costs of testing to be paid by Owner. Submit results'of testing to the Owner's Representative. Increase in cost due to modification of rates or interval of Top Dress Fertilizer application shall be paid as extra work. 3.09 CLEANUP AND PROTECTION A. Cleanup: Excess and waste material shall be removed and legally disposed of offsite daily. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 GREENNESS SHORT PLAT - EDMONDS, WA GREEN TARA INCORPORATED July 1996 Section 2.05, Page 12 LANDSCAPING 2. When planting in an area has been completed, the area shall be cleared of all debris, soil, piles, and containers. B. Repairs: Any damage to existing landscape to remain, paving, utilities, or other site features resulting from the work of this section shall be repaired by the Landscape Contractor to its original condition at no cost to the Owner. C . Protection: Protect landscape work and materials from damage due to landscape operations or operations by other Contractors and trades. Maintain protection during installation and maintenance periods, Treat, repair, or replace damaged landscape work as directed. END OF SECTION July 1996 II. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES 1 1 1 Ear � consul Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Geology 12893 N.E. 15th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98005 / Phone: (206) 455-2018 December 3, 1979 E-1165 ' Ira Paul and Partners 2134 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. Ira Paul Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Russell Residence 16200 - 72nd Avenue West �I Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and within the scope of our proposal dated September 7, 1979 this report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soil con- ditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation and retaining wall design. included test 9 The scope of our study analyses, and thespreparationyofethis report. engineering Our study indicates that the site is underlain at shallow depths by firm natural soils. ported on conventional footings Tbearhe ing oindthese lfirm ingmnativesup- soils. The following sections describe the study and ex recommendations in greater detail. plain our PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building location were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 1. This is based on a Site Plan by Ira Paul and Partners, P. S. rIt is planned to construct a two-story, with a three-story tower on the east side. The ohousemwill ebeing located near the top of the existing slope. The first floor is planned at approximately El. 308. Planned building be on the order of 2500 pounds per lineal foot along loads will walls. g perimeter i Zra Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page Two For the proposed first floor grade at El. 308, we expect that a maximum cut of about 6.5 feet will be required along the east side of the - building. rIf any of the above design criteria change, we should be con- sulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In ' any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be pro- vided the opportunity for a general review of final design. ' FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field investigation was performed on November 6, 1979. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating three test pits to a maximum depth of 7 feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations as shown on Plate 1. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by tape measurements from staked building corners. Elevations of tests pits were approximately determined by interpolation between ' plan contours. The location and elevation of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. ' The field investigation was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained repre- sentative bulk soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 2, ' Legend. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 3 and 4, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpre- tations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. Representative soil samples from the.test P were its laced in P closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples. Field moisture determinations were performed on each bulk sample. Results of the moisture determinations together with classifica- tions, are shown on the test pits logs included in this report. The results of the sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 5. i�SITE CONDITIONS Surface rI The site is located on a west facing hillslope on the west side of 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is approximately 133 by 156 feet in plan dimension with a total of ' Earth Consultants, Inc. Ira Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page Three �about 40 feet of relief. The site is stepped down towards the west in three benches with rockeries and concrete stairs. An } old dwelling was located in the northern half of the site, with �y concrete slabs, footings and stairs remaining. Vegetation along the hillside consists mainly of grass, some shrubs and a few older fir and hemlock trees on the south side. No seepage or surface i water was noted at the time of our investigation. Subsurface The site is immediately underlain by up to 18 inches of silty topsoil. Below the topsoil, the test pits excavated on the site encountered medium dense to dense clean fine to medium sand and ' sandy gravels to the depths explored. This sand stratum is the advance unit of the Vashon drift called the Esperance sand and was deposited as the Puget lobe of the larger Continental Glacia- tion advanced into the Puget Sound lowland, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. This sand and gravel was deposited directly in front of the advancing ice sheet by glacial meltwater streams. The ice reached a maximum thickness of approximately between 3000 ' - 4000 feet in this area. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits dur- ing our investigation. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General From a soil engineering standpoint, we conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided our recommendations are incorporated into the project design and con- struction. The primary geotechnical factors that should be con- sidered in site development are: 1. Disturbed materials below the site. 2. Surface runoff. 3. Old rockeries and building foundations. The site slopes were observed to be in a generally stable condition. Since benches had previously been formed on the site along with construction of rockeries, the potential exists for some disturbed and/or loosened material to be present within the building area. Foundations for the building should therefore be extended to a depth below that of this possible loose zone. In conjunction with the above, it is essential that surface runoff on the slopes be properly controlled. Uncontrolled, sur- F- Consultants, Inc. Ira Paul and Partners December 3, 1979 E-1165 Page Four face runoff could cause excessive erosion which could result in possible slope instability. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of the project which should be incorporated into the project design and construction. This report has been prepared for the exclu- sive use of Mr. and Mrs. Allard Russell and their representatives for specific application to this project in accordance with gen- erally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other war- ranty, expressed or implied, is made. Foundations ' The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread and / or continuous footings founded on the medium dense to dense nat- ural soils beneath the loose surficial soils. We recommend that the building be supported on natural soils only. Footings should be at a minimum depth of 36 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A minimum width of 18 inches should be used for continuous footings. No footings should be located closer than 5 feet from the edge of steep or benched slopes. The footings should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3500 pounds per ' square foot, for dead plus live loads. All footings should be tied together in a continuous rigid grid, which can span local irregularities in the subsurface. We suggest that all footings also be designed to structurally span a distance of 10 feet. A one-third increase over the above bearing pressure may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. For -footings ' designed in accordance with these recommendations, we estimate that total settlements will be less that 1 inch with differential settlement less than 1/2 inch. ' All footings should be examined by qualified geotechnical per-sonnel sonnel to verify that soil bearing conditions will be as antici- pated. ° Floor Slabs Floor slabs, if used, may be supported on the acted nat- ural soil. We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of free draining granular soil be placed beneath all slabs. A vapor barrier should be installed between the floor slab and underlying soils in areas where moisture is undesirable. Lateral Loads Resistance to lateral forces may be developed by passive pres- sures and/or friction between concrete and soil. Passive pressures firth Consultants, Inc. 1 ' Ira Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page Five may be assumed to be equal to those imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used for soil - concrete interfaces. Basement Walls ' Basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by retained native soils or backfill. Walls that are free to deflect one -thousandth of their height at the top should be designed to resist the pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 35 pcf. If walls will be restrained at the top, they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. The above design pressures assume a maximum wall height of 8 feet and that no surcharge slopes or loads will develop above the walls. If these assumptions are not considered valid, we should be contacted for the appropriate design criteria. ' Subsurface Drainage Footing drains should be planned around the proposed struc- ture, as well as the basement. In addition, a detailed evaluation should be made during construction to determine if any additional subsurface drainage measures are warranted. Surface Drainage Positive gradients should be provided adjacent to the build- ing to direct all runoff away from the building and towards suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of water should not be permitted. Surface runoff should also not be permitted to flow ' in an uncontrolled manner over the'top or on the face of any slopes. Also, the discharge from roof gutters should not be allowed to enter the perimeter footing drains. The flow should be carried in tight lines to suitable storm drainage facilities. Site Preparation We recommend that fills, except for minor amounts should be avoided on the site. The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all debris, including old foundations, ' rockeries, buried tanks, vegetation, tree roots, and existing topsoil. After excavation to finished grades, the resulting sur- face should be proofrolled to detect any loose areas or soft Spots. Any such zones noted should be overexcavated to their full depth and replaced by structural fill. Proofrolling operations should be monitored by Earth Consultants, Inc. ' If -fills are used, they should be benched into firm natural ground as they are placed. 1 Earth Consultants, Inc. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ira Paul and Partners E-1165 December 3, 1979 Page Six Any required structural fill should be placed in 8-inch loose horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-70. On - site soils, where free from organic matter and if not excessively moist, may be used as structural fill for dry weather construc- tion. However, some of these materials contain a moderate amount of fines and may be difficult to compact under wet conditions. Hence, if wet weather conditions are encountered and if fill is to be imported, we recommend that the materials be predominantly gran- ular containing no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. All fills should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer. All permanent fill and cut slopes should be made at an inclin- ation no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Temporary con- struction slopes should be made at an inclination no steeper than 1:1. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with suit- able species of vegetation soon after completion to reduce erosion potential. Slopes Based on the results of our geologic reconnaissance and our test pit study, it is our opinion that the site's slopes are pres- ently stable and the development may proceed as planned. We conducted a reconnaissance of the slopes and found them to be generally stable. The existing slopes have a ground cover and vegetation that protects them from excessive erosion. This vegetation and cover should be allowed to remain wherever possi- ble. Exposed slopes should be planted with an adequate fast growing cover to reduce the potential for erosion. All downspouts should be connected to yard drainage lines 'draining off the building site or into a wet well and not allowed to flow over the slopes. The intent is that yard drainage from the improved building lot over the top of the bank would not be 'greater in volume or velocity than exists in the natural state unless mitigated by storm drainage improvements. Additional Services It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommenda- tions may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. ' The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and ' F- consultants, Inc. ..25 z� 9 0 IL Ig� a _ •'S•t :••':,:LLLt i1� t:,t�::• ALL;• �' `L 1 / / / � -- \ \ N N 1 7� 3 a c ti LEGEND 61 TP-1 APProximate Test Pit Location �1 Contour Interval 5 ft. '= Existing Structure Approximate Scale O 10 20 40 60 ft. Site Plan Undated Ref. Ina Paul $ Partners, P.S. Earth Consultants Iee. GEOTECNMICAL ENQINEERIOM Test Pit Location Plan Proposed Russell Residence Edmonds, Washington P►'oj•No.1165 Date Nov.'79 Plate I .vli ,/LJrt UivIJJUNJ COANIE GNAIM[D foils ,jrt-rn a_:.. i I CR YMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS 0, .7.0 0• GRAVEL :O O .. O �.O G W WELL•MAKO MAv[lS, $RAYSI• SANS s o• ' ' AND CLAN GRAVELS '0 � 0 • • Q 0 MIIXTUIIES, LITTLE OR RO /tw[E eRAV[LLY (little et notle•e) A : fall i..• . �.. • • G P FOORIt-SHAKO SRA 1lEu, SIIAVEL- f:.f SANK MR URGES, LITTLE OR No /IM[S Now TNAM fo% OF COARSE FRAC• GRAVELS WITH FIM[1 TIoM 4[1AIN[0 (eNFteeleele eIe•Irt of OM MO • $1[ VE 0,0061 $AND ANO CLAN $AND f ANDY (I,I Ile M ee li••e) NOR[ THAN SOX $OILS OF MATERIAL Il LAN$[N THAN No ZOO SIEVE SIZE MORE THAN SOX OF COARSE /RAC- 14000 MYTH ►IMEl TIOM FA111114 IeFF/eele$NI on..# e1 MO. • 811VE f1eee1 MIME I TILT$ GRAINED AND !OILS CLAY$ LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAI$ $O NONE TRAM SOX I OF MATERIAL If S1"1 SMALLER THAN NO. ANO LIQUID LIMIT 100 SIEVE SIZECLAY$ 1R[ATER THAN 10 NISMLY ORSANIC SOILS TOPSOI L FILL jj GM SIITT SNAv[LS. SRAvsL-SARD- T 1!•'1 T SILT MIETURp GC CLA►IT SMAVELS, GRAVEL-SAMO- cLAT MIXTURES • • •• 5. W WELL-MAKNS O SA!, $RAV[LLT • • • • • • • • fRM01, LITTLE OR no PINES • • • • • . • • :� �•.' •. • S P FOORLT•SRAMO SANDS. ORAVELLT WOO, LITTLE OII too LINE• SM I f1LTT !ANDS, SAMO-SILT MIXTURES SC - ICLATSY SAMS1. SAMO-SLAT MISTURES ML "M". NOlf( FLOUM, SILTY oA CLATST Polls SANoS OR CLAYST N O "OC CLATO OF LOW TO MEOwM CL FLA$TICITT, MAVELLT CLATS, 148rT CLATS, SILTT CLATS. LEAR OL ORGANIC SILTS AltoONOAMC SILTT CLATS OF LOW PLASTICITY MH SIOMMAIOC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR N&TomcsOUs TINE SAMS OR SILTY SOILS CH SWNGAMM: CLAYS OF MIsH FLASTICITT, FAT CLAYS OH OROMIC CLATS of MEONIti TO NISM PLASTICITY, OMSA1lNt SILTS +�•A �- PT MEAT. NU$NIS. •MNH► SOILS WITH MIS" ONSANIC COWT[WTS Humus and Dutf Layer .....•.Uncontrolled with 'Highly Variable Constituents NOTE: DUAL 1YMSOL/ ARE USED To IMOICATE SORDERIINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART TN[ DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT OF THIS R[►ORT 13 NECESSARY FOR A FAOFER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN THE ATTACKED LOGS 1 2"0-1). Split Spoon Sampler II Ring or Shelby Sample P Sampler Pushed Sample Not Recovered Earth -7 Water Level ( date) Consultants Inc. �AM TS Torvane Reading LEGEND ou Penetrometer Readings -i W'l"ter Observation Wellnefm1165 Nov. ' 79 Proj.No. Date Plate 2 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 L1] 10 15 TEST PIT NO. Logged By DKII Date 11/6/79 USCS Soil Description E lev. ± W Tpsl Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist. 3.4 8.8 GP Brown, clean, sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, moist. SP Gray, clean SAND with gravel, dense, moist. No groundwater encountered. Logged By DKW Date 11/6/79 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev. Tpsl Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist. 8.5 Shy SP Brown SAND with some silt and gravel, medium dense, moist. Groundwater not encountered. Earth Consultants Inc.' GEOTECMNICAL ENGINEERING a GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No.1165 1 Date Nov. ' 79 1 Plate 3 ' Logged By DKW Date 11/6/79 ' Depth (ft.) USCS TEST PIT NO. 3 Soil Description Elev. 310± w (%) Lab Data Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist. 54 SP Brown, clean, gravelly SAND with occasional cobbles, medium dense, moist. SP Gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist. Groundwater not encountered. ItAtth ' Consultants Inc. ' GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOG' TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 1165 Date Nov. 79 Plate 4 1 1 1 i I 1 I I 1 1 1 II J a i Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists April 4, 1995 Green Tara Incorporated 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect Subject: Visual Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnical Engineering Study Update 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Russell Residence 16200 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington E-1165, dated December 3, 1979 Greenness Residential Development Site Plan, dated January 8, 1995 Dear Mr. Lehn: E-1165-1 We are pleased to present the results of our visual site reconnaissance performed on February 9, 1995. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to observe the existing site conditions and to modify or add to the recommendations contained in the referenced study if necessary. Shallow hand excavations and exposures on the bluff were utilized to provide subsurface information for Parcels A and B of the proposed site development. Based on the results of our reconnaissance, it is our opinion the recommendations contained in the referenced study remain applicable for the proposed site development with the additions and modifications contained in this document. In general, subsurface conditions across both parcels appear consistent with those encountered during the original investigation. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. 1805.136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April 4, 1995 Page 2 Project Description We understand the site is to be developed with four single-family residences, two on Parcel A and two on Parcel B. At this time, final construction plans are not available; however, we anticipate the homes to be wood frame structures with either concrete slabs on grade, or wood -joist supported flooring. Foundations are anticipated to be conventional continuous and spread footings. Three of the four residences are anticipated to be built into the face of slopes. At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available. However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate wall loads of approximately two (2) kips per lineal foot, slab loads of about one hundred (100) pounds per square foot (psf) and column loads of about twenty-five (25) kips. If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The proposed site is located at 16202 - 72nd Avenu e ue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is bowl shaped with drainage down to the west from an elevation of about 320 feet near 72nd Avenue West to about 255 feet in the southwest corner of the property. A fifteen foot ' high ridge runs along the west property line. This to of ridge is located at the 9 p a bluff that drops about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet down to another residential development along the edge of Puget Sound. The parcels have slopes ranging from about 10 percent up to about 65 percent. Relatively level areas are located above the bowl and in the bottom of the bowl. Along the north edge of the bowl, there is an existing house that will remain as part of the proposed development. IEarth Consultants. Inc. 1 Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 Subsurface E-1165-1 Page 3 The site was explored for the study performed in 1979 by excavating three test pits in the vicinity of the upper two houses and by ten'hand excavations for the current phase of work. Hand excavations were performed in order to confirm the consistency of soils with respect to those observed in 1979. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, the test pits encountered up to eighteen inches of silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) overlying poorly graded sand with silt, or poorly graded sand (SP-SM and SP). The poorly graded sands were observed to be in a medium dense to dense condition with the overlying silty sand being loose to medium dense. Groundwater was not observed in any of the test pits for the original study, or in any of the hand excavations performed for this reconnaissance and update. Additionally, seepage was not observed on the upper portion of the bluff face. . 0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Green Tara Incorporated and its representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. �1 This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Slope Stability During our site reconnaissance, the site slopes were observed for signs of instability. At the time of our reconnaissance, there generally does not appear to be any evidence of instability such as head scarps, hummocky terrain, or vegetation patterns which would indicate past slope failures. In addition, indicators of potential future instability such as tension cracks, or seepage zones were not observed. In our opinion, the site appears stable based on our site observations and experience. Earth Consultants, Inc. �l 1 Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April 4, 1995 Page 5 If the na tive soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to use an imported free -draining granular fill. Fill for this purpose and for use in wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. In order to provide grades for the driveway, it may be necessary to place fill on a sloping grade. In our opinion, the placement of fill on slopes is generally acceptable; however, where. the slope exceeds 25 percent, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope. This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway j: should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of two feet into medium dense to dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward -sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches. Plate 1, Slope Fill Placement, schematically shows the keyway and benches. Foundations Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the information in the referenced study and our observations of the site, it is our opinion the proposed buildings can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous foundations stem obtaining g support as described in the referenced study. Residences may be built into the site slopes, provided the footings are placed such that the -face of the footing is a minimum of ten feet from the slope face (Plate 2). All footing excavations should be observed by an ECI representative prior to placing forms or reinforcement in order to confirm conditions are as anticipated. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -Grade floors may be supported as recommended in the 1979 study. Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture content of the underlying soils to rise. This results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal evapotranspiration. As concrete is permeable, moisture will eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection is provided. IEarth Consultants, Inc. 1 I- I Green Tara Incorporated p ated E-1165-1 It April 4, 1995 Page 4 Additionally, the proposed site development should enhance slope stability by providing subsurface drainage and retaining soils, based on our understanding of the proposed development. Removal of the ridge at the top of the bluff, as proposed, would also enhance the stability of the bluff by reducing the driving forces. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, After stripping operations are complete, filling operations to provide the design slab subgrade elevation may then commence. The ground surface where foundations or structural fill are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be observed by a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, slabs, pavements, or any other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density except for the top twelve 0 2) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. During dry weather, most soils which are compactible and non -organic can be used as structural fill. On -site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather and the moisture content of the soil is near the optimum. However, laboratory testing indicates the native silty sand and sand with gravel and a trace of silt contain at least five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with more than five percent fines will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. 11; Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April 4, 1995 Page 6 To minimize these problems, suitable moisture protection measures should be used. Various alternatives exist, including concrete toppings or additives and synthetic moisture -resistant membranes. Information on the product usage, installation and warranty should be obtained from the manufacturer if these products are used. The effectiveness of such measures can be improved by installing a capillary break under the membrane or damp -proofed slab. A capillary break, if used, should consist of a minimum of. four inches of free -draining sand or gravel. If a moisture -resistant membrane is used, care should be taken during construction not to damage the membrane and the seams should be sealed. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Retaining Walls Retaining walls and foundation walls that will act as retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf for walls that are restrained at the top from free movement. These values are based on horizontal backfill. For retaining walls allowed to yield and a backfill slope of up to 2H:1 V, an equivalent fluid weight of sixty-five (65) pcf may be used for design. The equivalent fluid weights assume that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on walls. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. The lateral resistance design values (friction and passive pressure) given in the referenced study are applicable for retaining walls. It Retaining walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material conforming to the WSDOT specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). The free draining material should extend a minimum of eighteen inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall. Drain pipes located in the free -draining backfill soil should be perforated with holes less than one-half inch in diameter. The drain pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with 3/4-inch rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April.4, 1995 Page 7' Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Sound area is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. Structures are subject to damage from earthquakes due to direct and indirect action. Direct action is represented by shaking. Indirect action is represented by foundation soil failures and is typified by ground failure (rupture), liquefaction or slope failure. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Due to the existence of medium dense to dense soils and the lack of a near surface ground water table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction induced damage at the site is low to minimal. The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that site coefficient of 1.2 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Deep Cohesionless or Stiff Clay Soils (Soil Type 2) should be used for Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Site Drainage During construction, water must not be allowed to stand in building areas. Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the proposed residences. This gradient may be reduced to 2 percent in paved areas. Earth Consuhants, Inc. Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April 4, 1995 Page 8 We understand that, due to the sloping nature of the site and proposed daylighting of structures, it will not be possible to slope the ground surface away from the foundations on all sides of the buildings. Therefore, where surface gradients are toward the structures, suitable collection and discharge methods should be utilized to remove water from the building areas. Two options for collections and discharge of water are a concrete lined swale, or allowing the gravel backfill for the retaining walls to act as an interceptor trench by not covering the gravel at the surface with topsoil, or other relatively impermeable material. There are drainage options other than those mentioned. ECI will be available to discuss drainage with you. Groundwater is not anticipated to have a significant impact on construction since no seepage was observed during the original subsurface exploration or the visual site reconnaissance. However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the structure, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Where foundation walls will act as retaining walls, the retaining wall drain can also be used as a footing drain. Excavations and Sloaes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Emth Consultants. Inc. Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1 April 4, 1995 Page 9 State law requires that temporary slopes be inclined at specific slope ratios depending on the type of soil exposed on the slope. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration, the site soils expected to be encountered in excavations would be classified as Type B by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). Any temporary slopes should be observed by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., during excavation in order to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide timely recommendations should differing soil conditions be encountered. Should slopes not be able to be cut back to this slope inclination, or cuts greater than twenty feet in depth be required, we can provide temporary shoring design recommendations upon request. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined 2H:1 V or flatter. Recommendations for support of other permanent slope ratios can be provided on request. All cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently -exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this document are based upon the data obtained from the test pits and our site reconnaissance. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. Green Tara Incorporated April 4, 1995 Additional Services E-1165-1 Page 10 As the engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Douglas S. Lynne RCAi Staff Engineer� � s Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. :, 71) Manager of Geotechnic Lr37dAi.�. DSL/KRC/kml EXPIRES %t(L91MO. Attachments: Plate 1 - Slope Fill Placement Plate 2 - Footings On or Adjacent to Slopes Plate 3 - Typical Footing Subdrain � # Earth Consultants, Inc. SCHEMATIC ONLY — NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING ....:r;l. :, :Illllj�llq'lll III rl '.' EXISTING ... GRADE TYPICAL -BENCH" MINIMUM 4 FEET WIDTH EXISTING GRADE LEGEND Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines [slit and .clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve I or other material approved by geotechnical engineer. Key way fill is same as structural fill described above. Key way should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the slope face. -- Approximate original ground line. NOTES: • Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating key way or benches. 0 Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. e Final slope gradient should be 2:1 1 Horizontal : Vertical I. • Final slope face should be densified by over building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. 0 Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. • Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. • Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 Inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT Earth Consultants Inc. Greenness Residential Development Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 1165-1, Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Dated 3/23/95 Plate 1 Founc Founda FOUNDATIONS ON OR ADJACENT TO SLOPES Earth Consultants Ind Greenness Residential Development �&%VMMCeokOsMaEnvftumrnuMSdawEdmonds, Washington Prol. No. 1165 ,7Drwn. GLS Date Mar.Checked DSL Date 3/23/95 Plate' 2 Slope To Drain 6 Inch min. _ `° • ° ° o a •+ a :o•o :i• .e .•. • e, •!' 'e•: C o.•/ ° moo. •' ° .... ..•. , =.',»18 inchmin. 4 inch min. c e o 0 Diameter :..:-: % : - :. -e • . o . • ° o . Perforated Pipe1--� °'..: ;°: o, :a',- ° ° ° % ° ; , o - o :.,. • e Wrapped in Drainage .• o . o o o ° eo e • ',i o.r o • e o Fabric ° °• ° ° e ° ° e 2 Inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch 2 inch min. min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; n :; ; ••.:., . - ative soil or other low permeability material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the • °' WSDOT Specifications. ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Ez-oh Consultants Inc. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Greenness Residential Development Ceoa�cMl®I Fn®nae�s GWIOg • FmhorwrMial Sc*ntWs Edmonds, Washington Pro]. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Date 3/23/95 Plate 3 DISTRIBUTION E-1165-1 4 Copies Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn 1 Copy CT Engineering, Inc. 180 Nickerson Street, Suite 302 Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Mr. Charles Griffes Earth Consuhants, Inc. n Ll 1 I 7 1 III. PUBLIC WORKS DRAWINGS 1 The City .t Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ............................................ MEAD . NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO. Z.1_Q...... ASMT. NO ................... OWNER G.RPC-.E .....LE -AR .OE . S........................ CONTRACTOR ..BETE fir- .I�.ST.... I. PERMIT NO. .l...... JOB ADDRESS .....(020Z.......... e�2-N.D......AvE,... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. ..CorT BLOCK NO. 009.-.0.7.P.a ......... ....---•...........................................................................................•----.....--•--.....-----------••--•••........................ NAME OF ADDITION ............ ....................... f 162..02- r12 N D Ave. GO HT WJ L PANELS isr Fwoct�� 4 p�owEtcoptTRo� I 4'P.v.c. � '• 16 pur+P PWW-0001.11/75 (REV.11/78) 1 fz� 1 1.5 OP. 1 DP 2-45' 1'A " HI-MOL p 4't.o.cgp \ \ RE / POLE _p , Iq \ \ a4 1 '\J I � I 4.5bP. 1 ISE cARPoRT I I 1 i ED------I J ii D D = Approved: DATE 1.... ".....�j..l �.� By /-...... .......-- F, r IL 4 I I P( TZ r 14 T -1 7- Ov-J� i i I I ---------- - -------- C.I.\,,/AT SERVE. lRkPs'SF-LL- .q L.9" I P, IZ 13 AV F— 113. GPI ti-lze(O-5 FUTUFLE; Qi9 NEW SEAL COAT A p ITEM (:C-:P) F,L, Z3 5 . 15 L IA. 4 + 13 QD8 tA 6eAL-- COAT IIH 55 e;Te'-.- o t-10, 10 KT :-,i 2 - of Z-73 2, I.;7!,O,lp LF 6 0,1 211 6. HH V 57 MH *4 95A r2TA 4 Z S2, 6,' L. r. MH roe 14t LF , ' 'T6 "3 """ & 8t25, &I LT. F5 278 ?4 / 15 I II I 10 3 P& ?76K-�Z4-27 F6Z756 1-10 MH: d 6A s co) An J TRUC -F U REA, 20' 0. C iA[ \.I OEE C-.)HeET.I1 h9F l9E:TA%1I,S) 322,13- 349-6) L�F;,Or 6' CON 35 i 114 1�14 308, 50, Itm, t4 4& ouT. 3 Cove i i j i---I-- I -- --�.... ..� �+— �4� PUl 10-i36 i i i j ! ,. i I I 1 j 30e. eo j 13 AV F— 113. GPI ti-lze(O-5 FUTUFLE; Qi9 NEW SEAL COAT A p ITEM (:C-:P) F,L, Z3 5 . 15 L IA. 4 + 13 QD8 tA 6eAL-- COAT IIH 55 e;Te'-.- o t-10, 10 KT :-,i 2 - of Z-73 2, I.;7!,O,lp LF 6 0,1 211 6. HH V 57 MH *4 95A r2TA 4 Z S2, 6,' L. r. MH roe 14t LF , ' 'T6 "3 """ & 8t25, &I LT. F5 278 ?4 / 15 I II I 10 3 P& ?76K-�Z4-27 F6Z756 1-10 MH: d 6A s co) An J TRUC -F U REA, 20' 0. C iA[ \.I OEE C-.)HeET.I1 h9F l9E:TA%1I,S) 322,13- 349-6) L�F;,Or 6' CON 35 i 114 1�14 308, 50, Itm, t4 4& ouT. 3 Cove i i j i---I-- I -- --�.... ..� �+— �4� PUl 10-i36 i i i j ! ,. i I I 1 j 30e. eo j I I -_ ..I ._. .i i VERTICAL CURVI X&TEE Fop, 1HIH t-luti t 3 - I (V-1 L' U 4-/ ly I 1-5HEEJ 17 MH tf 46 STA. 6 + 5 5 'TA. 9 + 04 U 6TA. 0+0Ci vl 4- ap'm 5H 5F 'r -4. I � i , z_r_o RECORD DRAWING I i o- j i � I � I L.opp i I -x I I ! ! FlLlL X15T-1VITCH W1 i I ._ \ I loLJ4 MATEFlt1 p COVERM IR z I C) 6W �"`,TORH OUT f. a/c. Z J.E I i I 'Ll C) NOW I 51 f 1 43 f04 1200 -A. i . 4 R E I D. M I D D L E T O N & ASSocl A,T E S. iNc. :�z I.V..V-uj kweal C•=SO' j FILE NO.491-02-06 CONSULTING WNGINVERS A LAND SURVEYOR.. . i V'= to- I ---- 19 - 30 CITY OF EDMONDS - LID 210 7 2 n d AVE. WEST N. MEADOWDALE SANITARY SEWERS N. MEADOWDALE RD. TO 164th ST. S.W. J0iNT-!Q.I. C, J 1 IV. POND LINER INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS 1 1 u 1 1 1 7 1 1 rl LI 1 L7 1 a L+ Solutions Problem: Sylvan Resort, in Gaylord, Michigan, is the home of Treetops, one of Northern Mich- igan's most beautiful golf courses. When the resort constructed this Robert TrentJones'designed course, the sandy soil proved to be a problem for areas where ponds were to be located. The course design was specific as to the pond positioning in order to enhance the natural beauty of the wooded course. Existing soil conditions however, would not hold water in the areas of these new lakes. Solution: 20 mil PVC liner, cus- tom fabricated and installed by EPI. The flexible, lightweight PVC liners for the lagoons were custom designed and fabricated by EPI, then shipped to the project site. Installation of all of the liners for the three lakes was completed in just one day. 20 mil PVC was selected for the liner on this project because of its inherent flexibility and durability for use in water containment applications. PVC's high puncture and tear resistance make it the product of choice for this application. It is easily handled and field welded using simple, proven con- struction methods. In addition, PVC's high elongation (300% minimum) will ensure performance over the extended life of this recreational facility. PVC liner has been performing successfully in irrigation canal linings for over four decades. EPI's technical department provided the surveying and design of the liner for each of the ponds. The liner was then custom fabricated to each indi- vidual ponds' curved shape. This fabri- cation of irregular shaped liner panels saves the customer significant cost over square panels for material and installation labor in the lining of each lagoon. The liner panels were deliv- ered to the project site accordian folded on wooden pallets. Unloading and placement of the liners was accomplished with the normal con- struction equipment working on the project site. Installation of the 20 mil PVC was provided by an EPI installation crew. The individual panels were spotted and unfolded into place, and field welded by trained EPI installers. All field seams were tested for weld integ- rety and all inlet and outlet pipes were sealed to the liner. Complete instal- lation of the approximately 2.5 acres of liner was completed in one eight hour day. PVC liners by EPI provide a proven, cost effective way to add the natural beauty of water to any new develop- ment. Specify PVC liners by EPI and then "just add water." :0 _ Ocelops lagoon made for FW litter Installation. .��u•. Environmental Protection, Inc. 9939 US-131 South NE, P.O. Box 333 Mancelona, Michigan 49659-0333 1-800-OK-LINER Outside the U.S.: 616-587-9108 FAX: 616-587-8020 Internet: pvcliner@aol.com The Liner Company 1 tes, It's Really That Easy! Out the Water in and it Won't Seep Out ierc:s nothing more dishearten- g than to watch a beautiful lake slowly wither and dry. Clay and her natural soil conditions can cdictably wick the moisture visibly from the bottom, even- tually displacing thousands of gal- ns of water. Our PVC pond lin- s arc designed to keep the water where the pond is. Today td tomorrow and tomorrow.. We Make Liners to our Design, Whatever Nape or Size "I71c cicgancc of the curved line it moves with the rhythm of ie landscape is an integral part Osf any natural pond. Natural look- ing ponds arc not limited to any andard shape or size. We under- nd this and custom fabricate .ch PVC pond liner to your design, no matter how irregular Sic shape, with single panels as rge as 40,000 square feet. And, on -site design changes arc never 1problem for us. Our installation rcw is as flexible as our PVC! ur Installation Crew is lFxperienced and Fast 'riming is the essence of any onstruction project. This is espc- tally critical on it golf course site here turf development is a high priority. The more quickly the �onds can be installed, the more uickly water is available for irri- gation. Larger panels, fewer field scams and our unique seaming chnique can mean a savings of tore than two-thirds the instal- lation time over other types of liners. One of our crews can easily install 100,000 square feet of INC pond lining material in one day, even when there arc inlet and outlet pipes. That meant three lakes in one day at Treetops Golf Course in northern Michigan! Durable and Tough, All -Weather Performance Plus Easy handling is just one benefit Of the flexible, lightweight nature of our pond lincrs.'nccy'rc a heavy -weight when it comes to durability. Freeze and thaw cycles are never a problem. Our liners are engineered to withstand all weather conditions, and the high puncture and tear resistant prop- erties of' INC make it ideal for water containncnt. It's high elon- gation (300% mininunn) will ensure performance over the ex- tended life of any water fCatUrc. Civil engineers know that PVC has been performing successfully in irrigation canal linings for more than four decades. It's More Cost -Effective Than You Would Think Compare the installed cost of any other lining material with our pond liners and you'll discover that the best choice is EPI. Dur- able, strong, reliable, Icak-free PVC liners are custom -fabricated to fit your design. And, instal- lation is fast and simple with the experience of an EPI crew Is it any wonder that more and more landscape architects and civil engineers arc turning to us for our professional service? The liner Company 321,000 square feet of 20-mil PVC liner was installed in three working days to create three irri- gation lakes at the Fairfield Green Valley Golf Course near Tuscon, Arizona. Treetops, designed by Robert Trent Jones, is located in sandy northern Michigan at Treetops Sylvan Resort. The three lakes required 2.5 acres of PVC, all completely instal- led in one eight - hour day. 1 Sandy soil condi- tions were just one reason why the Homestead Resort in Michigan chose EPI's 20-mil PVC 0 liner. Their stunning water feature is comprised of a series of pools with a cascading water- D fall and a one -acre pond used for irri- gation and recircu- lation. The PVC easily withstands the stresses of stones and con- crete placed over D the liner. A complete mechan- ical filtering system is unique to this four -acre man- made recreational facility in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. EPI's 30-mil PVC O liner was selected for the project and installed in two days. D Before liner instal- lation, all surface areas should be free of rocks, stones, sticks, rubbish and other debris. A minimum 12-inch layer of debris -free earth is placed over the PVC liner immedi- ately after installa- tion. Water may be added any time after the earth cover is in place. By choosing PVC, turf development can begin quickly without the long wait you'd have with a polyethylene or clay liner instal- lation. 12" Protective Earthen Cover PVC Liner Debris -Free Existing Material Sub Base Soil 3 � i �`�Y _.:)y , � Fc �rJl4�'�b i ``;�'�yir.y J �,��s� ��+ ` -, j _ •rv' � Installation Comparison 100,000 Sq. Ft. Pond Installation Time In Days Material Needed Amount Of Field Seaming PVC From EPI 1 4 Pieces (125' X 200') 650 Lineal Ft. Polyethylene 8 -15 11 - 22' X 420' Rolls 4620 Lineal Ft. Natural Clay 14 - 28 200,000 Cu. Ft. (22,222 Cu. Yds.) NA Environmental Protection, Inc. 9939 US-131 South NE, P.O. Box 333 Mancelona Michigan 49659-0333 1-800-34-LINER Outside the U.S.: 616-587-9108 FAX 616-587-8020 Internet: pvcliner@aol.com The Liner Company .4d r� I 1 L� 1 1 Fj �1 �J 1 1 EPI Liner Installation Guide The Liner Company I. GENERAL EPI's UltraTech geonlembrancs are all-purpose, tough, durable linings that can be fabricated into panels up to 40,000 square feet each. These in Will can be easily assembled for lining all possible sized containments, ponds, reservoirs, canals, and lagoons. 2. 'TYPICAL INSTAL1,ATION MATERIALS Listed below are the materials and equipment that are typically required on the job site before installation can be accomplished: ■ A means of handling large pallets of material: Forklift, Front-end Loader, Crane or Boom truck with 6.000 lb. lift capacity. ■ 2" or 3" wide hand rollers (Steel, Nylon or Wood). ■ 16' or 20' long, slip sheets. ■ Sand bags or other ballast. ■ Clean rags. ■ Squeeze bottles for chemical fusion agent. ■ Chains, heavy rope, or slings. e Necessary safety equipment. 3. SITE PREPARATION The pond should be designed by a Professional Engineer. Inspect and verify that the pond geometry and surface conditions meet or exceed specifications. The pond must be free of all standing water or mud. The entire surface to be lined must be free from all rocks, roots, debris, or other sharp objects that may damage the liner. The pond bottom must be above the potential groundwater elevation unless a properly designed underdrain is installed below the liner. The area to be lined may need to have the soil sterilized. This is especially true in areas having nut or quack grasses. If required, the type of soil sterilant used must be compatible with the liner material. Installation of UltraTech lining may only take place when the ambient temperature is above 60°F. For temperatures below 60°F, refer to EPI's Installation and Quality Control Manual. 4. MATERIAL PLACEMENT The panels play weigh up to 5,500 pounds each. A largc.front-cnd loader, forklift, or crane is required to spot the pallets of material. Slinging of pallets is suggested over uneven terrain. The material is accordion -folded in both directions. Each panel is marked in the direction to be unfolded for Proper positioning. Remove the packaging from the pallet(s). Find the identification letter and the arrow on top of each panel. Place the pallet(s) Ill the position shown on the Pallet Placement Diagram. Important: Make sta-e the arrow n/t the top of each panel is pointing ill the salne direction as the arrow on the diagrant. Unfold the material in the direction of the arrow on the panel usIng.a bulldozer or front-end loader. Be certain to unfold the panel so that the end of the material will be in the proper position when unfolded. Station workers every 10 to 15 feet along the folded material. With each person grasping the top layer, the material is ready to be pulled into the pond. After the material is 50 to 100 feet into the pond, place a worker on each side of the panel and have them flip air under it. The cushion of air underneath the material makes moving a panel 200 feet long relatively easy. When the first panel is in position, temporarily anchor it in the trench leaving the edges free to be seamed. The panel should be positioned so that it is lying as straight and as smooth as possible. The liner should be installed in a relaxed condition and be free of tension or stress. Position the next panel in the same manner and allow a 6" overlap of material onto the first panel. After this panel is in position, ballast the panel edges as required. Repeat this process until all of the panels that can be scanted together in one day are in place. 5. FIELD SEAMING USING CHEMICAL FUSION WELD Both liner surfaces at the overlap must be free of dirt or mud. If not, clean both surfaces with water and dry. Start at the center of the two panels to be seamed. Do P 1 L 1 I 1 not fold back the overlapping material. Apply chemical I'usion agent into the overlap area with a sducczc bottle. The material should be pressed together immediately while the chemical fusion agent is still liquid. (A slip sheet may be rquired over irregular or damp sub - grades.) Pay particular attention to any area that consists ol' more than one layer of material. Excess chemical Fusion agent must be wiped up inunediatefy after the seam is made. Two crews may now start seaming toward each end ol, the panel. Caution: Avoid contact of chemicals or adhesive with the skin or eyes. Avoid prolonged exposure to vapors. Prolonged breathing of adhesive or chemical vapors may be harml'ul. Consult EPI-20S-SOL Material Sal'ety Data Shcet. 6. PATCHING All joints upon completion of the work should be tightly bonded. Any liner damage should be replaced or covered and scaled with an additional layer of' UltraTech lining ol' the proper size. Any repairs to the UltraTcch lining should be patched with lining material meeting the same specification ol' the material being repaired. The patch material should have rounded corners and extend a minimum of 6 inches in each direction from the damaged area. 7. INSPECTION AND ,rESTING Upon completion of the liner installation and prior to placement ol' the earth cover, fully inspect every lincal I'm of field scam and all seals around penetrations. All field scams should be tested with an air lance. The air lance test consists of directing 50 pounds per square inch of air through a 3/16 inch diameter nozzle held no more than 2 inches From the scam. 8. EARTH COVER BY OTHERS A minimum of 12 inches of earth covcr should be placed over the UltraTech lining. The material used to cover the liner must be I'ree of' sticks, stones, rubbish, or any other material which may damage the liner. The cover material should be placed over the lining as soon as practical after the liner is installed. The contractor responsible for placing the cover material should take great care so that the liner will not be damaged. 9. LINE'R PENE,,TRATION We recommend all penetrations through the liner be constructed in accordance with the EPI Penetration Details (Document #D-921 I ). The Liner Company Penetration Details The Liner Company PVC E.Ibow "1'up of Berm 6" Max Flap PVC Pipe Jam' '�� �G � Soil Cover --� 12" ' Stainless Steel Clamp Liner Pipe Boot�G" Liner �Chcmical Weld ' - 4" Dia. Hole in Liner 1'VC Pipe Coupling; Perforated PVC Pipe Shaded Area Indicates Flap I" Wide Min. Chemical Weld. of' Flap is Open to 1-Side Scat 3 Sides ONLY. s G Landfill Cover Gas Vent Strip of Liner Material Itetween Clamp and Boot Stainless Steel / Clamp —\ Liner Chemical Weld Pipe Boot Flap Vent FLANGE [For Field Fabricated Boots) Environmental Protection, Inc. 9939 US-131 South NE, PO Box 333 Mancelona, MI 49659-0333 Phone: 1-800-34-LINER Outside the U.S.: 616-587-9108 Fax: 616-587-8020 The Liner Company Cut Hole Smaller Than I'ipe Diameter To Form a Lip When Stretched wo 1 The Liner Company 1 1 1 1 J 1 Anchoring Details Soil Cover ` I2" �Minl Liner 12" lMill. L Anchor Trench 6" Min. Conventional Trench 6" Min. Overlap Caulk With Sealant Anchors IExpansion Bolts, or fPowder Actuated Fastenersi Continuous Batten [Treated Wood, Aluminum, or Stainless Steel E.xisling Concrete Structure Bolting to Concrete Soil Cover 712�Nl nLiner 8" Min. L— Dozer Trench Environmental Protection, Inc. 9939 US-131 South NE, PO Box 333 Mancelona, MI 49659-0333 Phone: 1-800-34-LINER Outside the U.S.: 616-587-9108 Fax: 616=587-8020 The Liner Company 1 • �F�ar�- r�u7"� i I . �!N71k�a�r '';, ri, � � �r4't :� '��� ,rrf �� y�f • :i• ,,, t•.. „ a" rr +i �t , •�• f`, �+.� '� � ,}f � f 1 v �.• ;.+%'! 'r � •r �..•4�Y7' �J�i J., .,I. t � rs ,� �. .` t f 7T. flrt -�"�>{ -( °7!�'7� � ^ �� ` , .``• . Z,gy�r7�r �� r •1� 4.. rat 1 vS ,f r .. �'�' , ! _ `I y,',7 }� t .I•`r�.�'f° :., III' � �4+,�!r �Irf/�+Y� r Y.'.t ..(`'•. . -1 �. � .;t ( t .fir y y �.•y`r•{ J. i �. 1, n r;•Jr+FI� � � rA,J.l •.tr�ts f � ' a `�, I �-rJ'Y,tfr, '1 �,irl� I � .v' � a',+M?�%fk}7r^0 111 I��,It II 1lle i IjII� 4 1'� Tltl '!lr rS ll?`�y r}.ry ���! `+ y1 N>�`y 1 � �..+ i�:�l.'•.ill. 1 , r111�f JjJ qj 1r r '1i•'�', + ^y� rf• d1 �1, ���� �f !° r ,rye r� ✓, • 1 �•-�' ds....vfit,, uj:'� {P'i ' `Y''a� S�1rlf,,.,Vi°►'^� �'io� •� ti,Za�+� y a (.i�f • • � _, , I � I � � I 'J, �l � � 1� •I� I� I I I rl I �C •" � V { 1 , .,. .r r�l I t .'', , �t I I t I � 1+ I ~Iv �+ •{ �~V 11 ..� rr.•. t t Jt•1 �FSI��Tt%N��•y7 A,l�inlj���j��IM�t`>'�^�ib pit '�,f'J '14�+I�r.Yrdy49,'�+,� +1 t +�^.t -r' _:ti-- a .:�: t � � , ',',�� aj" :.,��i'1��1�c� e✓"t �, "3s �'f, f'�M, � rrj' }`rt�1 � "'d f• �r"iYll���iYv%�.� `»�� i3 .*i,�y�'R`X� r, + ?'af!•,L v._ 1 .i t "� 1 ..r ' � ;. LL,• :I,i .. ��'.?Y,;,.y, ./ j. � rt!.�r r4. �� 7". l!i t,�.. ✓•,! r. �.J.jr. �,>fr; �# ` 1 ..4 . � fra .'1� ,.� {� �til'`• Y��f�j!"1}+i,ti/ -�. ` {!t !: t� r�_ BS 7 - � �7• rh.'j'rF,�tr�/f:�+rl: t111 :+4 r�S r ;G1' v,t• 1 �.. �. . �FI}iC 4�:} 11:'�S, 1d .•f }m •! h - �� c.k^Ihl !. � t ,. .r, , �,}t,',l� �r 4-t (' '••:F�k�t �r, �1.t �tr Y: .Yll i+.l ���l,r��y rr .F yif. `, �',�! _ �. l-r-'��r'�(t �rP �r l� i�?� � '� _ ;;� �'}�1 ivl� I, . .,; t:f'1'.'�'i•, t rc-r ..�.,• .,1,.... �'!,:..l:, ,IG i...l �%�aJnTr�,-��t�i . '�ih.f 7p�r�,rF�f1S/;,,��'y�I�,,�,,,,Jt�!i�u��,�laC t�,lSt t(~S��'.{`�.��,�yyyry. i" r�M1�y � +Y...y y r ,}t1 i�7+i•'}��F ^�t• �n , V.;.�It.!!�i'.: �t Ylt,'i.A�t�': •. „_ �/+:c ::_ l•q.!!..rtt5'ln v.•�.:..ir.:�•,;e.,.,.r ��4t,i!��•�iddp`.4�i' I: (Yti'� � �:'i. ti )'�I��1!.: �'fi� 41:����..'9 e:a; V,, �A •�'�FkrA. ::g!�!d tii,.L. - w•.'Sr t ��•.; �'Y5.�1'I^��Vdi?�i5 '• 1 STREET FILE Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. R March 15, 2001 AESI Project No. BE01022A Green Terra, Inc. 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn Subject: Limited Slope Reconnaissance 16202 72,nd Avenue West -Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Lehn: � 2001 BUILD NG "cnsR rMENT G?Y OF EL)MONDS 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" 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 rockery on 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, 2001 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 hazard to 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/ ✓%0/ ,p18802� �SfONALF�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 L:etter.doc ;%t 1nc.189v April 26, 2001 STREET FILE 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 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Slope Stability Consultation Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lehr; - -. .. ...... _ .. 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 72" d Avenue West; City consultants have investigated the noted slope failure and a copy of the Landau Associates report dated 4/19/01 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 geotecliriical `expertise'"to �"furthei-�irivestigate 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, 2 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 @16121 74d' 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 RE: SLOPE STABILITY CONSULTATION 16202 72ND AVENUE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON op 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. property in.this-area.::.__ 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 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.dm tANDAu ASSOCIATES 2 i : 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 Steven R. Wright, P.E. Senior Engineer DRS/SRW/jzs 04/19/01 S:%WPROC%074W92U6202-72nd Itr.doc LANDAu AssoclATEs 3 I yr + ie"✓f "W '�' f ,i") 17?{✓x j7�j;a ;' ' r �'"'c `S" `+qr, .. ��• �.. - 1. 4 1h""`fit 7xy�s jrif yyff�° •j 7 ire r�,4 �'e"'rP{d. �• I 'c' x •a 1 �,,i�[h�G�}�`�'yy�`�� A S3 ��rr � !;} �' Yri'G+`Sii 3t 1}!'' !a• "'t•+� ti� �, MR ��l r 14. r �� li 5 A I,l i! pt fr 4r Ff a �✓ � n, r S .�_- R1'. i u ti G �l t t !r' l f ^7 r i'. +{ � la3 tCtw'!{i �iht+ 4x 4.•-C 1! i rt I , ."� tc * " ir'' > �r ; �•- � �cr4�; tit ^• � 7 � r 3 � ��r r4 :,,1�'r �u r+ tE•rJ� {,F`� wh i it X � - � �r� � i�x � ++ y 31 S�.= � '` 4t �1t 9 i,fSs r - r WA x 14w T/ �'"��f k� ' ' � �� 1 i � %^+y.Y. �.� �uy)� a . , t1 y� J S � 4, 'f`Y r��1vY}I ls• '� �' � /� � r � + :'� '' - a j Y�{i� stj., .: f'. P 3i• •, 777 t- � r `Y� rY��✓�ppif ;�t �r "SY� � , �'y ""1 fi+�4 ��•. 1 r J .� 3 N S �.. 4{ � �� 7! � i t ` ` � y jl3' �t � S' r �i d J rf�t f7 i �r'i�-,.y a�f �" I •` � , 4 E#ee'� y $ \� �t•t r � r ��l` : ` l i 4 ffr dSVk JisM Ir (r�3r •VSkl i, t h ' ae• \ • , p/\ , M1 �•tp�" 3 y i x , •a t3�' 1h. �• �a r-j 4 ' i{ r 3. r��\ � 13 S " x ♦ x �� a ,� •, x• `••�� ���t! �r�r�.�IRJ�!�%���+ �`�afr °'V ��'.'3 `, S � r �,"�., Iy ` �Z4�It�iy,..T.�• � '. 0. (�Sr4�+�.5��� .I . 1,0,• 1 S ?i%F r"+" +�'h c .r ±"�. f . ./' `• }+ -1 F a, � ij " •rl�' '� /�,.�r2,•/' r ..hn jt; `tt7 '' �{ '" ��'Ra � \ V`` y '.r � + + � P Sx�1 �Y J'� .r,'y'�"j",tF1�,/ 7%1f�'f �•� , r fir+ ��..•�{�1r f, `�S' h'�1�, r''.` y,�,,t{�/.l `t 3F.,� t �,�rr. '-.. 3 � �Yt� t ry y�,,r a 1�� �� �`-r�,t.��" �+rSS y. it ��' � •� � y,Ly7yj/ t 4 ' ,�, • .�1� '• t'�-�i'.,''�� gfJ.k d � � � ����if r .r : R � AAA � .., 'i�'�>%�\�l rr: '�-�;•. \q'\'% ti� r ^' r`r.. � '' ���,ga 1yy�i^ ` is ' r 3s"i�-.i+ f� � � ✓ f '.,{i 1 l if" '�'S" C�,'t � ti�7,,,{Y&`'E ��a�. ����1�":.�x'.;%1\:��. _x,:r�_,.:"1''ys'�•`�lr��u1t�S:111��-�:,�?%x�ck��,���it�`A"it�x�rc�tl`^ ''x•1 yol-3L...y,�S�, i . ,w ` -•'\tip �-... 1�•,�ta '-, 01 i( 4 1 .. yr ".?: ��k �,r i�- 1. •,-�\ -••�� �'- � � \1 - *,� WIN ark' , 1IT 'rir1.5 t `lbw tyy-- � v .{ � t�' r` "'• ,\ !'} ��SJ,f lid 76` ,Y.I, �:� _ j'��. 1�1,r�,�,n %f>�,` \ \t �" , i��.r" t ' i �` �'fMui r,�,•r, x.,'�`fy�`��"i�e�C ���- '��•-- `'� � \ y 1- y it 0 -•� i Im �``5 � i xy�z f JlR��v.�.-�`� \� �-'�rl �S ' - t x` �k4 �-T"i:�,���(`�4� ��,k•�Y ji k ' ; \ � a ��` s� .1s��ap / l -i � y�' i. .� � i� � �� � _,< it C ..;.��rG� rl'iF'"Z'sl�d.�'t~� ` s ' ♦ ' ,,, • f �ti� � / ji Ytr.;. � `!' . � a\ ! • t 1 t t_1+��[ � ' a •' � 7 1 q:� +,•', t y, �t ° �� �yyYy �'�rL � \ �� t l Jr �:.�iw �c� �r ��/• - ..,, t �t9-' y r �i5 X ',rL r4 j y� f,j11 r p 7 j 7 ` nr �' '� �..✓ ff�``,�;;1`r� ,:t ' % (� � f, �r"e�...Q7,:, I. �+,�4 1 ;:';. ...�.5't�4.lSt a��.f,,:� ii Sv i.- ♦ �1_r. 'k' n'?F, � �t 7 ilk si \�t r'; n9iQ IJ'r Jl+ ql- ,y: Its r•c� \-� "tj,'.i4 `ry 'S�R xtk�'�. �_ii 1" i I r k �cV,. .'e�.� •� y�j �, tin k' 3 �� ' 1 ��•r'`�' � �r t � � %// "''�. Y•� l vxt''Asr .ria. � � d� + , �� � ` r'` '1a'�.11 � �. t t D /�.. 5 F �. �.:.: � wiT'.G-,-\ i.. } rz. t e � ,.s '� t . 4 f .� y,C�a' C..'_t•--at (. �1�aD r ' t '`-'+ � ,q h,�w r t s �-.s t ht• ,h v � t �,� r4 ti—^ i l�; ..,t �( 1 r .a9. t.it v f r✓ ' �' �f'•+•r `. � `P''"` 4"' +� ' �*`� ti" '� r �i �,/ � ��•. � Y"'1 5 z f r , .,: fi,' ��� r u }�'�,zN' •'. ��v�t-'�',f.>:s+j ;kY" ��, � � ,,.,� �, .� \ r f-� %% _ ` *' � `fit VA 1 i�+:+ �t l�. �t �, �F� n.`" �•'4:X,, �,. i� 7\";�ry�, �,�.�4$} ,k'� sot r ''•� c \ r C�] �j., a��q` �iij:: �t T y��.t zz "''`� I: +��",y"�' ..*.o ^' r � 'o �-ywi t ��-:;+� ➢ " �L\ is +rs,d `• "..3 t �''-� pi `y .'' a � t, o ��S.i���`4�.���,s�""' ^s� '"�.'�� r..tyn f'�`�-t1,! ' \����,i s�e \••-�.. - 4 �. �\ .Wti��ihv,"t�i�"s+7+t p ,. N s Lt}- t •�.ry 4 '" ?F,' "1 "�' ' t' J �� ,tif0,�.'..#a. -J 11 }fit, 1 •: "N7f' Ih I i 3??t ti. ;. v; rS ` I.�„ e "• 'c ..._ tc� *� t h '' •ifitb4^, 3i�i#��f'`�4 �1s 4a ', e. t s, 4c�w't4 �1, y �+�i'.i..•'.3t; �-L.�u���,�,`Y'ir'�i�' �r � .�� s �� iR c � c,.t3. J l.� 2 �ji5 � � y� tt 1 ',� i - r�w�.�.,�#�'W� �'a•c �t��,'j� �� '!ii?.i "tm��{'�n �s�r-,�,jbt . '��.•`��'K(�F k �.. �d ?�4��� .1yIA1 r�• `i"��{ , �.� +vF �,�. 1�+'�?�.'� �r'k ik;�t r ^t �!'6�'•k' .� t�ti ti �';�� \ \,� 1J'' �Ff3z't,�j .ft�... > L L t�. a Y.. , ,fYr �C�.��.• $ 1 _.Cy WAf.,.r 6 pp f l"' 14.1 toy ifil+f�^}4 Xi y1tL 1�i�' att f) >silr rCr s zlzt#`� zany �, t '3t • i ,��[ :J •. 1 ��d }�`i � r 1 'y'i�y• � rt ft ).r +.� � S 3 �'�t -v , , t4� (i r � � 'S _ rY .tJ', f• _ 1 t p+5"g yr y I y C� t I..iii , & '� JC �, �° t J\ � •tt+�a�, .. '� S.. S ; >.b rlti�'�^rf a?,'- 1 1� ° t � �i' r1�� �f` �k � � � ,�i\ ��! �. err. / ` i ,',�, i �r,.� � �� �� "�i�'t�� �4c„�G• M \ •9 ~� 4'f",r'7'jt ✓.`^^�� Z- ,��. �`��`',,� F 4!}F j f �"�� 1��, �.�� yF�•#���i'�-1 4� ,i' .;iC.ib�yh \Yi'.�t-�.,. ""�yiry„Y,��� r. -- t. t r• �'"p�� +r? "PI k � f � �1 j u f � .,..r.. rr+� }�i't � +2• pr � ._ i �.. .. +'-'" t,C� r y�.:'Fi'�'�3�� %� ! ,- :r r` . _ �, ���' .,� t(.fh �1 :Ir1�l'f .i\ t+� :1•'•{ , ! . �rz=�R.... �•.+as_;ri,,,c'� m ..... ..... jt. T jg7 12 ` `�tyjf- Q'��� �f�1 \� � ..,,4' 4t1 �,�. r1 c+�~ � t� � ♦ra �l. nI R f> 5':}' y '•�� .M -lip .I•i '"„fit ' ;'' y -w `. .q_ �`� t � �A'• F • t.py � '• � \ Y'rtir \� 2,K's✓'i �, .. •� c�� `� ?' �• il�R,p�+ /}iF���ri.y •p' '/ u F ('.� �f y Ala � 3_.♦ t �;k �� � _ a. f, �- . � Qi-t.' .Y �'. ^ t. •4 � tit - + r 9' i '�`p�� j } _� C,.v > . �' n ,;✓ : N:� ,gyp O i�1r�`1�� �Ibi j •.•. 'may ii^�1 i � .�� 1.� aq _ � ��. �� -� , 1, -,.� -4 h_,� ti�i r. �/ i..'t g3, ..� i - i'f„ �t. �i' '" 1 � + i-•' ' � �E R ANI �rt r � .C+-Qi��!(I ' r__._-'�' �•� . ia-�-•,+a� L � 1 r.�� � (/ f�"�\'{,�i ��'r � �' f � / �'8,•_j1•.._� "377 — L a_. ['t"�_.+l' 4A-"t�2..��! 1�1i';.. T4f�rr` 'F.r���g��l�`�f �} �i., ^ y T '` �er, �• F��:l�r;, ,� �: ��i >/ ? C Y.� Y� i�C,y� ,�� it ��. 5.f t ,� 4 1i ? �: `, ,(�,•� ' l 'j .,_� ler Y: � ����f�l .! ��*.Tj �e�\ ` • r '. �+% � i1r�i�'��s`u'c ).�,,..e�'%�t°� t,?r�,,�"' 4§s �"'�"r•,i {• ,�,ai� +. � w. 1 rF Sys tr�Y:,.' ,(�` ��ry�.+•�w � b j i r� L i J 1 �� •� � tl r.^r rrf �Y r v (i l'f" rk-s r✓' ,y'��Cvr/`- � �.r zt( n.rt•� -� � ��•i.��.e�lr" �'l,..fr '�' rl •, r•k n�, i ^a,`fr,tr �r� �'k�y'r'�4�d �� a c r>Y .r �`* f dirt t . ? /� + � ��7,1. 7„. +i! ��` if��3� t,'�y" ,' r ydt S fi� � .t �. i,.r r:,,�•r-�;.��. ��7�35k•�t t Q�'` f. ''F" s�h��� �?,:E'� `l% r. Z ,♦ 4`zh xv� �'^'�' , i�" .'�(� 1 �. » r r+.4:`' `\n� 7`` � '! �t+i; +, 511 ,r+`,Y 1n.•- V '' }��' �}. A� b�. y t� x 1 i�',rly+ a., ai*�r� • * � EP �)"�. �tyl.� '&" I l� n•,• �`.%A1 '� - ^rt"V �'4r�•� y. f ,+.w� '�•�-1},�• i �{ )' rX y a / �r _��.' '' •.li t�l. � 1' .+{� ;> .r13 1 r I�FSt� f'i f: , �, o- pQ. � /' y�"•f•�� �3'�"i'» �� x.� � � 4. '` .,•i> si#1 sr,`ya�� , ir��L r r e. ; � t-.�.t+f � s�.'•;� � .f'.,'�f ,;`¢ .,� "'` ` �- z ';F•� � , s r t 1L, �''Ft,�;�r? ��•• •[f : � '�- � art I � ' I "+ � y ��" �t 4 �. 4 � �,4n.� 4���rl�T�p !!J-1 r~ ��� t'•1'�,K��%1.� � -. •i �� •Z,`3 .. .$) '+ ,8 �E r t - +l, 'i{ / R n• i!� �!fy �-�t t y..,"A`y'?�_ r. � ,. . !y (rf , � ham: �►y c �y�,• r��'i✓, �. / t ( /1�.Y.�. �� _ �„� r•�' WT �.��z �r� tf l � it 'i+•i' ti^� 1 i �'.'i 13.. pid�� 2•. !4 u ' f. r 2Y 1 .. _•Y �fz n Y ax rJ r it. �l3Mfi�rq�J •�� . ., i �� { q btu, h F Ht 7 it MN 141 ,'�_ls'" � � Y W�� �� _ �>�� ""'r?�`r�rr� k �f '�'"w t�tr "' '�p�,� r, �X • •' }._ "` r'+r.� r _�.,-ry "�a��,�`y� ! r.�. - G'1 � "6. .a���V � (r. :Wr �.E.��ryf r�;�.^ }�i���s� �'^' ,.(�. �� 1sTt J r .r;.•„�: i.�ILS t � ('���-"�ic,� r R,f54�t ,Rsrjyr ice' �+�i4u�.. r.. }^��ii-.ryja �.*�ry r� ry)t i'r" 4 r ��".. +��}�a"`,•c r _ y( '�'�""x� r (�j s•ti "s'� Rer-r,yt y.Rr �� r,w. yi .• S4�-r+r•ir"�. r q, �• � � t IT;(r -•ay �' � � =y � ."ova. +n��hr•,Z'*'? r?+"e } fp,.< , c: ?7 s _. ry 1•^�i �d� - . .7�(1,1 ?. rmr. _^x r"♦i • a _ ;,. ;'mod. �r . �r��., :• .>. `?^",1 •z-;r .. •h). f ° - 3 •.. _ �`-t.. '• : i.. �, a r , .. P'di\ c ° t y. H `:`}' IT, t ��''. c f r' "r< ! 1+ sit ( elnal ' 3 `p r��i °71:1" 7i',jrl.i} j1"�� YI ;tr ��'i^,�it}; nyt iy.`��,i Y. S 1 ��. r�, � t3?l 1 l � ;, •41� ���1r i i ��{ p } - "�',�'� r - r�f ���i\ � 'r 1 r; 'll �' � � L.`r \a7.r�L,e.Y•,��i. +%'�•�,�l� � Y, 5 I-'i�� ���� �+� � L"L- �z*'` �[ �4 .v �v} y,S sq � �• t,.t t, 1 II t ( it � '' . ^,l` � 44" F�' Y} f h � t � t\ � c f i � '��, .I i{� t r , 11t•"'''� \� t ! SSSFFFy......t�� ,�t�� �. •l�� _,sue• '� �.i 1,1 l�� �j� ��FF \ ��,j' i,'{ttil .r � rs 'yam. .l ♦\\f `\'rt� +y, it it. '• �. � � * 3•r{ 1 's. _,� b �G 1 l t l I � \ �� i ?q ( � i t Sd � �� `l1 �. Rif \ �� 1r'e� yf\. •l iwdti, t r I� �,t, \� \} tr 1 ` f V(t S� 1 \ �+-. t ',?i �j`iL{� ri i <,�`, (�j.'� , �� y t, , ,� •1; � r \°;� I ? 1 11 il.a }/' ili�� ,•t�V e l`:\3R.� 7"', \ �=" K. .F. / t' tiY+},�/ ��I '+ i •� n � ��.�qry, �,`?- .. i� 1y�l�s? Y 7't r. �.� l,' �= . 'r7f �". '1 .� ' y\ o../r i'•`Fk%�� .1. .•}I a x \� v F � r. 1f , r 1 J• nth§• �^ ri 1 a , ` 4 �i�j7� '4 •+4 3 L� ♦ r v �� . i - � 4�.}.� a/C a },fir �fi ,,Mf�j4j • c b �, y��:,/� 't`'�q .r r r t� �'y� '7.".� 7 Y >t � '�ti, n� ! r �t �_.ifn(�.( (.'Yri.'� r� ,y�V W Li�,..y..'Y�\T• r .A� +.. '"tr R .t� x� ^ Y14 ? LR'M2� }�;"•, syy "t°� ,�,� hirjvMp45e� . f `td '^w�-C� •r l�• .. \l ' ~ y !T � �1.\lam \r+. - V'` t. ;-:. i , i ' ` %kr fife Li4 , �.. ��'}V'gc$T •. ca•\._ �' i L.,t.`r i.\h 4 t �.fr:.♦�la�'+= #+�• I 1.�.� .��.:'-. `:i�1i� .���a��."�i'��r�'1 � �c .:� � /?Y.'.f..j4.�� �BJ�r+,.s,)''-\��>;Y;...,�i+.a�\4rr`�' F..\`;�� ..♦ ,. .. •� a � * Y+ �� n L. a' h 3• a t�h%ifr�y`FgL[( ILr e k �Y i irl�ul}� anal qdt`�jy,,� /�A mr a si '4. !.`w.l""5 f.� �t4,e t Jr` � .��t�•+ yy�4 T`t\�'''t FF b5: t{ l�r.�iwft r�i`c5rf i':�'•iA .�"'� y�L ''at7t s:.a ) j �'w�.. !"� st � � , �t�� '� ..- �, � ��. �'ly ' 44 t ti , •\ �qrp ,�Tl�r•����y+�q�` IPr�ffryry1� J 'C Air ''Q• G.I IYS:} t ! t \ +E...�a`s t� h4 "�%. �fb'a1t�'tr�,�v. '.F. t �`. t't '4c.,.•� i I� " sh.. �` + r+:,1 �` ! L t. y� 1 b't3r:•tatftlj ^� ,�, "- .I,d�' 'i� �•, 5 '� .� t `,*�• r r wt `t " 1 - � S -'• \ �'•� � / a' 4d • 4i �I��`` •t`• � I.yg Y�t+ �x5}l„ `� "� Ij � 1. _ (.• A �vAl'7'f�,.�`��r"+7'.� t I }ti`,t( �7. "1'py�pyi :`•t + J, _ `(( --••}} gy �'h t>✓ tll� �=,r a'` h.?�t �����r��� �b� '� 7 vt�lcy�r;- � r >T�. �3+lry��`� _ �',4s1}, sa. � T. +•� � \+5 w��"'j t Gtr''r. >.tT J r, v� iu.'y'1s Jam` t�.. 1'k%krt�'yll {}�',r S{+4 4i:'♦ r*, `?Si1t'��r'�'"*'ti�s'•c:'t •�\ I �1 r,`{ tt �+. i.j. S•,^ !t. t " ".� ra jh'll "r./1� b y+ b I :} •� .� �M ,, ••�yy�'; y„'v:uRrpi �S-'te\�^'• "' r) .�N •� , ,t, •`+s' t few 7,, •+e. j l { '� .5 �.��`•,�'�` �� � { y r \t'1}.z� .,��t`} ` 'hl rl• 1 i y. - � ,,yyyyy Y s •� � • ,�`�, 6� r�i�itw.�. ^"C: J ^�\ .aQ-L��c�: tY�� � � _ � �f� ,�/ ,t, `� .� ��•``�"'t� Kerr. „ ti..� �, I r. `Tj{• ' �T :T1M-� t �J 1�5 � yy,,,,.. 7 !tY �'��F �;• � t 1 1 � 1�"4� �@ � •Ysro}i � �.wc" `4-4���. 'mot `�«` +'�q t��� �4 r t�� � TM 1 ,� �� i }��.9j�:. •,.. .,[p yyvq 1 � �'� ry b':� _ ' .'?�'ui5'+�t�G�� a•C"'4� }< `� 1l 4#$$ N pt.. 1 pt•p t� � ! } `'\ '`qr vf,i4' a1 iN7Y."i;} ` Mi+* K ' t,}r,�.,�'. 1t� i ' A�IdS{�_ T�!{rY � tFr�[T ��, Ti..aT•_�q' �k 'Y �� g#'+> ��'+.1\ tlk Z.v �'"� bi�i }+�� S s� �'^r. � r« r, , Ali ��t�*4 � i; � i ! d '� +")) d.��1 t, r l t ( � � jhr`•,.• .a. �� 9t1 � �r�'.j�° �/T,4U J ..ti / i�,y �l � i�-'� w.�; }. ai..t S" .k lr f}�•j�t� t 'A� r; �t. � >�B� ��'r ,,:{j'!r ,1 ��iISL%'•k�j� • riq' �.�_ 3'. 'u, iSt °• ,j. l3r` .,� 4 .1 �. a}�t ,�.ar11; fJr f �� 1 :p'i� •itt , bt�•� '��ibr,�.. �f•� '' � 7. � .. t;{i� lt�' ;�F , r .; �.,�,�3'-t: � . �tw "��:" 11 XdY��•*,� s -T,9,. t1 r�`t'�-vk'a� -���' � ! "l � .14t/1+��. Tst•i7Y s `' .y9 t �4LS'y}M'r'w �fj"••'S.�t`.E `4Ytj, ,�I�Y.y 11�I�S l[.t,•q 'y inl- ��'li r tf�.. � Y '� � ~ � r5, r�µy. !' !- 4 -5 h 4 �:. a '� �3 ! ! ! !1 f+� i' �+� l , [ i Z ! ,��- '*i 3t �t ,t y '�r{+`,i� F4';;ll�f,, ��ye;''�`}' .�'„''��• iti yr'i�y !7, �Ft,���t �tP ����',;��� y�!'�`tryRl�t'.�,.yb�' ' �tl�►�'' '�°� ' � � '�„', I � �i rai;t.,��,`;�{�,+.t�,��.i} .j.. _ '�`�'�,tYu;,'k✓ j' ���.�r,.F, �1 •i. •�( `%A�;^�f� 1 r : ter(,/a,4�� r �� ��ir a *� Ya � � ti}1��;>, a� "� i!/ '} 75�T�.�Iti+Y «� •��n i d!a':' �� to 1'1f��lti�'',t� .'i%•l1`S" �w r ( a.5�i r,� j/ � t '{ •!" 1*,n :h 1,1(}.°�°I� im r;i �r'.T•�,aiA=�`' -;t r1 ti •4 R � f t` w i 4 a��. V , i�'�d �Prx`,#wq ,� �a � ` � a'c,'�Lr I � �. �^ a•Y � � y.l � r h C i r,; } �� �`O� T�„+�' '`•"7 'i�Y t"'.`r,�ri> „Y� '.. r�,.y��'�! Li...2 ^p� r +1.'!•r''t�r.9'7YJ'. y z���. �^ � � f hi;r° Iftr�Jf�, L a �1�'r� �i•.;r`.� �� -r-i�+S 7 q r,(t5 y �•�$' 1":�'•` �" R ,,,,qq ��. - a•"".tn 7" � t/ .cw 0 r f���}}+ ,---i 11 71� t `'w+fh ���!^ (�, ,L) ../,� ,4 �.. " ``•a. �`ty� �t '44 ,If�Q��.. � d•. �F it �, �S �y1� ��- x �(t �/ .•�iy�.1 'a�y��� _ �� i _ i,:%b{+�cU'�.'.. �'NtNtYi+4S y, �. � r r \ .; N'}.f c � tl � l rf '`c;•:�'t �T Y '� x. ` -r 9 :,.. �.. +`�..-,r J.r dM. "'y Z•,,{,,g.., 4 a�:ir\ti� i•i.'!+n„b"$3i }'+� r `l) - 1� ei! � t " `[• +1 ^. � 'R ctt \�''_"tr -U b ,1�. ��•'�y l'"' F r� y' s�-' 1 \ 7',"''� \q,fto,�t ��^ty '• � * ```�/'�-'�+Z�� -,� T�� � ��,,,, � Lam,• 1�• i ��� ' "r �r �� J ,,.• ..w �Rr� r >,�i../� � t « 1 � =,•r {9vlq�. L',�5c„'�T� trlt �f '�'1 ��+.. i Nl �ar.)j�jY��'� J..i•1„i ,p(�q :�aT�ti. R 'DroF"; i /�sr �;Y,� ` "C �. , ��i "t$51'i•k t+r�• 't 1 v`J • "`�,,Au' '�;x . -.5�, .�y.F^,,'' �t'�`�Wh ���a� y, f�e% r���� �r�lt r £� �` t(4�5 7. TF .���'i ~7�` •� at t,,,��! 1 "'�. �" 1�s "a!'Wy' N SA ,�• � �ft\i�'�%'�' c '�y� �-`\'�,�1� L��t`T�y�'� •"i1 � ( �A"`�`^�� >'6t,,,,� l 1 `!" t v: j i � .P � y, + ,.�i; t�k�'r'P r" � � 7'' �F /�, -4� i? It •�/ 1`jj�� + �IJr � Y �i :sl'� � +t,Cr•u.-.5,% >>� ( . ����� �`*�ia/(.�i�,.K"}--�,'7�� t.4• .y, // ���1�f'1` i : a 'ta '`,u. i-••�a���.+ sL�Jt .1',t�,� ` �.c-T; ,' i-\�1,`rt"h P,l lV �` r +, -`y,(. ts:er .�i.Y>y�.Y c..t�Y,'_l�t`•`4.e7> �i .SY' • �i'1`+y r''9"1ay'..,�� j r i,y� �.�t, i:�vR� zt t'^ �'''zSAaci w ♦_It .c yKPE'•r'y"�` v � y �b �� >. Z M ,rtt �� •TMj "Y ! ] rv, ,6t' } {`b� ! ? sty "'Y*h"`,�;� 3%• ��`• t r���r—�.� +�' ^ 17'"''°f «C 1 `'r`'1 rp STF�"�",��.1� (f. ✓' r ay`�,c�+'� 1 7�•'�Z•n.�c2-S,�l� �t��� � �� n � xla��.r✓d(*�]!!� !/y• ' '�,h[ w:��,.�' ,�4.7'fv+?�!, }�,.'.Kti 4'A.�t.n`.. �'"r_.•t5 r� e. -t A. '�'lYl._ fi/�i,... ,.=„I Vie. �? 2 .rat. .K �R:�e:!c.i. s'�.t. iI lnc.189v April 26, 2001 STREET FILE CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON. 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 •FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Phillip & Miriam Lehn Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72" d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Slope Stability Consultation Dear_ Mr. & Mrs.. Lehn, 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 72"d 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 F - --pro essionalT geotecluiical expertise to further investigate `aiid 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, Jeanne L. Graf Building Official Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Carol Walker, Property Owner @ 16209 75* Place West Mary Neering, Property Owner @ 16119 73rd Place West Steven & Joan Johnson, Property Owners @1612174h 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 5d' Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Jeannine Graf Building Official RE: SLOPE STABILITY CONSULTATION 16202 72ND AVENUE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON u Dear Ms. Graf. April 19, 2001 0Fc� A® kfiZvi PR? �VF3 ?QQ� G/ryHop DF M 4403r aVr At your request, we conducted a limited review of slope stability and risk issues at 16202 72iid 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 SCi,7H • 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 slupe 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_thce property in. this. area. _ 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 S:\WPROC\074\M\16202-72nd-Itr.doc LANDAU AssoclATEs 2 the jndividual 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:\WPROC\074\092\16202-72nd-Itr.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. Principal and E,v olt4z Steven R. Wright, P.E. Senior Engineer LANDAU ASSocIATES 3 STREET FILE March 29, 2001 : G.UI'LOING. City of Edmonds MAR 3 0 1001- Atten: Jeannine Graf, Building Official ` Community Services Department ; 121 5t' Avenue North Edmonds, WA.98020 Re: Requested permission to inspect subsidence along the bluff_ . Dear Jeannine: Mariam and I have been .out of town and just received both copies of your March 23, 2001 letter requesting permission to enter our .property to inspect the ongoing subsidence along the bluff. Because we want the city to inspect the bluff, we have signed and attached a copyvof your letter. However, in signing your letter we are compelled to correct at least two of its misconceptions. First, the additional. subsidence resulting from the . recent earthquake increased an .ongoing process that has been gradually developing. While. the widening crack is clear. evidence of the imminent threat of a large landslide, it. hasn't happened yet. Second, only . part of the crack is located on our property. Most of the subsidence occurring. along the bluff, from the contact plane upwards to and including part of the crack itself,. is located on land owned by Carol P..Walker .(16209 75t' Place W.). Yours truly, - Phillip Lehn CC: _ Karen Willie, Attorney at Law 16202 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 T/F: 425-745-8949.8:'phuritsho@home.com the, 189v MOR-114 i CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR March 23, 2001 uur�uiNu Phillip & Miriam Lehn r MAR 3 0 2001 Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Associated Earth Sciences Report dated 3/15/01 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lehn, The City is in receipt of a report you commissioned from Associated Earth Sciences, dated 3/15/01 regarding a landslide that occurred on property you own at 16202 72"d Avenue West, due to the most recent earthquake. Therefore, pursuant to City Ordinance #2661 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth. Subsidence, Landslide Hazard Area and Uniform Building Code Sections 102 and "10,4..2:3;, the. City. and ;it's consultants, request permission to enter upon land you own to investigate the `noted slope failure. Our inspection will not involve any intrusive action. Pending the result of this investigation the Building Official may be forced to require further investigation and.slope mitigation to ascertain temporary and permanent slope protection. 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. We Phillip Lehn and Miriam Lehn, property owners at 16202 72nd Ave W, hereby grant permission for City Officials and their agents and consultants to enter upon our property as described in this letter. Thank you, Phillip V6hn Date ►j Jeannine. Graf. M-i Lehn Date Building Official Cc: ,',Duane. Bowman, Development Services Director Pave, Get ert,.CityEngineer, • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan �•z9•di 0 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. March.16, 2001 AESI Project No. BE01022A STREET FILE. - City of Edmonds Development Services 121 5th, Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 MAR 2001 - Attention: Ms. Jeanine Graf' BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Subject: Landslide Risk, 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms.. Graf- Please find attached- Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI) . letter titled Limited Slope Reconnaissance, 16202 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington, dated March•15,.2001., This - letter report presents information gathered during a recent slope evaluation performed' at the 16202 72nd Avenue West property regarding active landslide activity on adjacent properties to the west.' In our -opinion, the reactivated earth movement on the" slope adjacent and to and- west of the property at `16202 '72nd Avenue West, precipitated by the February 28, 2001 seismic event, presents a high. risk of imminent landsliding in this area. Consequently, risk of damage- to the existing homes at the base of the slope on- 74th Place West, as well as additional damage to the upslope.property is considered extremely high. We recommend that the.City of Edmonds review the situation as soon as possible to determine appropriate mitigating measures. If you have any questions, please call us at (206) 780-9370. Sincerely,. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. West Sound Office Robert F. Cousins, P.G. 'John L. Peterson, P.E. Project Geologist Senior Geotechnical.Engineer cc: • Phillip Lehn, Green Terra, Jnc. Stephan Fjelstad, Law Offices of Karen A. Willie Charles Gacek, Adapt Engineering Chun and Ui Chon Pak, Lot.#6, Lorian Woods Mary Neering; Lot #7, Lorian Woods -r Joan and Steve Johnson, Lot #8, Lorian .Woods John and d'Elaine Johnson, 16122 72nd Avenue West W:\GEOTECH\Lehn Property BE01022\1BE01022A City of Edmonds Landslide Ltr.doc Corporate Office • 91 1 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 206-7,80-9370 • Fax 206 780�9438 , STREET FILE Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. IN March 15, 2001 AESI Project No. BE01022A Green Terra, Inc. 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn Subject: Limited Slope Reconnaissance 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Lehn: BUI! I NU ;;3cs?aFz`MENT C11Y OF EU'MONDS 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 (Lehn 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 lsland,WA 98110 • Phone 206 780-9370 • Fax 206 780-9438 Phillip Lehn AESI Project No. BE01022A March 15, 2001 Page 2 inferred to' 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 rockery on 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, 2001 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 hydi-ogeological 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 hazard to your property and the downslope residents. Phillip Lehn . AESI Project No. BE01022A March 15, 2001 Page 3 , If you have an questions or require y y q q e any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. West Sound Office - �o .p18$02� �- csr� - �sf�NALFSiG�' 1 • EXPIRES 6/22 Robert F. Cousins, P.G. John L. Peterson, P.E: Project Geologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Stephan Fjelstad, Law Offices of Karen A. Willie W:\GEOTECH\Lehn Property BE01022\BE01022A Lehn Crack Letter.doc Earth Consultants Inc. t Gex7teGftCtl+� i tzginerta, Oea1o¢Jab a En�Sronmmntal sebrltiste SOLD I N G Reference • —' MAR 13 1998 pate. FAXCOVER SHEET FAX TO: FAX NUMBER: •--t ' �LA__,� - C1 Ll Ci FROM SUBJE NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:_—_ If you have any questions, please call (425) 643-3780. Our FAX number Is (426) 74-608-60. 2. Original copy to be mailed: YES NO 11 1 —9 180S -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bekwus, Washington 9W Beilevua (425)6493180 Seatle (206) 464-1584 FAX (425) 74-80W Tacoma (253) 272eO8 I 'd 0980 PL 90Z A Rnd 'HI 'SINbb'Il1SNOJ HIM Wd H:I Idd 86-8I-M March 12, 1998 Green Tara Incorporated clo Phillip Lehn 16202 - 72nd Avenue west Edmonds, Washington 98025-4904 Subject. Slope Failure Greenness Edrnonds, Washington Dear Phil: Earth Consultants Inc. �,t i1; ` 1 /l c xYnrlr�lr�l rc19Mm-n GMk)M5t9 & F:nvimnmenthl SCJentibt; BUKOIN6 MAR 13 1998 E-1165-2 In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to provide our observations and recommendations regarding the failure that occurred on the slope bordering the west side of the site on February 13, 1997. Slte ondit�$ The undersigned visited the site on February 18, 1998 to observe the condition of the slope and slide area. The slide occurred on the south portion of the slope that borders the west side of the site. The topography in the area of the slide consists of a steep to near vertical bluff which extends down to a relatively wide, level bench area, beyond which the slope continues down to the neighboring properties. Debris from the slide transitioned the level bench and extended down the lower slope and into the yard eras of the adjacent residence to the west. The width of the slide area is approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet. The soil conditions exposed on the face of the bluff in the slide area consist of relatively clean sand overlying dense silt. The sand deposit was observed to be approximately thirty (30) feet in thickness. Groundwater seepage was observed at several locations along the bluff in the vicinity of the slide at the contact between the sand and the silt and formed a few rivulets located north,south and central to the slide area. The magnitude of the seepage varied from slight to heavy, with flows ' estimated to be several gallons per minute at some locations. One of the heavy flow areas emanated from a significant "hole" that extends back into the slope an undetermined distance. Temporary drainage measures had been Installed by the time of our site visit, which consisted of flexible ADS pipe placed to collect water flowing from the slope. 16N -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98M Bellevue (426) $4 .1780 Sea►tle (206) 464-1584 FAX (425) 74.60840 Tacoma (253) 272-66M Z 'd 0980 PL 90Z 'ON M Al 'SIMUSN00 HLPH Wd ££:1 1Hd 86-£1-Hy➢( Green Tara incorporated E-1165-2 cto Phillip Lehn Page 2 March 12, 1998 The slide occurred on the western face of a hill which slopes east and south as well as west. Prior to the slide, the ground surface in the slide area sloped gradually downward from the crest to: a steeply sloping face, which began approximately ten (10) to fifteenr(15) feet below the crest. The slide reconfigured the slope such that a more steeply sloping face now begins Immediately below the crest and descends approximately thirty (30) feet to a more gradually *loping, ten (10) foot wide bench before descending almost vertically for another twenty (20) feet. immediately across from the site on the east side of 72nd Avenue West there is a concrete outlet with two, twelve (12) inch diameter discharge pipes. It Is our understanding these pipes discharge storm water collected from over twenty houses and four streets (164th Street Southwest, 70th Place West, 71 st Place West and 72nd Avenue West). A grated concrete inlet is located approximately 100 feet north of this outlet, along what appears to be a natural drainage ravine. The grated inlet has concrete wing walls to direct surface flows Into another twelve (12) inch pipe which extends down the hill toward North Meadowdele Road. During our February 18 site visit, a steady flow of storm water approximately one inch deep was observed flowing from the outlet and disappearing into the ground without ponding approximateiy fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet north of the outlet. None of the water observed emerging from the outlet made it to the grated inlet further down the ravine. it is our understanding that heavier rains later that night resulted in steady flows four to six inches deep from the outlet which also disappeared into the ground before any water could reach or come near to the grated Inlet, We were informed a few days later that a large drywell had been constructed near the outlet over twenty years ago. Based on the information presented above,. storm drainage water from a[I but the severest storms has been diverted fram the inlet and has infiltrated into the dry well for more than twenty years. Conclusions Based on our observations of the site prior to the slide and after the slide, in our opinion the slide was the result of groundwater seepage forces within the slope at the contact between the upper send soil and the lower slit, coupled with the relatively steep nature of the slope. In our opinion, the presence of the previously mentioned dry well cannot be discounted as a contributing factor or possible trigger of the slide. More specific conclusions will require a complete geotechnical investigation as discussed below. In our opinion, no emergency measures ere necessary at this time. The site conditions do not warrant vacating the residences at the top and bottom of the slope. Eath Camuhanb, Inc. 8 'd 0980 9tL 907, 'ON xyd Al 'SINb,L SNO HIM Kd H:I (dd 86-8Nyw Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-2 c/o Phillip Lehn Page 3 March 12, 1995 Rec�rnmondations Because bluffs throughout the region normally retreat at the rate of a few inches per year, and can remain stable for many years before losing several feet in a major event, it Is our opinion that, substantial measures are needed to stabilize the slope. Unless the remedial action is greater in scope than simply protecting the exposed soil from erosion, the slope will likely remain In its current configuration for a time but eventually will continue to retreat. Following are recommendations for short-term and long-term measures to maintain and improve the stability of the slope. Short Term In the short-term, we recommend the following: 1. Seepage and groundwater flows exiting the lower face of the slide area should be collected and discharged to an outlet approved by the City of Edmonds. 2. The condition of the slope at the locations where significant flows are exiting the face of the slope should be monitored to determine if erosion of the slope face is occurring. Should erosion be observed, erosion control measures should be implemented to mitigate the erosion. Specific recommendations should be provided when erosion is observed. However for planning purposes, they should Include placement of crushed rock or similar material over the seepage area to reduce the potential for erosion and piping and/or placement of a gsotextile material suitable for erosion control. 3. While the slide may resemble typical steep slope failure that have occurred throughout the Puget Sound region, hydrologic tests should be performed to determine the possible impact of the dry well on the destabilization of the slope. The flow rate of the heavy flow areas should be monitored for a period of time that Includes an extended length of dry weather and an episode of relatively heavy rainfall. The flow rate from the storm water discharged into the drywell should also be measured and compared to the rate and response time of groundwater emerging the slide area. Under the circumstances, we also recommend a dye test be performed as a reasonable attempt to determine the Impact of the dryweli on the slope. firth Co rAfflta hm. [' d 0980 P6 90Z 'ON Xdd 58; [ [H 86-81-M Green Tara Incorporated 016 Phillip Lehn March 12, 1998 E-1165.2 Page A Long-1-orrtta in order to provide specific long term recommendations, it will be necessary to perform subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study. In addition, a topographic survey of the property along the bluff from within about fifty (50) feet of the crest to -about fifty (50) feet beyond the too of the slope will also be needed. Following are general recommendations for long-term repair options. Less Extensive Option The debris on the level bench area. and at the toe of tho slope should be removed. The water emanating from the toe of the steep portion of the slope should be collected and conveyed by a tightline or other methods to a discharge location approved by the City of Edmonds. The drainage can be collected by placing drain rock at the toe of the steep slope that covers the seepage areas. A small trench should be placed at the bottom of the rocked area to collect the water. A perforated, PVC pipe should be placed In the trench to collect the water and direct it to the tightline or other conveyance system. A tightline, if used, should consist of Drisco pipe. 2. The slope should be protected from erosion by placing an erosion control blanket such as LANDLOK TRM 1060 on the face of the slope. Loose soil on the slope surface should be removed prior to installation of the blankets. In addition, the surface of the slope should be contoured such that the surface iS uniform. The blankets should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. The LANDLOK TRM 1060 can be obtained from Northwest Linings and Geotextile Products, in Kent, Washington, (253) 872-0244. The above recommendations would improve the stability of the slope; however, the slope would, over a period of years, continue to retreat. Carol Cam -trams, ft- S 'd 0980 94 90G- 'ON Ydd 'aNi 'SZNVIUSNOO HbdYd Wd Sc1;1, fad $o-OI-arw Green Tara Incorporated . c/o Phillip Lehn E-1185-Z March 12, 1998 Page 5 More Extensive Option - 1. The debris should be removed as recommended in number 1 above, 2. Stabilization of the slope is accomplished by construction of a retaining wall some distance beyond the toe of the steep slope, or a series of wells beginning beyond the toe of the steep slope and stepping up the slope. Construction of the walls should incorporate the drainage measures discussed in number 1 above for the Less Extensive Option. Soldier pile walls are typically used in these cases, however, other wall options may be suitable. It will be necessary to backflll walls with free draining materials. 3. As an alternative to the retaining wall construction, and/or in combination with the retaining wall construction, the toe of the steep slope could be buttressed with a rock fill and the steep elope armored with rock. This would involve placement of angular crushed rack on the slope surface to protect the face of the slope from weathering. As stated previously, in order to provide specific recommendations for permanent stabilization, It will be necessary to conduct subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study: We would also require a topographic survey of the slope in order to complete our study: The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, tt. CA,�p EARTH CONSULTA t7l Kyle R. Campbell, P. Manager of Geotechnic r— KRCA H ...... cc: City of Edmonds Attn: Jeannine Graf 3113r 0 9 d 0980 9i'L 90Z 'ON M Earth ca"W tam, tM. "Al 'SLU111:1SN0) HLaYa Wd 98: i 11d 86-8NYW Mayor Barbara Fahey City Hall 121 - 50' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mayor Fahey: July 2, 1998 GpidlM plriE�iO� STREET FILE Re: . City dry well affecting slope stability at @ 16209 75'h PI. W. and 16202 72nd Ave. W. 1 know you must be very busy and regret having to disturb you with our complaint. Unfortunately I no longer trust Director Paul Mar, City Engineer Jim Walker or Hydraulics Engineer Don Feine to respond effectively .to our problem. On Friday, February 13, 1998 a substantial landslide occurred on the southern edge of my family's and our neighbor, Pat Walker's properties disturbing an area approximately 30 — 40 feet wide and 400 feet long. In addition to the costly property damage already suffered, substantial cracks along the opposite side of our bluff indicate that another, and possibly even more destructive slide continues to threaten the properties above and the houses below. Soon after the slide, 1 discovered a large dry well (approximately 16' wide by 100' long by an undetermined depth). in the City's right of way, uphill and across thestreet from our property that intercepts and infiltrates storm water collected from a large residential area comprising nearly ten acres, four streets and twenty-one houses. At first the Engineering Division refused to acknowledge the dry well's existence; then they tried to dismiss its significance. When they finally refused to help us determine whether or not it was impacting the slide area, my wife and I commissioned Associated Earth Sciences Inc., a well -respected regional authority on geo-hydrology, to conduct a dye test. Their test confirmed that water from the dry well is indeed contributing to the seepage destabilizing the slide area and, because it took such an unusually short time for the dye to migrate from the dry well to the bluff, the connection between the two is believed to be very direct. Despite my many telephone calls and letters addressed to Building Official Jeannine Graf, Hydraulic Engineer Don Feine, City Engineer Jim Walker, and Director Paul Mar, informing them of our discovery starting three months before R. W. Beck's "Meadowdale Drainage Investigation".was finally released, the City's official study still perpetuates the dangerous misconception that the dry well is really a ditch that conveys rather than intercepts and infiltrates the storm water directly into the ground. Based on this misconception, Beck assigned its estimated $20,000 repair a "low" priority. This is particularly ironic since_they assigned the estimated $21,000 repair of the catch basins located on Pat Walker's property at the toe of the slide area and which continue to threaten no one, a "high" priority. On February 23, 1998 and again on May 21, 1998, City Engineer Jim Walker assured me that the cost of bypassing the dry well was small enough that the work could be completed this summer, despite his biased expectation that Beck's study would probably give it a "low" priority. Unfortunately, I recently learned that Walker told Feine not to schedule the work this summer just before leaving for a month's vacation in Europe. If this is true, my wife and I would like to know why. We would also like to know why Graf, Feine, Walker or Mar didn't tell Beck that the ditch was a dry well before Beck set their priorities. Who is setting the City's priorities and when will the infiltration from the dry well be finally stopped? Thank you for any help you can give to solving this problem before it threatens lives and more property next winter. Yours truly, Phillip Lehn. cc: Paul Mar, Community Services Director ✓ David Alskog, Attorney at Law 16202 — 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel / Fax: 425-745-8949 STREET FILE `I i Earth Consultants Inc. C ' t G olechni< & Enginvrrs. GvologLas Eli ironment l tiiir7iLtiis i March 12, 1998 E-1165-2 Green Tara Incorporated JON c/o Phillip Lehn g,9�' R E C I V E D 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 JU.i Subject: Slope Failure Greenness Edmonds, Washington Dear Phil: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to provide our observations and recommendations regarding the failure that occurred on the slope bordering the west side of the site on February 13, 1997. Site Conditions The undersigned visited the site on February 18, 1998 to observe the condition of the slope and slide area. The slide occurred on the south portion of the slope that borders the west side of the site. The topography in the area of the slide consists of a steep to near vertical bluff which extends down to a relatively wide, level bench area, beyond which the slope continues down to the neighboring properties. Debris from the slide transitioned the level bench and extended down the lower slope and into the yard area of the adjacent residence to the west. The width of the slide area is approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet. The soil conditions exposed on the face of the bluff in the slide area consist. of relatively clean sand overlying dense silt. The sand- deposit was observed to be approximately thirty (30) feet in thickness. Groundwater seepage was observed at several locations along the bluff in the vicinity of the slide at the contact between the sand and the silt and formed a few rivulets located north,south and central to the slide area. The magnitude of the seepage varied from slight to heavy, with flows estimated to be several gallons per minute at some locations. One of the heavy flow areas emanated from a significant "hole" that extends back into the slope an undetermined distance. Temporary drainage measures had been installed by the time of our site visit, which consisted of flexible ADS pipe placed to collect water flowing from the slope. 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (425) 74-608-60 Tacoma (253) 272-6608 Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 Page 2 Discussion The slide occurred on the western face of a hill which slopes east and south as well as west. Prior to the slide, the ground surface in the slide area sloped gradually downward from the crest to a steeply sloping face, which began approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet below the crest. The slide reconfigured the slope such that a more steeply sloping face now begins immediately below the crest and descends approximately thirty (30) feet to a more gradually sloping, ten (10) foot wide bench before descending almost vertically for another twenty (20) feet. Immediately across from the site on the east side of 72nd Avenue West there is a concrete outlet with two, twelve (12) inch diameter discharge pipes. It is our understanding these pipes discharge storm water collected from over twenty houses and four streets (164th Street Southwest, 70th Place West, 71st Place West and 72nd Avenue West). A grated concrete inlet is located approximately 100 feet north of this outlet, along what appears to be a natural drainage ravine. The grated inlet has concrete wing walls to direct surface flows into another twelve (12) inch pipe which extends down the hill toward North Meadowdale Road. During our February 18 site visit, a steady flow of storm water approximately one inch deep was observed flowing from the outlet and disappearing into the ground without ponding approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet north of the outlet. None of the water observed emerging from the outlet made it to the grated inlet further down the ravine. It is our understanding that heavier rains later that night resulted in steady flows four to six inches deep from the outlet which also disappeared into the ground before any water could reach or come near to the grated inlet. We were informed a few days later that a large drywell -had been constructed near the outlet over twenty years ago. Based on the information presented above, storm drainage water from all but the severest storms has been diverted from the inlet and has infiltrated into the dry-well.for more than twenty years. Conclusions Based on our observations of the site prior to the slide and after the slide, in our opinion the slide was the result of groundwater seepage forces within the slope at the contact between the upper sand soil and the lower silt, coupled with the relatively steep nature of the slope. In our opinion, the presence of the previously mentioned dry well cannot be discounted as a contributing factor or possible trigger of the slide. More specific conclusions will require a complete geotechnical investigation as discussed below. In our opinion, no emergency measures are necessary at this time. The site conditions do not warrant vacating the residences at the top and bottom of the slope. Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn March 12, 1998 Recommendations E-1165-2 Page 3 Because,bluffs throughout the region normally retreat at the rate of a few inches per year, and can remain stable for many.years before losing several feet in a major event, it is our.opinion that, substantial measures are needed to stabilize the slope. Unless the remedial action is greater in scope than simply protecting the exposed soil from erosion, the slope will likely remain in its current configuration for a time. but eventually will continue to retreat. Following are recommendations for short-term and long-term measures to maintain and improve the stability of the slope. Short -Term In the short-term, we recommend the following: 1. Seepage and groundwater flows exiting the lower face of the slide area should be collected and discharged to an outlet approved by the City of Edmonds. 2. The condition of the slope at the locations where significant flows are exiting the face of the slope should be monitored. to determine if erosion of the slope face is occurring. Should erosion be observed, erosion control measures should be implemented to mitigate the erosion. Specific recommendations should be provided when erosion is observed. However for planning purposes, they should include placement of crushed rock or similar material over the seepage area to reduce the potential for erosion and piping and/or placement of a geotextile material suitable for erosion control. 3. While the slide may resemble typical steep slope failure that have occurred throughout the Puget Sound region, hydrologic tests should be performed to determine the possible impact of the dry well on the destabilization of the slope. The flow rate of the heavy flow areas should be monitored for a period of time that includes an extended length of dry weather and an episode of relatively heavy rainfall. The flow rate from the storm water discharged into the drywell should also be measured and compared to the rate and response time of groundwater emerging the slide area. Under the circumstances, we also recommend a dye test be performed as a reasonable attempt to determine the impact of the drywell on the slope. 'Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 Page 4 Long -Term In order to provide specific long term recommendations, it will be necessary to perform subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study. In addition, a topographic survey of the property along the bluff from within about fifty (50) feet of the crest to about fifty (50) feet beyond the toe of the slope will also be needed. Following are general recommendations for long-term repair options. Less Extensive Option - 1. The debris on the level bench area and at the toe of the slope should be removed. The water emanating from the toe of the steep portion of the slope should be collected and conveyed by a tightline or other methods to a discharge location approved by the City of Edmonds. The drainage can be collected by placing drain rock at the toe of the steep slope that covers the seepage areas. A small trench should be placed at the bottom of the rocked area to collect the water. A perforated, PVC pipe should be placed in the trench to collect the water and direct it to the tightline or other conveyance system. A tightline, if used, should consist of Drisco pipe. 2. The slope should be protected from erosion by placing an erosion control blanket such as LANDLOK TRM 1060 on the face of the slope. Loose soil on the slope surface should be removed prior to installation of the blankets. In addition, the surface of the slope should be contoured such that the surface is uniform. . The blankets should be installed in 'accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. The LANDLOK TRM 1060 can be obtained from Northwest Linings and Geotextile Products, in Kent, Washington, (253) 872-0244. The above recommendations would improve the stability of the slope; however, the slope would, over a period of years, .continue to retreat. :-Green Tarti Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn March 12, 1998 More Extensive Option - E-1165-2 Page 5 1. The debris should be removed as recommended in number 1 above. 2. Stabilization of the slope is accomplished by .construction of a retaining wall .some distance beyond the toe of the steep slope, or a series of walls beginning beyond the toe of the steep slope and stepping up the slope. Construction of the walls should incorporate the drainage measures discussed in number 1 above for the Less Extensive Option. Soldier pile walls are typically used in these cases, however, other wall options may be suitable. It will be necessary to backfill walls with free draining materials. 3. As an alternative to the retaining wall construction, and/or in combination with the retaining wall construction, the toe of the steep slope could be buttressed with a rock fill and the steep slope armored with rock. This would involve placement of angular crushed rock on the slope surface to protect the face of the slope from weathering. As stated previously, in order to provide specific recommendations for permanent stabilization, it will be necessary to conduct subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study. We would also require a topographic survey of the slope in order to complete our study. The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated questions, please call. Very truly yours, EARTH CONSULT �e �. CA % psi do pu 31t31i Kyle R. Campbell, P.E°'�,'�rr�oNAL�yc, Manager of Geotechnica -S,u�,6g KRClkrrd —.-- cc: City of Edmonds Attn; Jeannine Graf Should you have any 1-tic.189l1 ILt .TREE CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering + Wastewater Treatment Plant June 16, 1998 Phil Lehn 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98020 SUBJECT: Response to June 5, 1998 Letter discussing Meadowdale Drainage Investigation Improvements Dear Mr. Lehn: Your letter will be forwarded to RW Beck for their review. You should have already received a copy of page 3-4 from the RW Beck report. The City does not currently have any record system that would list all private drainage systems in the City. It is possible that such a list will be generated in the near future for Public Works to use to inspect private drainage systems. - Please call me or Don Fiene at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCw/cnic Cc: Paul Mar Jeannine Graf Don Fiene \\CITY2WS%NGRWMW\PH1U-2. DOC • Incorporated August 1I, I890 • . Sister Cities lntarnational — Hekinan..lanan -1 C. °1') April 9, 1998 Sent VIA FAX STREET FILE CITY OF EDMO DS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works.• Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Wastewater Treatment Plant Mr. Philip Lehn, Architect Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: 16202 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds This is in response to a portion of your letter dated 4/6/98.' Under, the 1994 edition of the Abatement of Dangerous Building Code the duties and powers of the Building Official are to inspect or cause to be inspected any building or premises. that is dangerous based on criteria established in Section 302.. In your particular case of slope failure, a geotechnical report was required and provided on 3/16/98 which stated, "in our opinion, no emergency measures are necessary at this rime." The report however, included required slope mitigation measures to be taken. If in the future additional site failures occur, I will invoke the enforcement powers of the code to again require mitigation or abatement measures to be taken. The Building Official shall ensure that the subject site is properly monitored and 'stabilization measures proposed in geotechnical reports are completed. The Building Official is not required to ascertain why a slope failure occurred, but to require protection, correction or mitigation measures to be completed. Your last letter stated that a qualified geotechnical engineer from Associated Earth Sciences will continue to monitor the site until you choose another engineering firm. It is my recommendation that you choose. your new geotechnical engineer, commit to a plan of action and complete required work in a timely manner. Thank you, 6f&yi xmC Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer e Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan STREET Monday, April 6, 1998 City of Edmonds Atten: Jeannine Graf, Building Official APR = 898 BUIL p��G DEFT. Tel: 425-771-0020 Community Services Department Fax: 425-771-0221 121 Y Avenue North Transmission: 2 pages Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Plan of Action for Slope Protection @ 16202 72"d Avenue West, Edmonds Dear Jeannine: We have decided to select a new geotechnical engineer who will likely prepare a new report and plan for our slope's protection. Considering the time needed to schedule meetings with each of the candidates at the site, I think We should be able to make our final selection by the end of this month.` In the meantime, a qualified geotechnical engineer from Assoicated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) of Kirkland, Washington will continue to monitor the slide area. AESI's recent dye test has determined that storm water discharged into the dry well east of 72', Avenue West is contributing to the seepage destabilizing the slide area. Given the damage already caused and the disintegrating effects it continues to have on our properties, Pat Walker and Mariam and I are very anxious to have any further infiltration of storm water along. the dry well stopped as',soon as possible. To avoid any further delay that could be attributed to any additional tests involving the dry well, it.would help us to know when the City plans to correct this very hazardous condition. To repeat the still unanswered questions posed in my 3-23-98 letter, does the Meadowdale Slide Study recommend that the City prevent any further infiltration along the drainage ravine now know to be a dry well? If the study makes this recommendation, when will the City implement it? While reluctant to risk anymore time and money on permanent erosion control when seepage fed by the dry. well continues to undermine our efforts, Mariam and I have already begun.to re - vegetate the upper part of the slide area. We are also willing to share the costs of clearing the debris, armoring existing channels with crushed rock, and hydro -seeding and planting native shrubs and trees throughout the entire slide area once infiltration from the dry well is stopped. We do not understand how the "plan of action," required by your 3-16-98 and 3-26-98 letters, can be prepared until you or someone else in the City responds to the points raised in my 3-23-98 letter. Regarding those points that do. not involve "issues of liability," who else besides yourself should we consider the "appropriate forum"? Regarding issues of shared liability between neighbors who own substantially different percentages of the affected land, what are the.City's normal policies and which court judgements are they based on? If you feel you are unable to respond to some of our points, please direct those to someone who is able. If you are unwilling to respond to any of the points, please tell us why.. Until fundamental questions of liability are settled, the economic feasibility of any long-term plans to stabilize the slide area will remain in doubt. The long-term plans proposed by Earth Consultants - Inc. -in their 3-13-98 report are prohibitively expensive for Mariam and I. 1 � City of Edmonds Jeannine Graf April 6, 1998 Page two Please respond in writing to the points raised in this letter. We would sincerely appreciate any help to resolve this matter well. Yours truly, A4 Phillip Lehn, Architect CC: Paul Mar, Director - Community Services Department David Alskog, Attorney at Law ✓ Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel / Fax: 425-745-8949 FROM: PHILLIP LEHN ARCHITECT PHONE NO. 425 745 8949 Monday, April6, 1998 STREET Apr. 06 1998 11:30AM P1 FILE PR , 619 O City of Edmonds Attem Jeannine Graf. Building Official Tel: 425-771-0020 Corrmu' nity Services Deportment Fax: 425-771-0221 121 7 Avenue North Transmission: 2 pages Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Plan of Action for Slope Protection 0 16202 72f0 Avenue Watt, Edmonds Dear Jeannine: We have decided to select a new geotechnical engineer who will likely prepare a new report and plan for our slope's protection. Considering the time needed to schedule meetings with each of the candidates at the site. I think we should be able to make our final selection by the end of this month. In the meantime. a qualified oeotechnical engineer from Assolcated Earth Sciencea Inc. {AESD of Kirkland, Washington will continue to monitor the slide area. AESI's recent dye test has determined that storm water discharged into the dry well east of 721", Avenue, West is contributing to the seepage desta0lizing the slide area. Given the damage olroody caused and the disintagrafinro Pffr-r. to it rnntini im to hnva on our pr=ert{eS, PW WQIKor and Mariam and I are very. arudous to have any further infiltration of storm water along, the dry well stowed as\soon as wasible. To avoid any further delay that could be attributed to any additional tests involving the dry well. It -would help us to know when the City plans to correct this very hazardous condition. To repeat the still unanswered questions posed in my 3-23-98 letter, does the Meadowdole Slide Study recommend that the City prevent any further infiltration along the drainage ravine now know to be o dry well? If the study makes this recort)mendation, what) will the City Implement It? While reluctant to risk anymore time and money on permanent erosion control when seepage fed by the dry. well continues to undermine our efforts, Mariam and I have already begun, to re - vegetate the upper part;, of the slide area. We are also willing to share the costs of clearing the debris, armoring existing channels with crushed rock and hydro -seeding and planting native shrubs and trots througriout the entire aide area once infiltration from the dry well is stopped. We do not understand hove the "plan of action," required by your 3-116-98 and 3-26-98 letters, can be prepared until you or someone.else In the City responds to the points raised in my 3-23-98 letter. Regarding those points that do not evolve "issues of liability." who else besides yourself should we. consider the "appropriate forum"? Regarding issues of shared liability between neighbors who own substantially different percentages of the affected land, what are the City's normal policies and which court judgements are they based on? If you feel you ore unable to r.espond to some of our points, please direct those to someone who is able. If you are unwilling to respodd to any of the points. please tell us why. UnTII fundamental questions of liability are settled, the economic feasibility of any long-term plans to stabilize the side area will remain in doubt. The long-term plans proposed by Earth Consultants Inc. -in their 3-13-% report are prohibitively expensive for Mariam and 1. FROST PHILLIP LEHN ARCHITECT PHONE NO. : 425 745 8949 Apr. 06 1998 11:31AM P2 City of Edmunds .Jeannine Greif April6,1998 Page two Please respond In writing To the points rased in this letter. we would sincerely appreclate any help to resolve this matter well. Yours truly, A+ Phillip Lehn, Architect CC:. Paul Mar, Director - Convnunity Services Department David Alskog, Attorney at Law Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72"° Avenue west Edmonds. WA 98026 Tel / Fox: 425-745-8949 010, CITY OF EDMONDS RED BARBARA FAHEY '�; •• :1lrn MAYOR ®K%4ir�r 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771.0221 •. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant C. 189� Mr. Philip Lehn, Architect March 26, 1998 Green Tara Incorporated Sent VIA FAX 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Letter dated 3/23/98 This is in response to a portion of your letter dated 3/23/98. , The original letter sent to you by the City (dated 2/20/98) required that you enlist the services of a professional engineer to provide a report and plan for temporary and permanent slope protection and mitigation as well as temporary and permanent erosion control and surface or subsurface drainage improvements, due to the slope failure on property you own at 16202 72nd Avenue West. Since the slope failure occurred within the designated Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, the City required a professional report outlining emergency measures to be provided in a timely manner. The report prepared by the professional engineer had to determine whether or not an emergency situation existed. Our letter dated 2/20/98 gave you and the engineer of your choice, direction on how to proceed pursuant to Section 303 of the Dangerous Building Code. Based on the nature and location of the slope failure we disagree that "nine working days" was an unnecessarily short deadline to be provided with emergency measures prepared by a geotechnical engineer. Furthermore, your geotechnical engineer of record distinguished the difference between emergency and permanent measures in his report. Since in his professional opinion no emergency measures were required the City focused our response (letter dated 3/16/98) on the permanent work required by the geotechnical engineer. Again, since the report provided two viable plans for permanent work we disagree that "nine working days" was an unnecessarily short deadline for you to decide which option to take and submit a plan of action. If you or your current geotechnical engineer believe additional studies, testing or site monitoring are required, then your plan of action should include this time. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your current report, your - plan of action should include the time frame of obtaining a new geotechnical engineer and submitting a new report to the City. Regarding the monitoring of the site, you may substitute any licensed professional engineer with geotechnical expertise to continue the site monitoring provided they review all reports associated with this property. If you change engineers please inform the City in writing as to who will be continuing the site monitoring. The deadline for submitting the plan of action stands as March 27, 1998. Note, I am not responding to factual statements or allegations made in your letter dated 3/23/98. The Building Official shall ensure that the subject site is properly monitored and stabilization measures proposed in geotechnical reports are completed. Issues of liability need to be resolved in other appropriate forums. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer a Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan F1L� CITY OF EDIT' O DS BARBARA FAHEY 121 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant jnc.18°l� Mr. Philip Lehn, Architect March 26, 1998 Green Tara Incorporated Sent VIA FAX 16202 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Letter dated 3/23/98 This is in response to a portion of your letter dated 3/23/98. The original letter sent to you by the City (dated 2/20/98) required that you enlist the services of a professional engineer to provide a report and plan for temporary and permanent slope protection and mitigation as well as temporary and permanent erosion control and surface or subsurface drainage improvements, due to the slope failure on property you own at 16202 72°d Avenue West. Since the slope failure occurred within the designated Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, the City required a professional report outlining emergency measures to be provided in a timely manner. The report prepared by the professional engineer had to determine whether or not an emergency situation existed. Our .letter dated 2/20/98 gave you and the engineer of your choice, direction on how to proceed pursuant to Section 303 of the Dangerous Building Code. Based on the nature and location of the slope failure we disagree that "nine working days" was an unnecessarily short deadline to be provided with emergency measures prepared by a geotechnical engineer. Furthermore, your geotechnical engineer of record distinguished the difference between emergency and permanent measures in his report. Since in his professional opinion no emergency measures were required the. City focused our response (letter dated 3/16/98) on the permanent work required by the geotechnical engineer. Again, since the report provided two viable plans for permanent work we disagree that "nine working days" was an unnecessarily short deadline for you to decide which option to take and submit a plan of action. If you or your current geotechnical engineer believe additional studies, testing or site monitoring are required, then your plan of action should include this time. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your current report, your, plan of action should include the time frame of obtaining anew geotechnical engineer and submitting a new report to the City. Regarding the monitoring of the site, you may substitute any licensed professional engineer with geotechnical expertise to continue the site monitoring provided they review all reports associated with this property. If you change engineers please inform the City in writing as to who will be continuing the site monitoring. The deadline for submitting the plan of action stands as March 27, 1998. Note, I am not responding to factual statements or allegations made in your letter dated 3/23/98. The Building Official shall ensure that the subject site is properly monitored and stabilization measures proposed in geotechnical reports are completed. Issues of liability need to be resolved in other appropriate forums. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer a Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Monday, March 23, 1998 qR?y,199 -- City of Edmonds Aften: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Tel: 425-771-0020 Community Services Department Fax: 425-771-0221 . 121 51" Avenue North Transmission: 4 pages Edmonds, WA 98020 'Re: Slope Protection @ 16202.72"° Avenue West, Edmonds' Dear Jeannine: In response to your last two letters (2/20/98 and 3/16/98) and. Wade Gilbert's 2/19/98 field report on the slide, (would like to clarify a few misunderstandings, report on our progress, and ask a few questions. I. Since Mariam and I own only about 300 square feet of the nearly 12,000 square foot area of land. disturbed by the slide, we don't understand why the City is requiring us to provide all the site monitoring, dye testing, and mitigation measures identified in Earth Consultant's 3/12/98 report. While we want to participate in_a satisfactory resolution of the matter, we do not feel the City should expect us to assume a disproportionate share of the burden. ll. A further.complication is that Pat Walker, the person who owns the rest of the land disturbed by the slide, is a seventy-six* year old widow and may not have the financial means to contribute much to the. problem's solution. ; III. 'think your 2/20/98 letter to Mariam'and 1;may' have our house confused with Pat Walker's. The 2/19/98 report•on the slide prepared�for the City by Wade Gilbert; of Landau Associates suggests .that Pat consider vacating her house temporarily. Mr. Gilbert's report makes no mention of' our house, which is located, approximately 200 feet, uphill from the edge of the bluff. IV. Since much of the City's drainage system on Pat Walker's property was damaged by the slide, it would help us to know what permanent repairs the City plans to make to their system and when. V. While we contracted Kyle Campbell of Earth Consultants, Inc. to respond .to your 2/20/98 letter requiring an initial report, we want to consider other firms as well as Earth Consultants, Inc. for any, future services. Your 3/16/98 letter, which requires "continuing site monitoring by Mr. Campbell on a schedule that he shall establish until'all recommended mitigation measures are installed and approved," seems to preclude this possibility. VI. Regarding the City's third party review of all submittals, we would like to know your consultant's anticipated fees for such a review. If.the City expects us to pay a portion.of'those fees, please let -us know. how the City believes that portion should be determined. VII. Regarding the 2/19/98 field report on the slide prepared by the .City's geo-technical * engineering consultant, does Mr.'Gilbert, who,to my'knowledge did not visit the top of the bluff, really believe that the slide' "appeared to. have originated near the top of the bluff"? 'Or, does he 'mean'that the area 'of,' disturbance extended to the top of. the bluff? According to Earth Consultants' 3/12/98 report, ""the slide Was the result of groundwater seepage forces within the slope at the contact between the upper sand. soil and 'the lower'silt; coupled with the relatively steep nature of the slope." The "contact" is -approximately thirty feet below the top of the bluff. - City of Edmonds . Jeannine Graf, Building Official March 23, 199.8 Page two We also need to point out that -Mr. Gilbert did not mention the large hole or tunnel, .two to three feet in diameter, exposed in the face of the slide area from which water was emerging at the time of his visit. While subsequent sloughing currently conceals this hole, we have several photographs of it taken soon after the slide and water continues to emerge from its general vicinity. Vill. Before a comprehensive plan to stabilize the bluff can be prepared and implemented, we believe it is necessary to determine if water discharged into the drywell east of 721 Avenue West is emerging near the area of the slide. It seems unreasonable to spend any more time and money on erosion control if "groundwater seepage forces fed by the dry well continue to undermine our efforts. After Jim Walker, the City Engineer, refused to grant our two requests for the City to conduct the dye test needed to make this determination, Green Tara Incorporated contracted Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. of Kirkland; Washington to make the test. If this test shows -that dye stained water from the dry well emerges from the slide area, we will know that the dry well has helped to cause the slide and should be eliminated before many other elements of a comprehensive plan to stabilize the bluff can be implemented. - Along with the information concerning the dry well that was presented in Earth Consultants' 3-12-98 report, we would like to submit the following additional information for your consideration. Storm water from a nearly 10 acre residential area is currently collected by thirteen inlets along four streets (three have sidewalks on both sides) into two twelve inch pipes that discharge into a single, grated concrete outlet directly across 72"° Avenue West from our property. In my initial discussions with Don Fene, the City's Hydraulics Engineer, Noel Miller, Superintendent of Public Works, -and Jim Walker, the City Engineer, I was repeatedly assured that -the drainage ravine was functioning properly and that nearly 'all 'of the water dischargedfrom the outlet was, flowing north approximately 100 feet and into the grated concrete inlet with large -wing walls designed to catch surface flows. In our subsequent investigation, it was discovered that on 6/29/77 the. Citydirected the developers of "Westmont View", a twenty-two lot housing development, to convert the drainage ravine into an enormous dry well consisting of at least four to five dump trucks full of 4 - 6 inch rocks. In addition to the large amount of drain rock overlaying what is probably a stratum of porous sand and ,gravel, a thick mat of vegetation and organic debris further obstructs the free flow of storm water. Given the extent of this vegetation and organic debris, it appears that the ravine has never been cleared since the dry well,was installed. Soon after it was discovered that the drainage ravine is really a dry well, Mariam and I began to monitor it on a frequent basis, particularly during periods of moderate to heavy rainfall. While I have witnessed storm water flowing more than 4 inches deep near the outlet on several occasions during the past month, I had never seen any water reach the grated concrete inlet until approximately 9:00 AM this morning. Awakened by the sound of an exceptionally heavy storm'approximately'6 - 0.0 AM, I began"to monitor the inlet and the outlet at about 7:00 AM. While flows more than 4 inches deep.were measured near the outlet at about 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM, water had still not made it to the.inlet. At approximately 9:00 AM, following what I know were at least two and.a half to three hours.of continuous, heavy rains, a small rivulet no more than an 1/8 inch deep and 8 to 10 inches wide was finally observed, making its,way into the inlet. At 10:00 AM and again at 11':00 AM, following another two hours,of continuous, moderately heavy to heavy rains, flows at the outlet were, still about 3 - 4 inches deep but `water had stopped flowing into.the inlet altogether. While this morning's observations and the very minor scouring of earth and leaves south of the inlet indicate that a small amount of water is indeed making it into the inlet, it is now clear that this is caused by rare, sporatic, and relatively weak overflows of only the most extremely heavy and long lasting rainfalls. . City -of Edmonds - Jeannine Graf, Building Official March 23, 1998 Page three Given these observations, we are convinced that_ neatly all of -the water collected during normal storms from a nearly 10 acre residential area (not including most of 72nd Avenue West, which was added just two years ago) has been discharged•into approximately 100 square feet.of very porous ground directly uphill from the slide area for -more than twenty years. During one of our more recent telephone discussions, Jim Walker said that he thought the Meadowdale Slide Study, due to be released this month, may recommend that the City eliminate the dry well with a tight line connecting the existing outlet•to the existing inlet. Has the Slide Study been .released yet and ' does it in fact recommend that the City eliminate the drywell? More importantly, is the City planning to construct a tight line to eliminate this hazardous condition and if so, when? While it is important that the dry well be eliminated before the rainy season begins again next fall, it, is also important that the site conditions described above are not disturbed until all testing has been• completed. To that end, we will notify you as soon as we are satisfied that our tests are completed. IX. If we discover that water discharged into the dry well emerges from the slide area, the City and the property owners of Westmont View may be required to pay a substantial part of the total cost of repairing - damages caused by the slide. To help determine the City's potential liability; it is important to know if we are bound by any agreement to hold..the City harmless for the improvements to 72nd Avenue West, which we provided two years ago as.directed to satisfy the City requirements for our four lot short plat. Because those. off site improvements significantly increase the area of impervious surface, and add thickened edges and three new catch basins; which now direct nearly all of the street's much• larger volume of storm water into the dry well, they substantially intensify what we now know was already a very hazardous and non -complying drainage system.. Since we have yet to record our short- plat, I understand from Senior Planner John Bissell that we are not yet bound by any general hold harmless agreement for the short plat itself. However, we still need to know whether or -not we were required to sign such an agreement as a condition of our building permit to construct the off site'improvements. The property owners of Westmont View development are bound by an agreement to hold the City harmless "from any and all claims for damages for injunctive relief which may be.occasioned now or in the future to adjacent land or improvements by reason of the construction, operation and maintenance of the drainage system," which is written into each of their deeds. Depending on the results of the dye test,._ the complexity of the circumstances and the time it'couldt take to sort out who will. be required to pay for: what, may become important considerations in any "plan of action': to mitigate the damages caused by the slide. X. Regarding the time given by the City to prepare: our "plan of action," we were recently informed that it is unusual for a municipality to require property owners affected by a slide to respond so quickly, particularly since no emergency conditions exist. Your 2/20/98 letter gave us .just nine working days to find and contract the services of a geo-technical engineer who was then supposed to study the site and.submit a report. ,Your 2/16/98 letter,gives us another nine working days to submit our "plan of action.`'- According to our consultants, these unnecessarily short deadlines are not very helpful because they tend to interfere with and obstruct the natural progress- of what could otherwise be a more thoughtful,. thorough, and effective study. We believe we are as concerned as the City is to resolve this problem well in -a timely manner and hope, we can work with you to establish more reasonable guidelines governing the work that needs to be completed. City of Edmonds. Jeannine Graf, Building Official March 23, 1998 Page four We would appreciate your response to each of the points raised here and.are particularly interested to know how any of this new information may change the requirements listed in your 3/16/98 letter. Thank you for a6y help you may give us to realize a better understanding and satisfactory resolution of this unfortundte situation'. Yours truly, Phillip Lehn, Architect CC: Paul Mar, Director- Community Services Department David Alskog, Attorney at Law. Green Tara Incorpbrated 16202 72ntl Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel / Fax: 425-745-8949 FROm : - PP I LL I P LEHN ARCHITECT City of Edmonds Atten: Jeannine Graf. Building Official Community Services Department 121 51 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 PHONE NO. : 425 745 8949 Mar. 23 1998 03:23PM P1 OU110ING Monday. March 23. 1998AR 2 3 19 TREET FILE Re: Slope Protection @ 16202 7210 Avenue West, Edmonds Dear Jeanr>ine: Tel: 425-771-0020 Fax: 425-771-0221 Transmission, 4 pages In response to your lost two letters (2/20198 and 3/16/98) and Wade Gilbert's 2/19/98 field report on the slide, (would like to clarify a few misunderstandings, report on our progress, and ask a few questions. Since Mariam and I own only about 300 square feet of the nearly 12,000 square foot area of land disturbed by the slide, we don't understand why the City is requiring us to provide all the site monitoring, dye testing, and mitigation measures identified in Eorth Consultant's 3/12/98 report. While we want to p¢rtrprrpp+* rn q wr*i*f.Opipry .�otvtiOn Of +Fy rwpMorwoo do r�o+ Fool Kw Ci+y should expos+ w +o o"wr�o 6 disproportionate share of the burden. A further complication is that Pat Walker. the person who owns the rest of the land disturbed by the side, is a seventy-six year old widow and may not have the financial means to contribute much to the problem's "tion. III. I think your 2/20/98 letter to Mariam and I may have our house confused with Pat Walker's. The 2/19/98 report on the slide prepared for the City by Wade Gibert, of Londou Associates suggests •that Pat consider vacating her house temporarily. Mr. Gilbert's report makes no mention of our house, which is located oppro.Amately 200 feet, uphill from the edge of the bluff. IV. BinCC mach of ""m City'x drainage syatam on Pat Walker's properly was don ►agad by tha ellda. It would help us to know what permanent reppirs the City plans to make to their system and when. V. WHIo vw contracted Kyls Camplarll of Earth COnmultonta, Inc. to raapcnord to your 212W98 lottor roauilirno on initial report, we want to consider other firms as well at Earth Consultants, Inc. for any, future services. Your 3/16/98 letter, which requires -continuing ate monitoring by Mr. Campbell On a schedule that he shall establish until all recommended mitigation measures are installed and opproved," seems to produde this possibility. VI. Regarding the City's third party review of all submittals, we would like to know your Gonsultont's anticipated fees for such a review. If the City expects us to pay a portion of those fees, please let us know how the City believes that portion should be detwmined. Vil. Regarding tho 2119/98 field report on the side prepared by the City's goo -technical engineering comuitant, does Me. Gilbert, who to my knowledge did not visit the top of the bluff, really believe that the slide "appeared to have originated near the top of the bluff"? Or, does he moon that the area of disturbance oxtended to the top of. the bluff? According to Earth Consultants' 3/12/00 report, "the slide woo the result of groundwater seepage forces within the sbpw at the contact between the upper sand soil Arid +ho b„rdr slM. enupldbd with, tho rolaNvoly &loop Holum of *so slopa_" The "contact" is epprorimately thirty foot below the top of the bluff. I FROM"':.PHILLIP LEHN ARCHITECT PHONE NO. : 425 745 9949 Mar. 23 1996 03:24PM P2 City of Edmonds Jeannine Graf, Building Official March 23, 19% page two We also need to polnt out that Mr. Gilbert did not mention the large hole or tunnel. two to three feet in diameter. exposed in the face of the side area from which water was emerging at the time of his visit. While subsequent sloughing currently conceals this hole, we have several photographs of it token soon after the slide and water continues to emerge from its general vicinity. Vill. Before a comprehensive plan to stabilize the bluff can be prepared and implemented, we believe it is necessary to determine if water dischorgtad into the dry well east of 7V Avenue West is emerging near the area of the slide. It seems unreasonobte to spend any more time and money on erosion control if "groundwater seepage forces" fed I?y the dry well continue to undormine our efforts. After Jim Walker, the City Engineer, refused to grant our two requeetz for the City to conduct the dye test needed to make this detormination, Green Tara incorporated contracted Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. of IGrkland. Washington to make the test. If this test shown that dye stuinod water from the dry well emerges from tho slide area, we wilt know that the dry well hoe helped to cause the elide and ahourd be grimindtod before many other elomonts of a comprehensive plan to stabilize the bluff can be implemented. Along with the information corweming the dry well that waa presented in Earth Conoultante' 3-12-96 report, we would like to subunit the following additional information for your conWerotion_ Storm water from a nearly 10 acre residential area is currently collected by thirteen inlets along four streets (three hctve sidewalks on both sides) into two ,twehro inch pipes that discharge into a single, grated Gonortft outlet directly across 7210 Avenue West from our property. In my initial discussions with Don Fens," tho Gity's Hydraulics Engineer, Nocl Millsr, 6uperintcndent of Public Works, and Jim Walks►, fhr, City Engineer, I was repeatedly assured that the drainage ravine was functioning properly and that neorly oll of the water discharged from the outlet was flowing north approximately 100 feet and into the grated concrete inlet with large wing walls designed fo cateh surface floe a. In our subsequent Investigation, It was discovered that on 6/29/77 the City directed the developers of "Westmont Vlew", a twenty-two lot housing development, to convert the drainage ravirm into an enormous dry well consisting of at least four to five dump trucks full. of 4 - 6 inch rocks. In addition -to the large amount of drain rock overlaying what is probabiy a stratum of porous sand and gravel, a thief mat of vegetation and organic debris further obstructs the free flow of storm wafer. Given the cxfienf of INS vegetation and organic debris, It appacm that the ravine has never been cleared since the dry well woe ino"1allEtl. Soon otter it was Cii$Covered that the drainage ravine is featly a dry well, Manam Ond-i began To monitor It on a trequent basis, particularly during periods of moderate to neavy rainfall. While I have wltneSSed storm water flowing more than 4 inches deep near the outlet on several occasions during the past month, I had never seen any water reach the grated concrete [net until approximately 9,00 AM this morning. Awakened by the sound of an exceptionally heavy storm approximately - 6:30 AM, I began to monitor the inlet and the outlet of about 7:00 AM. While flows more than 4 inches deep were measured near the outlet at about 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM, water had still not made it to the inlet. At approximately 9110 AM, following what I know were at least two and a half to three hours of continuous, heavy rains, a small rivulet no more than an 118 inch deep and 8 to 10 inches wide was finaoy otaservea making its way into the inlet. At 10.00 AM and .again at 11,00 AM, following another Iwo hours of continuous, moderately heavy to heavy rains, flows at the outlet were still about 3 - 4 Inches deep but water hOd stopped flowing into the inlet altogether. while this morning's observatloras and the very minor scouring of earth and leaves south of the inlet indicate that a small amount of water is indeed making it into the inlet, it is now clear that this is caused by rare, spormic, and relatively weak overflows of only the most extremely heavy and long fasting rainfalls. FROf1 ' :. �H I LL I P LEHN RRCH I TECT PHONE NO. : 425 745 6949 Mar. 23 1998 03:25PM P3 City of Edmonds Jeannine Graf, Building Official March 23, 1998 Page three Given these Obtervotiont, we ore convinced that nearly all of the water collected during normal storms from a nearly 10 acre residential area (not including most of 7V Avenue West. which was added just two years ago) has been discharged into approximately 100 square feet of very porous ground directly uphill from the slide area for more than twenty years. During one of our more recent telephone discussions, Jim Walker said that he thought the Meadowdale Slide Study, due to be releamd this month, moy recommend that the City eliminate the dry well with a tight line correcting the existing outlet to the existing inlet. Hot the Slide Study bean mlea:ed yet and dry it in fact feCammend that the City eGminata the dry well? More importantly, is the City planning to construct a tight fine to eliminate this hoiordous Condition and it so, when? While it is important that the dry well be elirniino+ed before the rainy season begins again next fall, it is also importont that the site conditions described above are not disturbed until ail testing has been completed - to that end, we will notify you Qa soon an we arc acrtisfiend that our testa are co mpleted- iX. if we discover that water discharged into the dry well emerges from the slide area, the City and the property owners of Westmont View may be required to pay a subatantial port of the total cost of repairing damages caused by the slide- To help determine the City'a potential liability, it is important to know if we are bound 17y any agreement to hold the City harmless for the irrrprovements to 72". Avenu6 West. which we provided two years ago os directed to satisfy the City requirements for our four lot short plat. P,-Cause those off site improvements stgra5-- ir'rtly imoc:m sC ttre area of impervious surfaces, oM add thickened edges and three new catch basins, which now direct nearly oil of the street's much larger volume of Storm water into the dry well, they substantially intensify what vie now know was already a very harsardom and noncomplying drainage system. &me we have yet to mcor'd our short plat, i understand from Senor Planner John Bissell that we are not yet bound by any general hold harries agreement for the short plat itself. However, we still need to know whothCr or not we were required to align such an agreement as d condition of our building permit to construct the off site improvements. The properry owners of Westmont View developmenT are bound by an agreement to hold the City ndirmless "from any and up claims for darnoges for injunctive realer which may t)e occasioned now or in the future to adjacent land or Improvements oy reason of the comtruction, operation and maintenance of Me drainage system," which Is written into each of their deeds. Depending on the resuh of the dye test, The complextty of the circumstances and the time it'could take to sort out who will be required to pay for what, may become important considerations In any "plan of aCtlon" to mitigate the damages caused by the slide. X. Regarding the time given by the City to preprtrt3 our -plan of actlon,- we were recently Informed that It is unusual for a rnuniCipality to require property owners affected by a slide to respond so quickly, particularly since no emergency conditions exist. Your 2/20/98 letter gave us just nine working. cloys to find and contract the services of a geo-technical engineer Who was then supposed to Study The SIM and submit a report. Your 2/1b/98 letter gives us another nine working clays to submit our "plan of octton-" .According to our consultants, these unnecessarily Short deadlines are not very helpful because they tend to interfere with and obstruct the natural progress cf what could otherwise be a more thoughtful, thorough and effective study. We believe we are as concerned as the City is to resolve this problem well In a timely manner and hope we can work with you to establish more reasonable guiaelines governing the work that needs to be completed. • ,EROM > :.PH I LL I P LEHN ARCHITECT PHONE NO. : 425 745 8949 Mar. 23 1998 03:26PM P4 city of Edmonds jeonnre Grat, eunaing ofrlciai March 23. 1998 Page four we would appreciate your response to each of the points raised here and are particularly interested to know now any of this new information may change the requirements listed in your 3116/98 letter_ Thank you for any help ycu may give us to realize a better understanding and satisfactory resolution of this unfortunate situotion. Yours truly, Philip Lehn, Architect Cc: Paul Mar, Director - Community Services Department David Aiskog, Attomay at Law Graert Tara Incorporated 16202 72- Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Yet f Pax: 425-745-8949 rnc.1S9v y: CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant March 16, 1998 Mr. Philip & Miriam Lehn Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Earth Consultants Slope Failure Recommendations Dated 3/12/98 The City is in receipt of a faxed copy of the subject report prepared by Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. of Earth Consultants. Although the report does not require immediate emergency measures, including vacating residences at the top and bottom of the slope, site conditions can change rapidly. Thus, the City shall require continuing site monitoring by Mr. Campbell on a schedule that he shall establish until all recommended mitigation measures are installed and approved. Pursuant to your geotechnical engineer's report, the mitigation measures described as short term recommendations must be installed or provided. Please submit a plan of action by March 27, 1998 that includes a schedule of work, plan submittal date(s), dye test procedures, etc. The plan of action and subsequent plans shall be reviewed to determine compliance to Edmonds Community Development Code standards which include discretionary development and building permit requirements, if applicable. The plan of action shall also include the long term mitigation measures you have elected. A third party review of all submittals shall be done concurrently by the City's geotechnical engineering consultant pursuant to City Ordinance #2661. If you have any questions please contact me at 425-771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Jim Walker, City Engineer Kyle R. Campbell, PE, Earth Consultants • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Clt:bro, of Edmoncls STREET FILE C,=wimmaunisy_Sorvices Aepartmene aulldi ng-Planning-Engineering 12 1 -Sth AV403M O Wc*mh • 2nd ]Floor Eafmcmds. WA V8020 Phc:kno: (425) 771-0220 , FAX: (425) 771-0221 F=A7C CO'0/E Ft PAG E To: 1 i/,� ���ti✓ From Date '"Transmitted: -3✓1,,&Irig No_ of Pages: �- cluding cover page.) Recipient's Fax No: Facslmlia Equipment: Automatlo/Group 11 (2,3 mires,); Group ill. IT therm are any prohloma during tranmmlemlon or document$ are roomlvad Incomptata. plaaaa gall (204 771-0220 and ask Tor: ✓+� c: rocaptfonVana/faxaheet. cioo TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT COUNT 2 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE.STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 425 745 8949 3-16-98 4:10PM 1'34" 2 TOTAL 0:01'34" 2 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 me 1S91) STREETFILE CITY OF EDMOlVDS BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant March 16, 1998 Mr. Philip & Miriam Lehn Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72"d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Earth Consultants Slope Failure Recommendations Dated -3/12/98 The City is in receipt of a faxed copy of the subject report prepared by Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. of Earth Consultants. Although the report does not require immediate emergency measures, including vacating residences at the top and bottom of the slope, site conditions can change rapidly. Thus, the City shall require continuing site monitoring by Mr. Campbell on a schedule that he shall establish until all recommended mitigation measures are installed and approved. Pursuant to your geotechnical engineer's report, the mitigation measures described as short term recommendations must be installed or provided. Please submit a plan of action by March 27, 1998 that includes a schedule of work, plan submittal date(s), dye test procedures, etc. The plan of action and subsequent plans shall be reviewed to determine compliance to Edmonds Community Development Code standards which include discretionary development and building permit requirements, if applicable. The plan of action shall also include the long term mitigation measures you have elected. A third party review of all submittals shall be done concurrently by the City's geotechnical engineering consultant pursuant to City Ordinance #2661. If you have any questions please contact me at 425-771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Jim Walker, City Engineer Kyle R. Campbell, PE, Earth Consultants • Incorporated August 11, 1890 i Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan RECEIVED Lette r Of MAR 1 6 1998 Transmittal BUILDING DEPT. TO: Green Tara Incorporated 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026-4904 STREET Mt Earth Consultants. Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Earth Scientists 1805 - 13 P Place Northeast; Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 43 Phone: (425) 6-3780 / Fax: (425) 746-OBW DATE: March 13, 1998 JOB NO.:. E-1165-2. PROJECT: Greenness, Edmonds ATTENTION: Phillip Lehn WE ARE SENDING YOU: ® Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover Via: THE FOLLOWING: ❑ Field Reports ❑ Reports ❑ Preliminary Drafts ❑ Test Results ® Per Your Request ❑ Copies Date Description 2 3/13/98 Letter THESE ARE TRANSMITTED FOR YOUR: ® Information ® Files ❑ Approval ❑ Review and Comments ❑-Signature ❑ Distribution ❑ ❑ REMARKS: Thank You! cc: 1 City of Edmonds 2. 3. 4. 5. ATTN. Jeannine Graf ATTN. ATTN. ATTN. ATTN. BY Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. March 12, 1998 Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn 16202 - .72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Subject: Slope Failure Greenness Edmonds, Washington Dear Phil: Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists E-1165-2 In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to provide our observations and recommendations regarding the failure that occurred on the slope bordering the west side of the site on February 13, 1997. Site Conditions The undersigned visited the site on February 18, 1998 to observe the condition of the slope and slide area. The slide occurred on the south portion of the slope that borders the west side of the site. The topography in the area of the slide consists of a steep to near vertical bluff which extends down to a relatively wide, level bench area, beyond which the slope continues down to the neighboring properties. Debris from the slide transitioned the level bench and extended down the lower slope and into the yard area of the adjacent residence to the west. The width of the slide area is approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet. The soil conditions exposed on the face of the bluff in the slide area consist of relatively clean sand overlying dense silt. The sand deposit was observed to be approximately thirty (30) feet in thickness. Groundwater seepage was observed at several locations along the bluff in the vicinity of the slide at the contact between the sand and the silt and formed a few rivulets located north,south and central to the slide area. The magnitude of the seepage varied from slight to heavy, with flows estimated to be several gallons per minute at some locations. One of the heavy flow areas emanated from a significant "hole" that extends back into the slope an undetermined distance. Temporary drainage measures had been installed by the time of our site visit, which consisted of flexible ADS pipe placed to collect water flowing from the slope. 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (425) 74-608-60 Tacoma (253) 272-6608 Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 Page 2 Discussion The slide occurred on the western face of a hill which slopes east and south as well as west. Prior to the slide, the ground surface in the slide area sloped gradually downward from the crest to a steeply sloping face, which began approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet below the crest. The slide reconfigured the slope such that a more steeply sloping face now begins immediately below the crest and descends approximately thirty (30) feet to a more gradually sloping, ten (10) foot wide bench before descending almost vertically for another twenty (20) feet. Immediately across from the site on the east side of 72nd Avenue West there is a concrete outlet with two, twelve (12) inch diameter discharge pipes. It is our understanding these pipes discharge storm water collected from over twenty houses and four streets (164th Street Southwest, 70th Place West, 71st Place West and 72nd Avenue West). A grated concrete inlet is located approximately 100 feet north of this outlet, along what appears to be a natural drainage ravine. The grated inlet has concrete wing walls to direct surface flows into another twelve (12) inch pipe which extends down the hill toward North Meadowdale Road. During our February 18 site visit, a steady flow of storm water approximately one inch deep was observed flowing from the outlet and disappearing into the ground without ponding approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet north of the outlet. None of the water observed emerging from the outlet made it to the grated inlet further down the ravine. It is our understanding that heavier rains later that night resulted in steady flows four to six inches deep from the outlet which also disappeared into the ground before any water could reach or come near to the grated inlet. We were informed a few days later that a large drywell had been constructed near the outlet over twenty years ago. Based on the information presented above, storm drainage water from all but the severest storms has been diverted from the inlet and has infiltrated into the dry well for more than twenty years. Conclusions Based on our observations of the site prior to the slide and after the slide, in our opinion the slide was the result of groundwater seepage forces within the slope at the contact between the upper sand soil and the lower silt, coupled with the relatively steep nature of the slope. In our opinion, the presence of the previously mentioned dry well cannot be discounted as a contributing factor or possible trigger of the slide. More specific conclusions will require a complete geotechnical investigation as discussed below. In our opinion, no emergency measures are necessary at this time. The site conditions do not warrant vacating the residences at the top and bottom of the slope. Earth Consultants, Inc. Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 Page 3 Recommendations Because bluffs throughout the region normally retreat at the rate of a few inches per year, and can remain stable for many years before losing several feet in a major event, it is our opinion that, substantial measures are needed to stabilize the slope. Unless the remedial action is greater in scope than simply protecting the exposed soil from erosion, the slope will likely remain in its current configuration for a time but eventually will continue to retreat. Following are recommendations for short-term and long-term measures to maintain and improve the stability of the slope. Short -Term In the short-term, we recommend the following: 1. Seepage and groundwater flows exiting the lower face of the slide area should be collected and discharged to an outlet approved by the City of Edmonds. 2. The condition of the slope at the locations where significant flows are exiting the face of the slope should be monitored to determine if erosion of the slope face is occurring. Should erosion be observed, erosion control measures should be implemented to mitigate the erosion. Specific recommendations should be provided when erosion is observed. However for planning purposes, they should include placement of crushed rock or similar material over the seepage area to reduce the potential for erosion and piping and/or placement of a geotextile material suitable for erosion control. 3. While the slide may resemble typical steep slope failure that have occurred throughout the Puget Sound region, hydrologic tests should be performed to determine the possible impact of the dry well on the destabilization of the slope. The flow rate of the heavy flow areas should be monitored for a period of time that includes an extended length of dry weather and an episode of relatively heavy rainfall. The flow rate from the storm water discharged into the drywell should also be measured and compared to the rate and response time of groundwater emerging the slide area. Under the circumstances, we also recommend a dye test be performed as a reasonable attempt to determine the impact of the drywell on the slope. Earth Consultants, Inc. Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 Page 4 Long -Term In order to provide specific long term recommendations, it will be necessary to perform subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study. In addition, a topographic survey of the property along the bluff from within about fifty (50) feet of the crest to about fifty (50) feet beyond the toe of the slope will also be needed. Following are general recommendations for long-term repair options. Less Extensive Option - 1. The debris on the level bench area and at the toe of the slope should be removed. The water emanating from the toe of the steep portion of the slope should be collected and conveyed by a tightline or other methods to a discharge location approved by the City of Edmonds. The drainage can be collected by placing drain rock at the toe of the steep slope that covers the seepage areas. A small trench should be placed at the bottom of the rocked area to collect the water. A perforated, PVC pipe should be placed in the trench to collect the water and direct it to the tightline or other conveyance system. A tightline, if used, should consist of Drisco pipe. 2. The slope should be protected from erosion by placing an erosion control blanket such as LANDLOK TRM 1060 on the face of the slope. Loose soil on the slope surface should be removed prior to installation of the blankets. In addition, the surface of the slope should be contoured such that the surface is uniform. The blankets should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. The LANDLOK TRM 1060 can be obtained from Northwest Linings and Geotextile Products, in Kent, Washington, (253) 872-0244. The above recommendations would improve the stability of the slope; however, the slope would, over a period of years, continue to retreat. Earth Consultants, Inc. '• ' Oreen Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 Page 5 More Extensive Option - 1. The debris should be removed as recommended in number 1 above. 2. Stabilization of the slope is accomplished by construction of a retaining wall some distance beyond the toe of the steep slope, or a series of walls beginning beyond the toe of the steep slope and stepping up the slope. Construction of the walls should incorporate the drainage measures discussed in number 1 above for the Less Extensive Option. Soldier pile walls are typically used in these cases, however, other wall options may be suitable. It will be necessary to backfill walls with free draining materials. 3. As an alternative to the retaining wall construction, and/or in combination with the retaining wall construction, the toe of the steep slope could be buttressed with a rock fill and the steep slope armored with rock. This would involve placement of angular crushed rock on the slope surface to protect the face of the slope from weathering. As stated previously, in order to provide specific recommendations for permanent stabilization, it will be necessary to conduct subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study. We would also require a topographic survey of the slope in order to complete our study. The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, R. CAMA EARTH CONSULTA ; WAs�i� eF` 0 ,pt-bs 31,315 Y Kyle R. Campbell, P. "InNAI, G Manager of Geotechnica Su3 KRC/kml 1-- --• cc: City of Edmonds Attn: Jeannine Graf Earth Consultants, Inc. STREET FILE Earth Cansultantts Inc. ! tmtt7GtuscalT sin=rs.QW1Q91sts En�'i+(�nmgsntal6c{ents�9 B.0 110 I N G Reference: MAR 13 1998 Date: FAX COVER 61jElET FAX TO: FAX NUMBER: - FROM SUBJE NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:_ �4D_ - if you have any questions, please call (425) 643-3780. Our FAX number is (425) 74-608-60. CC: 1. 2. Original copy to be mailed:. YES NO. 1805.1%th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 9W Bellevue (426) 643-3180 Seattle (206) 464-15N FAX (425 )74-648.6Q Tacoma (253) 272-6508 ( d 0980 9PL 907, 4N XVJ i'd[ SZNYZ'11I1SNQ) HIM PZd 8E i [H 86-8I-8bPi March 12, 1998 Green Tara Incorporated clo Phillip Lehr 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Subject: Slope Failure Greenness Edmonds, Washington Dear Phil - Earth GorlsultwtS Inc. I�Nel� c.Yaerhnlnl alginewm GmluRists a `nvhrmmental sdentisis BUILDING MAR 13 1998 E-1165-2 In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to provide our observations and recommendations regarding the failure that occurred on the slope bordering the west side of the site .on February 13, 1997, FlT.. m , •ti;tT,11 The undersigned visited the site on February 16, 1998 to observe the condition of the slope and slide area. The slide occurred on the south portion of the slope that borders the west side of the site. The topography in the area of the slide consists of a steep to, near vertical bluff which extends down to a relatively wide, level bench area, beyond which the slope continues down to the neighboring properties, Debris from the slide transitioned the level bench and extended down the lower slope and into the yard area of the adjacent residence to the west. The width of the slide area is approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet. The soil conditions exposed on the face of the bluff in the slide area consist of relatively clean sand overlying dense ails. The eddeposit b9e was et several locarved to be tions along the bluffroximately thirty �nfeet the in thickness. Groundwater seepage vicinity of the slide at the contact between the sand and the silt and formed a few rivulets located north,south and central to the slide area. The magnitude of the seepage varied from slight to heavy, with flows .estimated to be several gallons per minute at some locations. One of the heavy flow areas emanated from a significant "hole" that extends back into the slope an undetermined distance, Temporary drainage measures had been Installed by the time of our site visit, which consisted of flexible ADS pipe placed to collect water flowing from the slope. 1645.136th Place N.E., Suke 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (426) 6433780 Siagde (206) 464.1584 FAX (425) 74.60RO Tacoma (253) 272-66M Z d I�� 09R0 9�G 90Z OBI X�� �IdI 'SZI�tlZIfiSI�Oa H1��� Pad c� I Green Tare Incorporated E-1165-2 c/o Phillip tehn Page 2 March 12, 1998 The slide occurred on the western face of a hill which SlopeS east and South aS well as west. Prior to the slide, the ground surface in the slide area sloped gradually downward from the crest to: a steeply sloping face, which began approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet below the crest. The slide reconfigured the slope such that a more steeply sloping face now begins Immediately below the crest and�descendsbe�cPP�r�l�l� S�ma�thirty vertica�y for another twenty (2re ily 0) sloping, ten (10) foot wide bent feet. Immediately across from the site on the east side of 72nd Avenue West there is a concrete outlet with two, twelve (12) inch diameter discharge pipes. It is our understanding these pipes discharge storm water collected from over twenty houses and four streets (164th Street Southwest, 70th. Place West, 71 St Place West and 72nd Avenue West). A grated concrete inlet is located approximately 100 feet north of this outlet, along what appears to be a natural" drainage ravine. The grated inlet has concrete wing walls to direct surface flows into another twelve (12) inch pipe which extends down the hill toward North Meadowdale Road. During our February 18 site visit, a steady flow of storm water approximately one inch deep was observed flowing from the outlet and disappearing into the ground without ponding approximateiy fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet north of the outlet. None of the water observed emerging from the outlet made it to the grated inlet further down the ravine, It Is our understanding that heavier rains later that night resulted In steady flows four to six Inches deep from the outlet which also disappeared into the ground before any water could reach or come near to the grated inlet, We were informed a few days later that a large drywell had been constructed near the outlet over twenty o. stormased on the information presented s has been diverted from the inlet above,. storm drainage water from all but the severest and has infiltrated into the dry well for more than twenty years. Conclusl4�n Based on our observations of the site prior to the slide and after the slide, In our opinion the slide was the result of groundwater seepage forces within the slope at the contact between the upper sand soil and the lower silt, coupled with the relatively steep nature of the slope. In our opinion, the presence of the previously mentioned dry well cannot be discounted as a contributing factor or possible trigger of the slide. More specific conclusions will require a complete geotechnical investigation as discussed below. In our opinion, no emergency m®asures ere necessary at this time. The site conditions do not warrant vacating the residences at the top and bottom of the slope, Ewth CansultaAB, Ina, 8 G ' 0980 9tL 907, 'ON XV� 'ON[ "O'I USNO) HIM Wd H:1 [E 86-EI-M Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-2 c/o Phillip Lehn Page 3 March 12, 1998 Rp mmand inn Because bluffs throughout the region normally retreat at the rate of a few inches per year, and Can remain stable for many years before losing the $lope. et in aUmajor ass thent, it is our remediai action is that, substantial measures are needed to s greater In scope than simply protecting the exposed soil from erosion, the slope will likely remain In its current configuration for a time but eventually WIII continue to retreat. Following are recommendations for short-term and long-term measures to maintain and improve the stability of the slope. Short Tgrm In the short-term, we recommend the following: 1. Seepage and groundwater flows exiting the lower face of the slide area should be collected and discharged to an outlet approved by the City of Edmonds. 2. The condition of the slope at the locations where significant flows are exiting the face of the slope should be monitored to determine iferosion ros control measures o es the slope o a faceuld is occurring. Should erosion be observed, erosion implemented to mitigate the erosion. Specific recommendations should be provided when erosion is observed. However for planning purposes, they should Include placement of crushed rock or similar. material over the seepage area to reduce the potential for erosion and piping and/or placement of a geotextiie material suitable for erosion control. 3. While the slide may resemble typical steep slope failure that have occurred throughout the Puget Sound region, hydrologio tests should be performed to determine the possible impact of the dry well on the destabilization of the slope. The flow rate of the heavy flow areas should be monitored for a period of time that includes an extended length of dry weather and an episode of relatively heavy rainfall. The flow rate from the storm water discharged into the drywall should also be measured and compared to the rate and response time of groundwater emerging the slide area. Under the cirCumi�� determine the Impact nces, we also a the drywett on the nd a dye test be performed as a reasonable attempt slope. Earth conaAwts, hm. d 0980 PL 9H 'OIL M Al `SAd,L'III XE) HIPH Kd 98:I Ixd 8H-8I-M Green Tara incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn March 12, 1998 E-1165-2 page A Lon e-Term l be nece ry to In order to provide specific long term recommendations, te hn calenpllneeriing study. ss In add tlon,r a subsurface exploration and prepare a g topographic survey Of the property along the bluff e will hin about fifty also be Headed (50) lest of the Po lowing are crust to -about fifty (50) feet beyond the too Of the slope general recommendations for long-term repair options. Less Extensive Option - i . The debris on the level bench area and at the toe of the slope should be removed. The water emanating from the toe of the steep portion of the slope shouid be collected and conveyed by a tightline or other methods to a discharge location approved by the City of Edmonds. The drainage can be collected by placing drain rock at the toe of the steep slope that covers the seepage areas. A small trench should be placed at the bottom of the rocked area to collect the water. A perforated, PVC pipe should be placed In the trench to collect the water and direct It to tho tightline or other conveyance system. A tightline, if used, should consist of arisco pipe• 2. The slope should be protected from erosion by placing an erosion control blanket such as LANDLOK TRM 1060 on the face of the slope. Loose soil on the slope surface should be removed prior to installation of the blankets. In addition, the surface of the slope should be contoured such that the surface is uniform. The blankets should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations, The PArod c�s npIVI Ken � 1Nashi gton,60 can be t{263 from Northwest Linings and Geot 872-0244. The above recommendations would e�rsove the cont Hue toility retQeete slope; however, the slope would, over period Cara, Conrultents. Inc. 9 'd 0980 VL 90Z 'ON YVd ')NI "SINIVL'IHNO) gIPH Wd SS,:I 1H 86-i;I-dYW Green Tara Incorporated E-1185-2 c/o Phillip Lehn Page 5 March 12, 1998 More Extensive option - 1. The debris should be removed as recommended in number 1 above. 2. Stabilization of the slope is accomplished by construction of a retaining wall some distance beyond the toe of the steep elope, or a series of walls beginning beyond the toe of the steep slope and stepping up the slope. Construction of the walls should incorporate the drainage measures discussed in number 1 above for the Less Extensive Option. Soldier pile walls are typically used In these cases, however, other wail options may be suitable. It will be necessary to backfill walls with free draining materials. 3. As an alternative to the retaining wall construction, and/or in combination with the retaining wall construction, the toe of the steep slope could be buttressed with a rock fill and the steep elope armored with rock. This would involve placement of angular crushed rock on the slope surface to protect the face of the slope from weathering. As stated previously, in orderto provide specific recommendations for permanent stabilization, It will be necessary to conduct subeurfeoe exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study: We would also require a topographic survey of the slope in order to complete our study: The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questl'ons, please call. Very truly yours, EARTH CONSULT. " . CA4j, 4 4 7 6 Kyle R. Campbell, P. Manager of Geotechnic 4 "IfslEB KRC/kml _......� ..gym cc: City of Edmonds Attn: Jeannine Graf 911310 9 'd 0980 QPL 90Z 'Old XU Enth Comiterm. lno, �1PdI "S,JFI� IENOa Hid Nid 9z i i'�'d 86-E.1- Vili FROM PHILLIP LEHN ARCHITECT PHONE NO. 425 745 8949 Mar.'06 1998 02:51PM P1 REET FILE BUILDING Friday. Morcn 6. 1998 RECEIVED MAR - 6 1998 ENGINEERING Jim WaIKer, City Eng'neer _ Jeannine Graf, Building Official Tel: 425-771-0020 Community Services Department Fax: 425-771-0221 City of Edmonds Transmission: 1 page, Re: Slope Protection @ 16202 7Z" Avenue West, Edmonds Dear Jim and Jeannine: We are not able to submit the geotechnical report specified in the Chy's February 20, 1998 leafier by today as originally requested. 'The report 6 currently in progress and we nose to sulamtt It by next Frlaay, March 13, 1998. Yours truly, Phillip Lehn, Architect CC: Kyle Campbell, P.E. Earth Consultants Inc. Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel / Fax: 425-745-8949 STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant February 20, 1998 Philip and Miriam Lehn Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington, 98026 RE: Slope Protection @ 16202 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds Snohomish Tax Account Parcel #5131-000-067-0308 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lehn: As you know, City officials conducted a site inspection on February 13, 1998 and observed a slope failure on a portion of property you own at 16202 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds. Accompanying City officials were representatives of Landau Associates, professional geotechnical consultants for the City. Landau Associates conducted a site reconnaissance and subsequently prepared a report, copy enclosed. Based on the findings in the report and pursuant to Uniform Building Code Section 3307, Excavation and Grading, the City shall require that you enlist the services of a State licensed Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site and conduct a detailed site investigation of the slope failure. By March 6, 1998 the engineer must provide a report and plan for temporary and permanent slope protection and slope mitigation, as well as temporary and permanent erosion control and surface or subsurface drainage improvements. Any work deemed "emergency" by the geotechnical engineer shall be immediately installed (provided no City permits or discretionary approvals are necessary). Temporary or permanent work that requires a permit must be reviewed and approved by the City, prior to the start of work, for review under Ordinance #2661 which regulates the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area. Please note, Landau Associates recommends that your home be temporarily vacated until site drainage systems are repaired and water flow within the slide area has been diverted or otherwise controlled. You should review this matter with your geotechnical engineer for concurrence with this recommendation since the City consultant review was preliminary without detailed investigation. o Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Philip and Miriam Lehn Page Two February 20, 1998 Based on information provided in your geotechnical report, the building official must determine whether the embankment on the property is a hazard to "life and limb" based on the criteria of the Dangerous Building Code, specifically Section 303; (#8) "Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of :.. (iii) the removal, movement or instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building... ' ; and (#9) "Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used". and (#4) "Whenever any portion thereof, has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood, or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability thereof, is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less that the minimum requirements of the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location. " provided that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or the buildings occupants are endangered. Based on the initial consultants' report, at a minimum, the City shall require that emergency measures be immediately installed on exposed slopes to prevent further erosion. Any work deemed "emergency" by your geotechnical engineer within his report shall be immediately installed as well, provided no City permits or discretionary approvals are necessary. Temporary or permanent work that requires a permit must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the start of work. It may be mutually beneficial to coordinate geotechnical activities with the adjacent property owner copied in this letter. Thank you, �j2 t/ J e L. Cnaf Building Official Cc: Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jim Walker, City Engineer Carol Walker Friday, June 25, 2004 Stephen F. Bullock, AICP Senior Planner Development Services Department Planning Division 121 - 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Via E-mail: bullock@ci.edmonds.wa.us Re: Critical Areas Exemption for the Lehn Kitchen Addition Dear Steve: As we discussed this morning, I would like to be granted an ECDC 20.15B.040.2 Critical Areas Exemption to remodel my kitchen. I am proposing to cut a small square into the middle of the lower floor's existing 14' x 16' x 4" concrete grade slab to provide a new footing and plinth that would support a new post and beam to allow the kitchen on the upper floor to extend approximately 1 foot south of the existing bridge. The proposed 18" square x 10" deep footing would be the extent of the earthwork required to complete the project. The existing slab along with most of the existing house was built over forty years ago and much of it was built closer to the top of the steep slope than the proposed footing and building extension. To give you a better understanding of the proposed project I've attached a few digital photographs of the existing conditions. Please call me if you have any questions and thank you for your help and consideration of this request. V-►T%tje"t-% A-_-%'tMT10t4 Yours truly, 0 tk OV. C, �OC�,e 6TTE,-, c�vt.Ctc 1,DINU . NCO fbornt-4c, + "t oSi I lFvT.bu.er> !t,,.- IFX ! S'P1 N C, Got-LC*e-te 6LAlb, ! 5 1-1NE t-.pT MO r-%. C.A . OZ-�, Phillip Lehn, AIA n. APPROVED BY PLANNING LEHN DESIGN COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS LANDSCAPING PLANNING (P 04 16202 72nd Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 T/F: 425.745.8949 C: 206.963.8949 E:plehn@comcasf.net o C���"� '.r:, �� - x E` •-`S, ��nR�•. '�'•,r--•a �t r,,p...X+ .i�_�..$r'�"�Jy�G.a+.r.;,rs .! „�'w�*-c� t•, ;;y�, ._- ,�9:�;,,f,.�t ,�',;u, r `.-...•. �, �.;:,,, � xa..,p I ..yr �" 5� 4., t . .t yl��1y "' . ri •y ,(� -a. _ a► ^•� � •° «�Y�,"s � �`�'��'.�==� : �� ��'^ ?�r�'� _ } x .t�;tic : fir` r'1s��"i.rrt+. try i�•: � �F � "'3 .y� 4. .+- _�',$��4`ti Y�,G G. �..' ,�. . `4L 4 ,.¢��u`+1.`q } 9• x -•iF 3r c; `..�Ja��i"",. *'� � `�. •..�a%2� ' : i �' ,�� �'�.s- r ' ' 'f•r'�ti• "�="�.r,�.�J�My4��,;'�'`+' 1'�' � �`"a;�N�`- _ �,�r. � s . +sue ,r++t" t`�pQ� � ti:.r_ ��+' ; r' +'��.5'� y� t � t`k.,.N� ,'_ ss, •, : ,.r � r �,7;� �`�'', o `I._y-�{ �iS�<�� �"• �r�J?''.."� �y�,,,f,�`, lk�•(•.fYi' .dig i.� ''- �" ,�,fC+...0 � ✓�,.. .s. �r,'•C" n�. � �,.. J... ..ti�'a. -.`. •s ` .� �`,e.'�i(° " -,. a`if��"•tea-, .':d _ 'T'� ."�-..r� � �'�.'.-..a„a..,H.,` �e. � a �„�....y ,., ,�s-•, �. '� � � ___ F _, �ti . �`:4 r ��.�c� C� . = .,r �� �`%i c-. � �Y i.:..,'• � -�. r {�� .> ''• ''� �n . „"�"` f .'.:` ?s.�%' r '� _ �. ' .sue y �`�=.' -ri s, � t � - y ' .--A t � �_ P -C'� ,.r '�1 ..�': 'S ti .•: -. � r, a °'� 4 : .•vg v.��- - � ; `'o s"`-;'r - �r ,a ��.` � .��•�wrc�y...'�' �`.,^', ,a � .Y �. " p - ._" �� t i• o . � '� < U .. t � ^.vim ^r .•- .3� . � � �..(c•.�'���, •.�,5�•,;i� - :%""; ,,af .\ �� � r _ �. • �'' �- Tw �'"' !� f y�lI�p.l ✓,c 1.%=xi v,y'� ;a �• f/" '�„ '"1r_' ' j ",:d. r-..:- . i r�:a:.v-mac 1l'(�•`Frcr•!•�•c,':''1.J - 'f IS' M ;l� c ••�. P'��„c "fir, v •%. rs'f •• •�. (' V� 'A.7-r� I1 Y ,ytU {jam} �9r~ ^--'4%1 "�{�,�i f .� •� r ` .iv�� , - tjy .ti�(A`,�� J y •2.� _�'i'fl >: '+ '••,b•�9 ��--}}^'v: �'!'tT.-f �•`y11fa �`t.:.1•'�r�i 2' 'T,.`„`v t� G���� � �- �rl .t:i,� (' i• ( :r'� n��' J- I "��y r' •` +• �a. ,r St. •CQY,^r. -x 'tti ,Ji (,�y yy,,,, t{' ✓� y. AJt' ,� _ /�ei..\,r. _,t, .�, .�•4���ii 'TJQ v.� K.r�a � i C•r �- � �.'i:l�� ;.``� '�� � ti - ,,. - ^ cr ^• � r+f4l "47 `�h �� y .+_ .' •vf r -e 1 1.�, '�'}}-r^' 'r� r . _ - /` : -1 - J i "G .��`'� \ �'�y t{pl f '' � �'< �.. �.i \. .. � .�'_.� � .�• a,r,;` ��io ' l4� � �'t � ��r 'r ''��r��' .:1•f7V" M �o 4�': '.�. _ r_� 6��• IS •fr+y r •,,•'V ,,�_•'1.ti. {?yla /l x. ' �,.�, ;• .; � •\-•"r •`•' 'J r o' � Jc 1 ,r- ...�.� t- - .J.'- ..� ` � i , r f .i p�t'i � �a � r. � �. ,� -'r.': � � 1: :a<,.a°i rb!• •, f. � � '� � _ � � - ' � •. .'� r 4:, �* , i. �, ' 'r� - i} yr � i +li•>,-�•Z, •,yrr • 7- � J� s • _ � :• '� _ f 4 � �1 1 r, r "-t.. L J 1 'F `P,•!i i`a'. a R.'�r „t•� 1' y a '.�%•rjo •.��t � �� •'L.i Itf' i,y, rf `�f Y� .S'l d' '•_` 11 r 1 ` y.•L:. -•J� � . rl IS IS � f �-• tri t <\.l� � �, 1 •.1 � P a .l f 4- .•' ' i '4 - ti, y �y.Iv1 '•L� � a+ a.. ` a� �'1�, .-. ...-".-t:--yc• .--f;� - r _; _. . d'`.,, a�,, ram,` � .e j. '3 4 r: ' � .: �� T7' • • :if �•�, r li' • e � � {'y �.•� y � gar, .. r�' • rrc 'V �i ? � '� .r rye ;.• % .. •4 "� i r 4 r i J J 4� � py ,f9. t JA {i .1'it 3-1 7�.:u ,./J� r '� r �i ,�,� �!• QS• � $x 5= a �.E: 1tr. FiL!^ S f � i r •o' c-llf "� (r!; # fi ,i, �� J . - �\+, .,.. ! '• 4- � � ., �1 .. . , i I• i fib' 1 �i < t �p 1 `' ! 1 �, ,t .. . ��/1 r • < ll' i Srr` 1 • ^ti;•fiS (.'r•'>>}t �y,� ♦ x i� UI �•.�i , rn�� - .c' t ~• `, a - y5 _,ft.Li�,"< <'a.�F{ jj d./1�°�SY':. ,JI .� c. (�..,s� \ �Y�r�,�y , •ate;.• J�,O„i>.a�'. Yk- K TEO ':� ram.. jc-• � �� .�'�i a� �;a � 7t°i ``�` ; ._ 5 -� � .61 eg ar i,Foz,+ yT4"f pi � T ✓ram \ � � . ✓r i � r � { o i} .+K � j�.. � �o i -a... Till ,f o i j d r4� f PhR men .46 blr `•'� `"•'. and . .. � * ,��P� , t.'�`a'��'��;?"%�=a'�e JfYj-� City of Edmont 4$ RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION . =' PERMIT Permit Number.�j / f" ;F Issue Date: y A. Address or V;ict� N. of Construction: �o"o�. _7aw o w� w 18 � B. Type of Work (be specific)l%co 1-\ �V UI-1 P I\N-- b0QC, U►Q W?� ' 9 ' 1 9 (i59"0-VV QUAY- 'INS'\CY—L C L-Cc \cAS- rNL\'-X\ %C S—�E.LOC,AT� C. Contractor: C C) k Q_\'i P. V. D •Contact: \ L �Q t N Mailing Address: 0\\ 0 \ �51 Phone: (,p77' 3 'Z (, State License 1/: M0"0W OS, U h I E) 0 2 ko Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if -applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): �1 E. ❑ Commercial X Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes No G. Size of Cut: e $ APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. �.,... ; Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day,; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available o to at Ltir or insp ti purposes. Signature: Date: 7 2.2-9 b (Contractor or ent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY US46NLY APPROVED BY:, lr.t �� 'RIGHT"OF WAY DEPOSIT - TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER �i'"r 310 DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND 111: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: r2� 61 N RESTORATION FEE:, 3r CaoNl ZAN N � � PERMIT=FEE: 1�� • gl/ Tt✓e-G zTrrr i 130-f bcT SQ-�- n TOTAL FEE: COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE: — DATE: - - ISSUED BY: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments I Diagram CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: ILI 0 6V C) �A ,THE C> 0 Ln 0 z r- 0 4J to u 0 .1 y-^'p�,• .•w^r. " +S„ .. �. +S•. -ln.� ^w S, (�%. h. ,�'f"it,y'i f.�. i:.+'�_-�ysi-t�i'F� av- =i=+v.-rr-�,...... „t.:ri, .,�-.. ,, --• .-.. ... k�; .°.•+, w� City of Edmo#s STR,FET FILE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number: o3 Issue Date: lea `9 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: i&ZlJZ. 7z AIO AU4 &J j O B. Type of Work (be specific): ♦ WrE.4V d U 6 Dt ST 4 1 N 3 TA•+.-c_ d G 8 9 1 9 AQa A _r&W 181 RLS C. Contractor: °C..t4L�MRG�S CA,15y400g4oX Qfl<- Contact: JA .k_ GA4JQW Q J•J ✓. Mailing Address: 5-3 3 MAw ST Phone: 7 '7 4- - S � State License #: SuPa*eG0-10161A Liability Insuranc:�: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑Subdivision ❑ City Project R Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG�WATER) ❑ Multi -Family T ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes NNo G. Size of CUP H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO RE A SIGNy INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees h tb City of Edmonds hatmles s-�rom�ir�j) u�ries,,da mages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that may be made�ahainsrthe City of Edmonds, or any of its departments; or employ- ees, inch+ding or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings inchtding defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this pehnit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR PERIOS bF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC77ON AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ES77MA7ED RESTORA77ON FEES'WILL BE HELD UN77L THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLi7ED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH 77ME A DEBIT OR ,CREDIT kLC BE ED FORISSVANCE-TQ,THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. M-2m. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Department xWork is to be inspected during progress and at completion. tZ+,..f -® Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved . material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and ut erstand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all timey'forN inspection pubi6ses. Signature: Date:S- or CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY,:::: J �J - RIGHT.OF>WAY,DEPI TWt,:AUTHORIZED ;VOIDAFTER ' �/ac'A.t� DAYS:: DISRUPTION,FEELFU SPECIAL:CONDITIONS:: - N A RESTORATION FEE:;_: as Engrg. Div. 1991 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund - Route copy to Street De7i, Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: — FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Div. R ) PVT PO L I--_ 16,2-OL 7Z-N"3 AVE -5W F U T U P-E--- 2-21 SD D \Z3 -.92 p I u if, C� 12- -L IAIALL Et IDOL. ll:"Elll I �8' R(3 ij INS -TALL Z00'- 20 Z-1 S-00 PS 06, 1-'A it Tb—[A,L DC6 _j !I 04TAN LLF-- 407f INSTALL TAP CSC TO EXIST. Soo I (. Z-38 17-F-P LAC 9- HAK-f ORL P - I I I G 7- 3 4- 3 rlj C. f '-_';fi-�,� ,�w., :.•�ti..v.r ,,,,,_.. •',�['..-u.�,'i °':r^'yeti;:��-�•7:p,lY:<,s��:=.,-;,:v��.. j890 19 ) s City of Edmo s 1"!f F� LE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION ExP1 xz_0 PERMIT it Nmber• : , Permit u. � / Y Issue Date: // c2 9c;Z— A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: I G Z 4 Z 77-iJ0 AVE- - W B. Type of Work (be specific): _-_(AIST-Ai-L Zpd/t UG CA 0 S(Dl�_ 74N6AVE.- P-JW T'Gw.181 R-S C. Contractor: CEiAM6aSre5 C fScJP,ER-IOK e � Contact: %J ACC-k-- CoPA, 0 W $OI-1 G— Mailing Address: '3; T MA/rl SPhone: 774- - S'I44 State License #: .Sc1Pr2_P_ C.C. 10 1 Q A Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): J E. '❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project M_ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, BL WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other 1 INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : . &Yes []No G. Size of Cut: 22x 4- � H. Charge $ t r L..00i�T% ([�J D IC�p,T t UTt 41T/ryS 1 A( olt CeCasi /N G AZ-,4 APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, a o hold the City of Edmonds hatiti (9tei fdj-ptrs, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employ- ees, including or not limited to Oe defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR fS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MA7E'RIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC71ON AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ES77MA7ED RESTORA77ON FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH 77ME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. r Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. _ A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Departme 20 _,: Work is to be inspected daring progress and at completion. �m®� -3 Restoration is �to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior torthe end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. % f � i Z. 1 have read the above statemetits and understa th permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at ahvimes forins ection purposes. Signature: V Date: (Contra for or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY .... ...... _. I L APPROVED BY.:: (N ht "-" ` RIGHT.OF.WAY.DEPOSIT:.. TIME.,AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER.. DAYS....... DISRUPTION. FEE/FUND- III::.._- SPECIAL. CONDITIONS;,; N A ...RESTORATION FEE.:: _ J�l •. {,•,,, 000NArr FCC - ..COMMENTS:: RECEIPT. NO.,: DATE: ISSUED BY:::. t/..._r111 ,. +�' Engrg. Div. 1991 Eng. Div. July 1985 7zAV sw lU -2-3 - 92- •AZW l-! IZZ c PVT PoLlz FU TU RE 2.ZU' - 50 O P3 UG CA NS 7 ALL I kSPHAL7 b Rol!, I _ � (NS7ALL Z00'- I (Z 2-0 ZI - .Sa0 PS CIG !°A TES TQL 02D P !�(STAI�IC Q 07` r " INSTALL TRAP Ihl S i� EY[ST LPL PC D �- TO EXIST. S00 OUP I vi I 1GZ38 ; IGZ34 d it J IZEP LACE- 4/ Z. Md., P L MAKIL EXIST .Sad 0POP—1)15T2I6UT10 Zo Z -72 Ave ii f-nc.189v March 30, 2004 • STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (426) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Philip Lehn 16202 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Proposed Meadowdale Changes & Future Request for Alternate Design Dear Mr. Lehn: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As a follow-up to our meeting with the Director last week, I wanted to clarify the City's position regarding the proposed Meadowdale map changes and provide you a copy of the current geotechnical report guidelines for Meadowdale development. As you are aware, the next public hearing is scheduled for April 20, 2004 where public testimony and comment will be taken. I hope you plan to attend. Regarding the proposed changes to .the Meadowdale Map, the additional buffer area that will be considered by,Council is an approximate number. The purpose of the buffer is to account for original map inaccuracies since no topographic survey was completed to create the first map and also to account for the last twenty years of erosion and slope failures. As you heard last week, staff is recommending the more conservative 200 foot buffer. The City Council will however make the final decision. As you noted in our meeting, a portion of your property on Tract X and Lot 2 is currently designated on the GeoEngineers map as being within the Meadowdale landslide hazard area and thus already subject to Meadowdale (ECDC 19.05) permit review. At the meeting you provided a map of your platted lots, showing an extended buffer of 200 feet; you understood that the remaining platted lots (Lots 3 & 4) would be subject to (at a minimum) preliminary Meadowdale permit applicability review if Council accepts the 200 foot buffer. The concept for reviewing lots located within a mapped buffer area(s) would be to require a geotechnical report and letter detailing geotechnical reasons why the lot development should not be subject to the Meadowdale provisions. Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan i Mr. Lehn March 30, 2004 Page Two Upon receipt of the geotechnical report and letter, the building official reviews the materials and makes a recommendation to the Director for waiver, partial waiver, full implementation or partial implementation of Meadowdale provisions for development. The building official may confer with a City consultant in making this recommendation. The Director then renders a decision which is appealable to Snohomish County Superior Court. As the Director stated, it is possible that one geotechnical report can adequately address individual lots within a development provided enough individual development detail is provided. Since you have indicated you already have a geotechnical report for your plat, the next step is to check the report against the attached geotechnical guidelines to be sure the report is complete based on the individual design of the future houses. If items are missing the engineer will be required to supplement the report. Your engineer could also be considering at this time geotechnical reasons why the upper most eastern lot pads of Lot 3 & 4, may be waived from Meadowdale development provisions (in case the map buffer concept is adopted by Council). Regarding green built dwellings, I have contemplated how your designs should be reviewed subject to current UBC 104.2.8 Alternate Designs and Methods. For each green component. (i.e., soil roof, structural panels, etc.) you shall be required to submit a formal request for alternate design. Note, pursuant to the current UBC provisions, you must prove that the alternate is equivalent to that prescribed in the code for suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation. Evidence or proof must be submitted to substantiate any, claims made regarding the components' use. The current fee for each alternate design proposal is $180.00 plus cost of City Attorney time (if required). As a reminder, the effective date for adoption of the International Codes is July 1, 2004. Any request for alternate design submitted after July 1, 2004 must adhere to International Building Code Section 104.11 (copy enclosed). As the Director noted, you may submit your requests for alternate design well in advance of permit application submittal in order to expedite the future permit review process. If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • GEOTECBNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES MINIMUM GUIDELINES FOR SITE INVESTIGATION, EVALUATION, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ONSTABILIZING MEASURES FOR GEOTECHMCAL REPORTS GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The owner shall be responsible to submit a geotechnical report (herein report) that shall be prepared, signed and stamped by a Civil Engineer (herein engineer) specializing in Geotechnical Engineering licensed by the State of Washington The report shall include an evaluation and analysis of soil and groundwater conditions and shall be supported. by field investigations and appropriate subsurface explorations. N the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and signed by a qualified state licensed Geologist. A letter of concurrence from the geologist shall be included in the report. If any requirement of ECDC Chapter 19.05 or Ordinance #2661 is determined to be irrelevant by the engineer, the report shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable. (ECDC 19.05.030B) 2. Reports shall address comments received from governmental agencies, and the public in general, concerning geotechnical and other related aspects of the proposed project, as developed from the Critical Areas Checklist, Environmental Checklist and general permit review process. The City may require such supplements or amendments to the report as are needed to develop a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the site soil and groundwater conditions. (ECDC 19.05.0308#2) 3. Within the mapped limits of the Meadowdale landslide area, a general discussion of the site, based on the Roger Lowe Associates report of 10/16/79, and the 2/28/85 GeoEngineers supplement, without an investigation including site specific explorations, is not sufficient. This requirement is based on the Citys understanding that soil and groundwater conditions can vary considerably over short distances within the Meadowdale landslide area, and that these geologic' changes can significantly affect the design of structures. Outside the mapped limits of the Meadowdale landslide area, the report. must provide subsurface data to support the engineer's conclusions regarding slope stability. In such unmapped Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas the engineer must conclude that the site is stable, as defined by Ordinance #2661. 4.. The -report shall to UBC Chapter 18 and be site specific, based on the legal description of the permit application, and include a scaled plot plan prepared prior to conducting any soils investigations. The plot plan shall be included in the report and show all existing and proposed structures, utilities, floor grades, excavation levels and grade contour lines. Exploration test pits and/or boring locations shall be clearly identified. The discussion of the site shall include all findings and test data on the existing surface and subsurface conditions, groundwater levels, soil engineering characteristics, capacities and classifications; including geology, soil/bedrock,. stratigraphy. The report shall include an analysis of potential impacts on surrounding adjacent properties with respect to these items. The report shall include all findings and test data on site soil and groundwater conditions, including but not limited to: soil strength characteristics, soil classification and density, unique landforms or landslide boundaries, and groundwater elevations (referenced to a reproducible datum). I;Ww ew0wWouvMea&wNd ChWkjWEV1W2 pW to • S. A vicinity map shall be included and shall show existing sewer and drainage facilities within 50 feet. of the site. The report shall include a discussion of proposed underground utilities, including recommendations for the possible need of flexible connections at points of entry to the structures. 6. The report shall contain the engineer's opinions, conclusions, and recommendations on the present stability of the site, stability during construction, and the anticipated stability after development is completed. The engineer's opinion shall be stated in terms of degree of risk at each of the above stages of development and the potential of damage to abutting properties. The engineer shall address all forms of earth movement, including but not limited to: slumps, debris avalanches, earth flows, debris falls, mud flows, and/or deep seated rotational or complex landslides. The issue of site stability shall be a focal point during all phases of design .and construction. The landslide history of the area and the landslide history and/or probability on the specific site should be discussed. 7. At a minimum, provide one cross-section extending across the site drawn perpendicular to existing contours. This cross-section shall show soil and groundwater conditions as identified by explorations and shall show proposed .structures(s) including proposed finished floor elevations superimposed on the cross- section. 8. In order to assist the engineer in arriving at valid conclusions, and in order to properly evaluate the site groundwater conditions it may be necessary to install piezometers. The location and number shall be determined by the engineer or geologist and shall .be installed and abandoned per WAC Chapter 173-160'. The readings from regular monitoring of the piezometers shall be plotted showing the groundwater level in comparison to rainfall and also. in comparison to density of construction. By measuring, groundwater level information can be developed indicating the impact of wet and dry seasons and the impact of development as it effects the degree of risk for future slide or earth subsidence.: When piezometers are not installed, the engineer or geologist must provide a description of groundwater conditions based on other criteria or observations such as observed seepages in test pits or natural springs. If unusual odors, soil, surface water, groundwater and/or debris suspected of being contaminated exists, the City and appropriate statelfederal agencies shall be immediately notified. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS The following specific provisions are also required in the report to address site specific issues and/or constraints. 1. Site preparation, including recommendations for site clearing,. grubbing and excavation. Provide recommendations for all temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. Address protection of adjacent properties. 2. For grading and earthwork include procedures for compaction and type of fill material required. 3. Specify the use of site soils for fill or backfill and shoring requirements during construction. Discuss temporary cut slopes greater than 2:1 and excavations greater than eight (8) feet in depth for temporary and permanent slope protection. Specifications must be provided for all types of fill anticipated for use during the project, including but not limited to: general site fill, wall backfill and fill under footings and floor slabs. L;tmv-.bldWlmdmt/MaWow/Md chwk]%REV I V02 Page 11 4. Based on the criteria in UBC Chapter 18. and requirements for Seismic Zone 3, the report shall include recommendations and construction components for a site specific foundation plan. Soil bearing capacities. and soil horizons capable of supporting foundations and/or slabs shall be called out. Recommendations shall be made for provisions to minimize the effects of expansive soils, adjacent loads, and the expected total and differential settlement. Submit calculations on the allowable foundation and lateral pressures to substantiate the classification. For conventional foundations the degree of stiffness or strength of the structural foundation must be called out. This could be provided in terms of the foundation being able to span a given distance between any two support points or by use of other definitive criteria. Comment on the need, if any, for; tying isolated footings . together in two directions to provide additional resistance to displacement in the event of earth movement. 5. For the design of retaining walls, recommend values for passive and active pressures and coefficients of friction. For pile foundations, explorations must extend to at least the depth. of recommended pile penetration. Allowable axial and lateral loads on piles shall be determined by an accepted method and calculations supporting these loads must be provided. 6. Temporary and permanent erosion control and other measures designed to reduce the risk. of slope instability must be addressed. Include the number and placement of drains, mode of construction (including temporary slope angles and/or the need for shoring/trench boxes) and approved discharge locations. Specify permanent site drainage and maintenance requirements. Note: These provisions may require that the engineer restrict construction- during certain times of the year. 7. Address the criteria called out in the critical areas and environmental checklist. All aspects of both checklists shall be addressed and answered in the report. Discuss the need for the preservation and maintenance or replanting of natural vegetation at the site, including trees and shrubs. 8. Provide recommendations for temporary shoring and/or requirements for obtaining temporary or permanent slope easements on neighboring properties. Include measures for protection of adjacent public and private utilities. Provisions in Chapter 296-155 WAC Part N and Chapter 296-62 WAC Part M must be incorporated where applicable. 4WPbWvlmdwVMeadow/Md chec4WItEV12AD2 &V 12 0 ADMINISTRATION be recorded and entered in the files of the department of build- ing safety. 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of con- struction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to pro- hibit any design or method of construction not specifically pre- scribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, ef- fectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. 104.11.1 Research reports. Supporting data, where neces- sary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources. 104.11.2 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the au- thority -to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. • In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records. SECTION 105 PERMITS 105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, en- large, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. 105.1.1 Annual permit. In lieu of an individual permit for each alteration to an already approved electrical, gas, me- chanical or plumbing installation, the building official is au- thorized to issue an annual permit upon application therefor to any person, firm or corporation regularly employing one or more qualified tradepersons in the building, structure or on the premises owned or operated by the applicant for the permit. 105.1.2 Annual permit records. The person to whom an annual permit is issued shall keep a detailed record of alter- ations made under such annual permit. The building official shall have access to such records at all times or such records shall be filed with the building official as designated. 105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authori- zation for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m2). 2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks. 4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III -A liquids. 5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capac- ity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 Q and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1. 6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than.30 inches (762 mm) above grade and not over any basement or story below and which are not part of an accessible route. 7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, coun- ter tops and similar finish work. 8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 9. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy, as applicable in Section 101.2, which are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep, do not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 Q and are installed en- tirely above ground. 10. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or ag- ricultural purposes and not including service sys- tems. 11. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one- and two-family dwellings. 12. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require addi- tional support of Group R-3, as applicable in Section 101.2, and Group U occupancies. 13. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (1753 mm) in height. Electrical: Repairs and maintenance: Minor repair work, includ- ing the replacement of lamps or the connection of ap- proved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles. Radio and television transmitting stations: The provi- sions of this code shall not apply to electrical equipment used for radio and television transmissions, but do apply to equipment and wiring for power supply, the installa- tions of towers and antennas. Temporary testing systems: A permit shall not be re- quired for the installation of any temporary system re- 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE® • • City of Edmonds Planning Division 250 - 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 February 20, 1996 RECEIVED FEB 2 0 t996 KNIT COUNTEFi Re: Appeal of Engineering Division's Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS 5 — ,qS - 163 To whom it may concern: On February 5, 1996, the City's Planning Division approved GREENNESS, a short subdivision of two lots into four lots plus a common recreational parcel. Because the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires that ten or more lots be served by a twenty-five foot wide street (22 feet of pavement plus 3 feet of curbs and gutters), and because the two, newly created lots raise the total ultimately served to twelve, the Engineering Division originally required 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW to be widened to 25 feet throughout its entire, 600 foot length. Since the street is dead ended and only 4 small part of it will ever serve ten or more lots, the City Engineer later allowed the requirement to be reduced to 25 feet for its first 200 feet and 23 feet (24 feet with thickened edges instead of curbs and gutters) for its last 400 feet. However, because City's street standards are based on the more intensive types and much higher amounts of traffic experienced by through streets, it would still be unreasonable and inappropriate to impose even this reduced requirement on our quiet street, which will always remain dead ended. While appreciated, the reduction is obviously too small to make much difference and Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) and Mariam and I (the applicants) along with the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC), which represents all property owners living along the street, are united not only in our strong opposition to the Engineering Division's street widening requirement but also in our support of GREENNESS and our more appropriate design alternative for the street (Option 3). Because of the difficult site conditions along the street, compliance with the City's requirement will not only be technically impractical, functionally inappropriate, and aesthetically undesirable, it may also be prohibitively expensive. Useful space would be forever lost to .make way for an unreasonably wide expanse of asphalt which would likely serve no other purpose than to encourage some to drive more recklessly. Massive amounts of soil would have to be excavated, exported and retained, at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV standards would need to be relocated, a seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and rebuilt, and, depending on the alignment allowed, several mature trees may need to be destroyed, all to create just two additional lots. Given the practical limitations and unusually high cost of complying with the City's street widening requirement, the test of practical and economic feasibility, prescribed in ECDC Section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, which neither differentiates nor excludes City standards, should enable the Engineering Division to reduce the requirement more substantially. Unfortunately, while the City Council is currently revising the code to enable the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion in their interpretations of it, the Engineering Division continues to be influenced and bound by the previous City Council's unwritten and unexplained interpretation of Section 18.80.000, which includes State standards but excludes City standards when applying the prescribed test of practical and financial feasibility. While sympathetic with our complaints, criticisms and design alternative, the City's Director of Community Services was recently advised by the City Attorney that the Engineering Division does not have the authority to reduce the City's street widening requirement and that our best, if not only recourse is to appeal the requirement. In encouraging us to file an appeal, the Director also said the Engineering Division would be willing to write a technical report supporting it. Therefore, despite the considerable additional cost of time and money to ourselves and project, Green Tara Incorporated and Mariam and I, along with all of our neighbors, formally appeal the City's very coarsely conceived street widening requirement as well as the Engineering Division's exclusion of City standards in its application of the previous City Council's interpretation of ECDC Section 18.90.006. • City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page two . GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 72nd Avenue W immediately north of 164th Street SW is approximately 600 feet long, 18 feet wide near its southern intersection and 11 feet wide at its northern end. Near the street's midpoint, two driveways, with grades of 27% and 17% (the City's recommended maximum is 14%) are located approximately 17 feet across the street from a steep, ten foot high embankment. North of the street's last driveway lies a very steep drainage ravine which will forever prevent the street from connecting to North Meadowdale Beach Road and becoming a through street. South of its intersection with 164th Street SW, 72nd Avenue W is a 22 foot wide through street and east of 72nd Avenue W, 164th Street. SW is a 32 foot wide through street until it begins to curve down to its main through street feeder, N Meadowdale Road, where it narrows to slightly less than 18 feet. THROUGH STREETS VS. DEAD ENDS Since ECDC makes no distinction between through and dead ended streets, the City's street standards must serve the "worst case" or most intense circumstances which in this instance would be through street traffic. There are many obvious differences between through and dead ended streets which cause them to experience different amounts and types of traffic. A through street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demand on a dead ended street is significantly less. Only those few lots at the end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short, dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue W. Since the street will never experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the City's through street standards are based (i.e. through streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 - 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue W can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE Compliance with the City's street widening requirement will cause us all to suffer costs which will far outweigh any possible benefit. To help you understand the anticipated impact, I have attached photographs, dated January 8, 1995, and the plans, profiles and cross sections of both Options 1 and 2 (please see my November 17, 1995 letter to James Walker describing both options). The following description divides the street into three, 200 foot segments (numbers in parentheses refer to the attached photos). The first segment, 0+00 through 2+00 (1-6 & 23-24), narrows from 18 to 16 feet in width. It is bordered by an 8 to 11 foot wide shoulder and seventeen, mature Douglas Firs (twelve have approximately, 16" diameters) to the west and a drainage swale, a steep, 10' high embankment, severalmature trees, a power pole and a cable TV standard to the east. If the street is aligned with the centerline of the right-of-way, as shown on Option 1, a tremendous quantity of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained, the power pole and TV standard would need to be relocated and several mature trees, (now buffering a house and beautifying the street) would need to be destroyed. While Option 2 would eliminate the utility relocations and significantly reduce the amount of excavation along this segment by aligning the street further west, it would not eliminate excavation altogether. A wall and shy distance, while not shown, would likely be needed near station 1+00 and by shifting the street's alignment further west, the now parkable shoulder next to the row of Douglas Firs would be eliminated. The second segment, 2+00 through 4+00 (7 -8 & 15 -22), narrows from 16 to 15 feet in width. It is bordered by a terraced garden, a fire hydrant, a sports court, and the two, steep (27% and 17%) driveways on the west. The east side is bordered by a narrow drainage swale to a 12" round GP invert, a steep, 10 foot high embankment and rockery, a power pole, and a cable TV standard. The dashed line immediately north of station 2+00 indicates the point where nine or less lots are served by the street. Because the two driveways on the west are already too steep, an enormous amount of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained to carve a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery out of the steep embankment across the street. The existing, approximately seventy five foot long rockery would need to be demolished and reconstructed. The power pole and cable TV standard would need to be relocated and much of the existing gravel parking area on the east side would need to be eliminated. r City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page three The last segment, 4+00 through 5+93 (9-15) bends to the east before connecting to the last two driveways and narrows from 15 to 11 feet in width. It is bordered by GREENNESS, a few mature trees, including a 36" Douglas Fir, and two. water meters on the west and a raised planter, a cable TV standard, two power poles and a couple of mature trees on the east. While the fewest number of houses would ever use much less need a 23 foot width plus shy distance and rockery along this last segment of the dead ended street, the greatest volume of earth would need to be excavated, exported and retained here to satisfy the City's requirement. When added to the projects. other required costs,. the street widening requirement makes the project's financial feasibility very doubtful. While there was enough property to create three new lots, GTI decided it would be aesthetically more desirable to create only two. Given the property's original cost, length and cost of the design and regulatory review process to date, the cost of project financing, the anticipated cost of providing the new 600 foot plus water main and hydrant required by the Fire Marshal, and the development's 320 foot long private driveway, detention pond, and utility infrastructure, compliance with the street widening requirement should almost certainly make the project prohibitively expensive. SECTION 18.80.000 Because ECDC Section 18.80.000, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS states, The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible", and does not specifically differentiate or exclude City standards, we believe the Engineering Division already has justifiable grounds to further reduce the street widening requirement more substantially. However, while not specifically defined as such in the code, the Engineering Division says that it was the previous City Council's intent to interpret the word, "standards" to mean only State standards and not City as well as State standards. We question the purpose as well as the validity of such a narrow interpretation. If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold State standards to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't City standards be held to the same test? According to the City Engineer, the current City Council is currently revising the ECDC to permit the Planning and Engineering Divisions to exercise more discretion when making technical interpretations of the code. Since the Engineering Division's interpretation of Section 18.80.000 is not literally prescribed by the code, since the current City Council expects the Engineering Division to exercise more discretion when interpreting the code, and since all the neighbors who. live on the street are unanimously opposed to having their street widened in accordance with the City's inappropriate standards, we believe the Engineering Division has sufficient grounds to break from its unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of Section 18.80.000 and render a more reasonable judgment based on sound engineering principles. BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD ENDED STREET After preparing and submitting Options 1 and 2, we discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges. While we understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non -complying standards, the discovery compels us to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works for Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W, why must our quiet, dead ended street be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Because some of our neighborhood's soils can be destabilized by increased infiltration of storm water runoff, the City's Engineering Division is believed to be more concerned with controlling storm run off and limiting the amount of impervious surface added than it is with widening the street. Compared to our current design alternative (Option 3), the City's 25 to 23 foot street widening requirement would significantly increase the added amount of impervious surface by approximately 3,200 square feet. City of Edmonds Appeal February 20, 1996 Page four NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION As indicated in the attached January 15, 1996 letter by President Drew Wojtanik, The Meadowdale Beach Community Council, a group representing fourteen neighboring property owners, voted unanimously to oppose the Engineering Division's street widening requirement and to support GREENNESS and our alternative plan to widen the street. While individual neighbors have different reasons for their positions, we all share the conviction that the City's street widening requirement would be inappropriate, unnecessary, unreasonable, and ultimately wrong for our neighborhood. We are also convinced that the large sum of money which would otherwise be wasted on street widening would be better invested improving the quality of GREENNESS and thereby the neighborhood itself. OPTION 3 After discovering that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue W (between Meadowdale Beach Road and North Meadowdale Road), two of our neighborhood's most intensely traveled through streets, are only 20 feet wide and have no curbs and gutters or thickened edges, we decided to reduce the first 125 feet of our previously preferred option (Option 2) from 25 to '20 feet including thickened edges. The existing eastern edge of this segment of the street would be thickened and approximately 2 feet of additional width, including a thickened edge, would be added to the street's west side. From station 1+25 to station 2+00, where the street will serves nine or less lots, the street's new western edge would angle back to the existing edge. From this point the street would maintain a 16 foot overall width including thickened edges until north of the steep driveways. By adding to its west side, the street would be widened to an 18 foot overall width, including thickened edges, north of station 3+25. GTI is currently preparing a plan,profile and cross sections of Option 3 which we plan to submit for your consideration within the next two weeks. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this appeal. . Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, AICP - Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty, P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Telephone and Facsimile: 206-742-6813 MEADOWDALE BEACH COMMUNITY COUNCIL January 15, 1996 RECEIVED FEQ 2 i99 PERMIT COUNTER James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed widening of 72nd Avenue West, north of its intersection with 164th Street SW as. a result of a proposed Iot subdivision and development by Mr. Phillip Lehn Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Meadowdale Beach Community Council (MBCC). The MBCC wishes to voice it's support for Mr. Lehn, and Green Tara Incorporated's (GTI) proposed subdivision of the site located at 16202 72nd Ave. West in Edmonds, and, further, to voice our stgn� opposition to. the potential street widening requirement for 72nd Ave. West north of the intersection of 164th St. SW. On January 9th, 1996, the MBCC met to hear a presentation by Mr. Phillp Lehn, who was representing GTI, regarding their proposal to further subdivide the subject site area to a total of four lots. Immediately subsequent to our meeting, MBCC members had received the City of Edmonds Notice of Public Hearing. announcement -for the Planning Division's scheduled public hearing January 19, 1996 (file no. S-95-163). During this meeting Mr. Lehn made a very professional presentation to Council members, complete with a "to scale" mock-up model of the site location itself, architectural drawings of his proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2" dealing with the proposed street widening, and copies of his written correspondence between he and the City of Edmonds Community Services Department, regarding the street issue itself. r Based on the information as he presented it before the MBCC, we wish to make it known that we, as a council, offer our unanimous support for the proposed subdivision and building project. However, we stand united as well in our opposition to the City ordered street widening modifications being imposed on the project. In our opinion, Option 1, to widen the street to a full 25' was/is a totally inappropriate and impractical expectation. This opinion is based on the existing (and even potential increased) traffic volume on the street and the extremely undesirable modifications which would result to our existing neighborhood not to mention the incredible cost which would have to be borne by GTI. We understand from.your letter of November 22, 1995, to Mr. Lehn that you have "relaxed" your enforcement of these rigid standards to 23' for that area of the street north of the first 200' immediately north of the intersection with 164th Street SW. This hardly seems like much of a relaxation at all and will not relieve the neighborhood of the extensive engineering modifications (i.e., removal of existing trees, excavation of huge amounts of a bank, rebuilding of a rockery, etc.). We find this expectation totally unacceptable, unwanted, and seemingly unnecessary. We understand from our January 9th meeting that Mr. Lehn may further modify his "Option 2" to reduce the first 200' to 20' (vs 25') and retain the 16' for the remaining distance north on the road, therefore we will comment on his anticipated change. MBCC strongly.supports this approach and appeals to the City to use its good judgment in granting this request. Even with the additional traffic resulting from Mr. Lehn's lot development, the volume just doesn't justify the need to meet imposed street widening standards that were obviously developed with situations other than this in mind. Therefore, the MBCC request'the City Planning Department to research the historic development of the existing Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.000 to understand the actual reasons for adoption of the existing code standards to see if this situation address the "intent" of those criteria and question whether the code truly is applicable and appropriate. Finally, members of the MBCC will attend the January 19th Public Hearing. MBCC reserves the right to withdraw this letter of support/objection based on information presented differing from what we currently understand are the facts to this case. Sincerely, Drew Wojtanik President, . Meadowdale Beach Community Council I MEADO`YVDALE BEACH COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2. Wilie Wellington Ruby Wellington 3. Jim Nagai Dianne Briggs 4. Arthur & Martha Haig 5. John & Pam Connors ' 6. John & d'Elaine Johnson 7. Phil & Mariam Lehn 8. (Lot) Phil Lehn 9. Michael & Linda Duffy 10. Drew & Linda Wojtanik 11. Dave & Kathy Wells 12. Rita Stillings 13. Scott & Joyce Wright - 1 - 1 6 4 ------------------ -=-- -- ----------------- st .................. S _ W * 71091 64th St SW 743-3641 * 16318 71 P1 W 787-6161 * 16222 71 P1 W 742-7707 * 16220 70 PL W 743-6817 16122 72 Ave W 743-2902 16202 72 Ave W 742-6813 * * 16238 72 Ave W 742-0804 * 16306 72 Ave W 742-9287 * 16330 72 Ave W 742-0242 * 16342 72 Ave W 743-3576 * 7211 164th St SW 745-9440 * COMMUNITY COUNCIL INVITEES . ...................... 13 11 12 10 72nd Ave W 2 3 4 L 1/14/96 ..t RECEWED EE8 2 0 1919S ER PENT COUNTER December 5, 1995 James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed modification of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: While I personally appreciate your decision to permit us to reduce our overall street width from 25 to 23 feet north of station 2+00, the modification is too small to either win the neighbors support or have much effect on the condition's harmfully high cost. Since Section 18.80.000, titled "ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS", does not specifically exclude the street standards of Section 18.80.010, why should they be interpreted differently? If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold the standards of Section 18.80.000 to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't the standards of Section 18.80.010 be held to the same test? It is now apparent that there is a discrepancy between the City's 5-20-93 illustrated handout titled "Street Standards" which lists the required pavement width for 3*- 9 potential lots at 16' - 20' and the . ECDC's 6-30-89 "TABLE -OF STREET. STANDARDS" which lists the required pavement width for 5 - 9 lots at 20'. While this discrepancy cost us over a month of time and several thousands of dollars, it did prompt us to evolve a more meaningful and appropriate design for our quiet, dead ended street. Given the limited traffic ever to be served by the street, we continue to believe that a 16 foot width, including thickened edges, north of 2+00 would not only be safe, but also much less intrusive and allow us to spend more of our limited resources where they're really needed to improve the quality of the development. i Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page three To summarize, we believe the City's street standards are, at least in this instance, unreasonable, inappropriate and wrong. If the City forces us to comply with these standards, our neighbors will resent and oppose our project, and we will suffer a financial burden radically disproportionate to the value of the two lots created. We believe the City should be consistent and apply the same test of practical and financial feasibility to its' street standards it applies to its' other standards when reconstructing existing facilities. By proposing a meeting with you and Paul Mar, we hope to avoid an appeal process which promises to be long and costly for the City as well as for ourselves. Yours Truly, moo Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services Department Gordon Hyde, Engineering Coordinator John Bisseil; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, Tossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog David Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring -and Associates GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 16202 - 72nd Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 • 206-742-6813 El • Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page two When I originally asked for your guidance- in resolving the conflicts posed by the street's meandering alignments, high embankments and steep driveways, you told me it wasn't your responsibility to the design the street. You said the street had to be 25 feet wide and the only way you could permit us to deviate from that standard was for us to document a."technical justification" which would demonstrate how one standard (street width) would violate another (20% maximum grade for a driveway). Since the grades of two driveways on the street's east side (now 8.3% and 100/8) would not exceed the City's 20% maximum allowable grade if the 23 foot street width you now feel compelled to impose is measured from the existing edge of the two steepest driveways (now 17% and 27%) on the street's west side, compliance with the City's standard is not impossible, at least not technically. I presume you have therefore concluded that the technical justification you feel is needed to modify the requirement does not exist and, since the Department does not ordinarily apply the test of practical or economic feasibility to its street standards, you feel you must impose them, at least at this juncture, regardless of how unreasonable and inappropriate they may be. Since an appeal of your position, which will be long and costly for the City as well as for us, may be unavoidable, we would like to know first, if you can support our appeal and second, if you and Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, are willing to review the circumstances with me and our Civil Engineer, David Dougherty, to see if it is possible for us to agree upon a plan which permits us to avoid the appeal process altogether? During our November 17 meeting you said you didn't like rockeries or the curving alignment of our 25 foot wide option but stopped short of prohibiting them altogether. Since, your position on these matters directly affects our ultimate cost, the amount of excavation and the length and height of all required rockeries or retaining walls, we and our neighbors would like to know your position on these matters as sbon as possible. While saying "The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections, you don't explain why. Do you really believe dead ended streets experience the same amount and type of traffic as thru streets or, are you following the dictates of an inadequately conceived code which fails to make the critical distinction? Since our dead ended street will never be a thru street and will always experience significantly less traffic than a thru street of the same length and number of lots, don't you think it's reasonable and appropriate to apply a different standard? In walking around the neighborhood during the past few days, I've measured a few street widths and have discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, clearly two of our busiest thru streets, are only -twenty feet wide near our neighborhood and have no curbs and gutters or even thickened edges. While I understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non- complying standards, my discovery compels me to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works on Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, why must our quiet, dead ended road be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? is it possible that we've allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing that a critical safety need exists when it in fact doesn't? Is it really so desirable or even necessary to have so much of our land covered with asphalt? 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 f890-199 November 22, 1995 Phil Lehn 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: STREET WAIVER FOR 72ND AVENUE WEST Dear Phil: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR CF-IVED pE�MIT COUNTER The section of code you reference in your November 17, 1995 letter has not been interpreted to allow staff the authority to waive street standards. The statement in the ECDC 18 80,000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS_ " The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." applies to the standards in the documents listed in section 18.80.000 (Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, General Special Provisions, Washington State "City Design Standards", etc.) and not the Street Standards found in section 18.80.010. As mentioned at our meeting on November 17, 1995, the standard width for the street changes to twenty feet and not sixteen feet when less than ten lots access the road. The City policy has always been to avoid the narrowing of a roadway along its length. However, in this case, we could agree to an eleven foot wide lane northbound and a nine foot lane southbound, which changes to eleven feet near station 2+00 on your preliminary plan. Any further street width reduction would need to be based on conflicting code requirements, such as not being able to maintain driveways at less than 20 % at the required road width. The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections. Streets may be required to meet higher standards than those listed in the ECDC section 18.80.010, but developers are not required to bear the costs. Please call me or Gordy Hyde at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, g-,6. *,t& JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCW/sf c: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator 72WIDTH.DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • �; itii _ November 17, 1995 James C. Walker; P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 R-ECEIVED frI MIT COUNTER Re: Proposed waiver of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West to 25 feet north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: As you know Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) hopes to- subdivide two existing lots to create just two new lots. Because the dead ended street to our property already serves eleven lots and the City's standard width for commercial as well as residential streets serving 10 to 15 lots Is. 25 feet, the City is requiring GTi to widen approximately 600 feet of 72nd Avenue West to a uniform width of 25 feet. Because two existing_ driveways, which already exceed the Citys maximum allowed grade, are only sixteen feet away from an 8- foot high embankment and rockery on the other side of the street, it will be impossible to comply with the - Citys street widening requirement without suffering prohibitively high costs. Added to the Fire Marshal's requirement to provide a new hydrant and water main (over 600 feet of 8 inch ductile pipe), the costs associated the the City's requirement to widen the street to 25 feet clearly jeopardizes the projects economic feasibility, in accordance with section 18.80.000 of the City's Community Development Code which states, 'The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as- is practical and economically feasible", we believe the City has justifiable cause to revise if not waive its' street widening requirement altogether. To help us find an economically feasible way to satisfy the City's conflicting standards governing the width of streets and the maximum grade for private driveways, GTI is submitting along with this letter, full and half scale plans and sections of two different options for widening 72nd Avenue West. In accordance with the. City's conditions, Option 1 maintains a constant width of 22 feet plus 3 feet for thickened edges (25 feet total) from the streets intersection with 164th St. SW to its' termination at the entrance to "GREENNESS," our proposed subdivision. Option 2 maintains the 25 foot width for that initial part of the dead, ended street which will experience traffic resulting from ten or more lots. At the point where the street will serve nine or less lots, Option 2 would widen the existing street to 16 feet. Option 1: The most obvious, characteristic of Option 1 is its' high cost and the massive amounts of dirt which would need to be excavated, exported and retained. Centered within the right of way, Option 1's first 200 feet would require the removal of several trees (including 8", 10", 12" and 18" Douglas Firs) which beautify and buffer a private yard from the street, the relocation of a power pole and television cable pedestal and the - construction of a 175• foot long rockery approximately 8 feet high. To avoid the two driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum grade, Option 1 would cut approximately 16 feet into a 10 foot high embankment, relocate another power pole and television pedestal, remove an existing rockery and build. another; approximately 125 feet long and 10 feet high. The last 200 feet of Option 1 would cut another 15 feet into a 5 foot high embankment only to serve just three existing and two new lots. • • James Walker, P.E. City of Edmonds November 17, 1995 Page two Option 2: While complying with the intent of *the City's standard governing street widths, Option 2 respects the. special circumstances effecting dead ended streets. Only that part of the street which would experience traffic generated by 10 or more lots would be 25 feet wide. By aligning this part of the street to the west of . the right of way's.centeriine and by reducing the street's width to 16 feet where it serves 9 or less lots, much of Option 1's soil excavation, export, and retaining can be eliminated, two power poles and television pedestals can remain where they are, .and several trees can be saved without increasing the grades .of the steep driveways. While the City's standard governing street widths makes no distinction between "thru" and "dead end" - streets,. we all know the traffic experienced by the two types is significantly different. A "thru" street serving at least ten lots (the minimum requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots •in both directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demands on a "dead ended" street is significantly less. Only those few lots at its' end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Because all incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds' are generally slower and safety higher, particularly on relatively short; dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue West. Since the street will not experience the regular intensity of traffic upon which the City's 'thru street" standards were based (i.e. thru streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 to 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue West can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, Tjossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog Dave Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates GREEN TARA, INCORPORATED - 16202 - 72nd Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 - 206-742-6813 890.1.99- CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 . FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering January 16, 1995 Allard Russell and Grace LaRose 3868 Prairie. Dunes Drive Sarasota, FL 34238 FEB 2 0 1996 PERMIT COUNTER Re: Short Plat Requirements for S-94-139 (16202 - 72nd Ave W) Road Width Dear Mr Russell, We were recently approached by Phil Lehn, a potential -purchaser of your property, regarding the subject short plat requirement to widen 72nd Ave. W. to twenty-five feet north of 164th St. We also discussed his letter over the telephone. Since you are the recorded owner of the subject property, we want to inform you of our position regarding the requirements. Based on the number of houses 72nd Ave will serve with the development of the plat, the road must be widened to twenty-five feet (22 feet of roadway and 3 feet of curb/gutter) to meet the City Development Code. Before we would consider any deviation to the roadway width requirement, we will require a technical justification, using sound engineering practices, demonstrating how the impact on the neighbors would violate the City Development Code (for example, driveway slope increased above 20%). To keep the neighborhood's rural look, we will allow an asphalt thickened edge in lieu of concrete curb and gutters, but all other requirements stand per plat requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. Acting City Engineer ALC/JCW/sf cc: Phil Lehn John Bissell., Associate Planner S-94-139.DOC *-Incorporated August II, 1890 • c:_._- tea; ., — Pot4;n�- Jnr;an MEMORANDUM Date: March 12, 1996 To: John Bissell .From: Jim Walker Subject: APPEAL OF PLAT CONDITIONS - S-95-163 It appears that Phillip Lehn is appealing two staff decisions. The first is the street widening requirement applied to his short plat. The second is the staff interpretation that ECDC section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS does not give staff latitude to waive Street Standards and only applies to the documents (City Design Standards, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, etc.) listed in section 18.00.000. Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements. The Street Standards in ECDC section 18.80.010 were created to apply in situations where the City and County Design Standards provided little guidance. The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements. The speck street standard requirements placed for this development were based on the standards in ECDC section 18.80.010. Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road. Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits. ATTACHMENT 3 File No. AP-96-21 The Street Standards require road improvements without regard to alignment of the right-of-way or topography. The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway. cc: Gordy Hyde 0 11 • • Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM March 18, 1996 John Bissell Jim Walker keCelvel:) MAR 18 1996 PLg1Vtj1N,U ter. CLARIFICATION OF LEHN APPEAL - S-95-163 0 This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat S-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal _Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards". All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington. ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." The next fine states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is- practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010. The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements. cc: Gordy Hyde ATTACHMENT 4 File No. AP-96-21 cst. 199v CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER 14e-/ qpR , °® FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION p�,�3 i996 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER �d,/� CITY OF EDMONDS mil, APPLICANT: Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. CASE NO.: AP-96-21 LOCATION: 16202 72nd Avenue West (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Appeal of Hearing Officer's decision on a short plat with respect to compliance with ECDC Section 18.80.010 in association with a proposed short plat (File No. S-95-163), (see. Exhibit A, Attachments 2, 3, and 4). REVIEW PROCESS: Appeal of approval of a Short Subdivision, Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance width Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.80.010 (STREET STANDARDS). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105 (APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Deny Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Lehn/Green Tara application was opened at 9:22 a.m., March 21, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:45 am. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the. Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11,.1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ~Hearing. Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: John Bissell, Project Planner, reviewed the Planning Division Advisory report which recommended denial of the appeal. He added comments to the staff report and read from the City's Comprehensive Plan. He specifically pointed out the following policies: • Residential Development Policy B.5.d. which states: Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. • Soils and Topography Policy B.2 which states: Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. He then noted that the Comprehensive Plan agrees with the appellant, but the ordinances do not appear to allow the option the applicant wants to build. From the Appellant: Phillip Lehn, Appellant, submitted Exhibits B through E into the record and then read Exhibit D which identified a few clarifications, corrections and omissions to Exhibit A. From the Community: No one from the general public spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the subject request. CORRESPONDENCE: As noted above, the appellant submitted several exhibits at the hearing. One of those exhibits was a letter from a landscape architect who supported the appellant's design alternative (Exhibit Q. Another of the exhibits was a petition signed by fourteen neighbors who oppose the widening of 72nd Avenue West as required by City staff and support the design alternative known as Option 3 (Exhibit E). Another letter was submitted prior to the hearing along with the appeal. This letter was signed by the President of Meadowdale Beach Community Council and it strongly supported the appellant's design'alternative. (Exhibit A, Exhibit A, Attachment 2). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Phillip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. propose to divide two existing lots with a total lot area of approximately 76,109 square feet (1.75 acres) into 4 lots (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). The Engineering Division has required that the right-of-way of 72nd Avenue West be improved from 164th Street Southwest, north to the subject property (approximately 600 feet). The improvement includes widening the roadway to 25 feet for the southerly 200 feet, with the remainder of the roadway widened to 23 feet plus thickened edge for a total width of 24 feet. The appellant is proposing that the required roadway improvements be reduced to 20 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 3 feet in width for the southerly 125 feet of roadway, and 16 to 18 feet including thickened edges for the remaining length up to the subject subdivision site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2 and. Exhibit B). , FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development. And Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Size: The total size of the subject property is 76,109 square feet. The size of the proposed lots is: Net . Ft. Gross Sq. Ft. Lot 1: 18,776.0 18,776.0 Lot 2: 16,145.5 16,145.5 Lot 3: 12,698.7 15,541.2 Lot 4: 12,752.0 14,546.0 (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence. The applicant has applied to further subdivide the property into four (4) lots to allow the development of three (3) additional single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (3) Zonin : - The subject property is zoned RS-12 (single residential family with a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size requirement) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes down from 72nd Avenue West to the west, with some section sloping steeply and thus identified as critical areas. The existing vegetation is a mixture of mature and older fruit trees, ornamental vegetation and native trees and shrubs. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: (1) The adjacent properties to the north, south, east, and west and are currently zoned as single-family (RS-12 and RS-20) (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1). (2) The adjacent properties to the east, north, and south are currently developed with single-family homes. The properties to the north and to the west are not developed to the maximum density, leaving a considerable amount of open space in the vicinity. v Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 4 B. HISTORY 1. a) Facts: (1) The following is a chronological account of the development of the property. located at 16202 72nd Avenue West. The purpose is to clarify what development has taken place on the property, as well as outline the appeals that have taken place. (a) September 27,1995 Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. applied for a 4-lot short plat. (b) January 19,1996 Staff conducted a public hearing on the proposed 4- lot short plat. The Hearing Officer approved the short plat with the conditions from the Engineering Division noted on Exhibit A, Attachment 4 of the Preliminary Review of the Proposed Short Subdivision (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (c) February 20,1996 Appellant filed an appeal of the City of Edmonds decision approving with conditions the Philip & Mariam Lehn and Green Tara Inc. 4-lot short plat (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) (d) February 29,1996 Appellant submitted amended drawings which includes Option 3. That option was discussed with the City engineer on site on February 29,1996 (see Exhibit B). (e) March 12,1996 and March 18,1996 The City, Engineer responded to the appeal (see Exhibit A, Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a.) Facts: The following is a review of the appellants issues, comments of the City Engineering Division and staff comments. (1) APPELLANT COMMENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, The appellant explains that 72nd Avenue West north of 164th Street Southwest is approximately 600 feet long, with an 18 foot wide near the southern intersection, and an 11 ' foot wide roadway width at its northern end. Near the streets mid point there are two steep driveways with slopes of 27% and 17% which will interfere in the development of the roadway. IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. The appellant explains in the appeal letter and Exhibit D that the required design would require the removal of several large trees, the demolition of an existing seventy-five foot long rockery, the removal of a massive amount of earth, the relocation. of at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV pedestals, the elimination of much of a very useful gravel parking space and the installation of an approximately ten foot high and one hundred foot long retaining wall. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 5 BUSIEST THROUGH STREETS VS. OUR DEAD END STREET The appellant explains that the street standards apply to all streets in the City of Edmonds, and no distinction is made between the _ through streets and the dead end streets. The appellant believes that dead end streets should have different standards from the standards of through streets. MORE STREET MEANS MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE The appellant explains that the soils in the neighborhood can be destabilized by additional storm water runoff. The applicant also believes that the additional roadway required by the City would increase the impervious surface and thus increase the storm water runoff. SECTION 18.80.000 The appellant explains that he believes the Engineering Division has the authority to alter the street standards because ECDC section 18.80.000 states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible."(see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). 2. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: "This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat S-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards". All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington." "ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code.. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010." "The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements" Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 6 "Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I [James Walker] do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements...The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements." "Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed .by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road." "Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits." "The Street Standards require road improvements without regard to alignment of the right-of-way or topography. The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway" (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4). 2. Conclusions: (1) The design proposed by the appellant would not create any adverse impact to the adjacent properties or the traffic in the vicinity. Rather, if the road is built to City standards, the rockeries which would need to be constructed may create additional hazards along the road. (2) The design proposed by the appellant would not require the installation of new rockeries and would create safer conditions for slope stability and driveway slopes in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, it would comply with Section 20.15B.010A of the Edmonds Code regarding critical areas protection. (3) The appellant's design alternative is consistent with several policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan including Residential Development policy B.5.d and Soils and Topography policy B.2. (4) Section 18.80.000 of the Edmonds Code provides guidance relative to both the new public works construction and to reconstruction of existing facilities. The language guiding the reconstruction of the existing facilities is pertinent since 72nd Avenue West is an existing facility. The key language in this case states that: "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closelX as is practical and economically feasible." (emphasis added) Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 7 (5) After reviewing the file, it is concluded that due to the unusual circumstances in this case relating to the topography and existing conditions along 72nd Avenue West, it would be neither practical from an environmental perspective nor economically feasible to reconstruct 72nd Avenue West to the street standards as they are now written. Furthermore, the standards are not totally consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance as they relate to this situation. (6) The appellant's alternative design which is shown on Exhibit B and is known as Option 3 is believed by the Examiner to provide a solution which conforms to the street standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible in this location. Therefore, the appeal should be upheld and the appellant should be allowed to reconstruct the portion of 72nd Avenue West as shown on Exhibit B to serve his proposed development. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Examiner concurs with the Appellant and upholds the appeal. Entered this 1st day of April, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. AP-96-21 Page 8 B. APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report with six attachments B. Appellant's proposed options which were responded to by the City Engineer C. Letter from Rich Haag, dated 2/26/96 D. Letter from Phillip Lehn, dated 3/21/96 E. Petition in support of appeal, signed by 14 neighbors PARTIES OF RECORD: Philip & Mariam L.ehn Green Tara Inc. 16202 72nd Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Planning Division Engineering Division Drew Wojtanik 16306 72nd Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 March 21, 1996 Fa'-CF''VF_D MAR 2 1 1996 ENGINEtHING Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner 250 -5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Green Tara Incorporated and Phillip and Mariam Lehn's Appeal of the City's Street Widening Condition for GREENNESS, file # AP-96-21 Dear Mr. McConnell: Before addressing the substance of this appeal, a few clarifications, corrections and omissions need to be identified to better understand the "PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS." I received our copy of this report less than two days ago and regret that staff was unable to give us more time to prepare this response. I. B. Our proposal is not as described in the Planning Division's Advisory Report. Our proposal, titled Option 3, is as described in our 2-20-96 letter to the Planning Division and as subsequently amended by our 2- 29-96 drawings. A copy (six pages) of our drawings which describe Option 3 is attached to this letter. . Since a copy of our drawings for Option 3 was also submitted to the City Engineer and discussed in detail during his meeting with me at the site on 2-29-96, logic compels me to presume that the very favorable comments made in his 3-12-96 memorandum to John Bissell refer to this design alternative. H.A.2.a)(2) While properties to the north and west are not yet developed to their maximum density, our count of lots served by the street, which is identified in my 2-20-96 letter, includes all existing legal lots. II.C.1.a) (1) "IMPRACTICAL AND PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE" I did not explain nor do I believe that the City's Street Standards would require the relocation of the steep driveways. In addition to the possible removal of several large trees and the certain installation of a large (approximately 10 foot high and 100 feet long) retaining wall, which is listed in the City's-report, the demolition of an existing seventy-five foot long rockery, the removal of a massive amount of earth, the relocation of at least one and possibly two power poles and cable TV pedestals, and the elimination of much of a very useful gravel parking space is identified in my 2-20-96 letter but omitted in staffs report. • is Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner March 21, 1996 Page two (2) While stating "Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development.", the following sentence needs clarification. The rockeries "proposed by the applicants" which "may create additional hazards along the road" are only needed if the City forces us to meet its inappropriate 25 / 24 foot wide street standard. Because Option 3 doesn't require any rockeries, a denial of this appeal would impose the hazard. While I believe the City Engineer intended to make this point, I feel his wording may cause some to misunderstand the nature of our proposal. OMISSIONS While including a copy of Meadowdale Beach Community Council President, Drew Wojtanik's 1-15-96 letter, the staffs report never mentions that the Council, which represents all property owners living along the street, voted unanimously to support our project and to oppose the City's street widening requirement. Yesterday I was informed that staff often receives such letters which do not always reflect the opinions of the people they claim to represent accurately. To eliminate any doubt about the accuracy of Drew's letter and the real attitudes of our neighbors, I wish to submit the attached petition which opposes the City's requirement and supports Option 3. This petition was signed by at least one and usually both owners of each property along the street with the exception of Art Haig who is recuperating from open heart surgery and who expressed his support for our project and opposition to the city's street widening requirement during our recent subdivision hearing.. The staffs report also fails to include Rich Haag's 2-26-96 letter to you supporting our design alternative and a copy of our drawings for Option 3 submitted to the City Engineer on 2-29-96. By erroneously presuming the City Engineer would convey a copy of the drawings to the Planning Division's general file without being specifically asked to do so, I feel largely responsible for this last omission. Yesterday I submitted a copy of our drawings for Option 3 to John Bissell, the Project Planner, and have attached another copy to this letter. CHAPTER 18.80 - STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS While clearly the most inflexible and dysfunctional interpretation, staffs claim that there is no administrative relief available from the City Street Standards is not the only interpretation which can be drawn from the ordinance governing STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS. As the introductory paragraph for the entire ordinance, Section 18.80.000, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS can and should be interpreted to pertain to all standards listed throughout the chapter. While the subsections identify which state documents are adopted, the introductory paragraph subjects and integrates those same documents (state standards) to and with changes (city standards) made throughout the rest of the ordinance: Since the tests of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities are required in the ordinance's introductory paragraph and do not specifically exclude city standards or even differentiate city from state standards, they should apply to city as well as state standards. Because it is neither practical or economically feasible to reconstruct 72nd Avenue West in conformance with the city's street standards, our appeal should be granted. • • Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner March 21, 1996 Page three While the City Engineer claims his interpretation is based on the legislative intent of the former Council which enacted the ordinance, he offers no substantiating evidence. While the claim may or may not be valid, it would be more reasonable for staff to base their actions on the language of the ordinance itself rather than someone's subjective interpretation of what several Council member's intents used to be seven years ago. CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Even if the Engineering Division's very questionable interpretation of.Section 18.80.000 is sustained, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which supersedes Chapter 18.80, contains policies which would be seriously violated if the Engineering Division is allowed to impose its street standards on our part of 72nd Avenue West. The Comprehensive Plan's Residential Development Policies: B.2. "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area," B.5.d. "Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.," and B.6. "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." and Soils and Topography Policies: B.2. "Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.", and C.l.c. "Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. " would all be violated if the City's Street Standards are imposed. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE Because the street is located in an environmentally sensitive area considered geologically hazardous because of its steep slopes and poor soil conditions, and because slides in the area have already been triggered by increases in the soil's water content, the very first goal of the City's INTERIM CRITICAL AREAS Ordinance, Section 20.1513.010.A, which seeks to "Protect members of the public, and public and private resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, property damage or financial losses due to flooding, erosion, landslide, seismic events, soils subsidence or steep slope failure." would also be violated by the unnecessarily large increase of impervious surface permanently imposed by a denial of this appeal. SUMMARY In his March 12 1996 memorandum, the City Engineer indicated that "there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat," "that a road with less width could safely serve the development," rockeries required by the city's standards "may create additional hazards along the road," that "Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff." and "Since runoff from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits." and "The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway." • • Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner March 21, 1996 Page four After considering Option 3's many obvious benefits as well as the long term design hazards and lack of practical and economic feasibility which we will all be forced to suffer if the Engineering Division's recommendation is upheld, we ask that you interpret the City's ordinances governing STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS and CRITICAL AREAS and the City's Comprehensive Plan in a way which permits you to render a more reasonable decision. Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, James Walker, City Engineer, John Bissell, AICP - Associate Planner, Drew Wojtanik, President MBCC, Rich Haag, Fellow ASLA, David Dougherty, P.E., Max Meyring GREEN TARA INCORPORATED 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Telephone and Facsimile: 206-742-6813 • • MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 1996 To: John Bissell From: Jim Walker e W Subject: CLARIFICATION OF LEHN APPEAL - S-95-163 This memo is intended to further clarify the Engineering Division position on application of ECDC Chapter 18.80 to Short Plat S-95-163. The first section of code within Chapter 18.80, ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, establishes documents that the City adopts. The adopted documents are "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", amendments to the "Standard Specification for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction", "General Special Provisions" and "City Design Standards All of these documents are produced by the State of Washington. ECDC section 18.80.000 states "All new public works construction shall conform to the standards contained in these documents." - The next line states "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible. " The standards referred to are the standards found in the state produced documents the City adopts. Nothing in this section of code gives staff the ability to waive any requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Developments are required to meet the standards found in ECDC section 18.80.010. The staff interpretation of this code section is based in part on our understanding of the intent the City Council had when this code was last adopted. Council did not intend to grant staff the ability to waive street width or right-of-way requirements. cc: Gordy Hyde • Date: March 12, 1996 To: John Bissell From: Jim Walker Subject: APPEAL OF PLAT CONDITIONS - S-95-163 It appears that Phillip Lehn is appealing two staff decisions. The first is the street widening requirement applied to his short plat. The second is the staff interpretation that ECDC section 18.80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS does not give staff latitude to waive Street Standards and only applies to the documents (City Design Standards, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, etc.) listed in section 18.00.000. Staff believes there is justification for allowance of a smaller road for this particular short plat. However, I do not believe there is any justification to reconsider the interpretation of ECDC section 18.80.000 which provides no waiver from Street Standard requirements. The Street Standards in ECDC section 18.80.010 were created to apply in situations where the City and County Design Standards provided little guidance. The City and County Design Standards are generally intended for use on streets with more than 400 vehicle trips per day. The City's street standards were obviously intended to apply to low volume and Dead End streets since the Table of Street Standards applies to streets with less than 15 lots or units and includes Dead End requirements. The specific street standard requirements placed for this development were based on the standards in ECDC section 18.80.010. Staff does agree with the applicant that a road with less width could safely serve the development. The rockeries proposed by the applicant in his preliminary road improvement plans may create additional hazards along the road. Creating less road surface results in less storm water runoff. Since runoff i from this area drains through the Meadowdale landslide hazard areas, storm water runoff reduction has significant benefits. The Street Standards require road improvements without regard to alignment of the right-of-way or topography. The applicants proposal to widen to less than Street Standard requirements does not create sight distance hazards that could be improved by a wider roadway. cc: Gordy Hyde s December 5, 1995 James C. Walker, P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 • 51995 Re: Proposed modification of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: While I personally appreciate your decision to permit us to reduce our overall street width from 25 to 23 feet north of station 2+00, the modification is too small to either win the neighbors support or have.much effect on the condition's harmfully high cost. Since Section 18.80.000, titled "ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS", does not specifically exclude the street standards of Section 18.80.010, why should they be interpreted differently? If it is considered reasonable and appropriate to hold the standards of Section 18.80.000 to the test of practical and economic feasibility when reconstructing existing facilities, why shouldn't the standards of Section 18.80.010 be held to the same test? It is now apparent that there is a discrepancy between the City's 5-20-93 illustrated handout titled "Street Standards" which lists the required pavement width for 3 - 9 potential lots at 16' - 20' and the ECDC's 6-30-89 "TABLE OF STREET_ STANDARDS" which lists the required pavement width for 5 - 9 lots at 20'. While this discrepancy cost us over a month of time and several thousands of dollars, it did prompt us to evolve a more meaningful and appropriate design for our quiet, dead ended street. Given the .limited traffic ever to be served by the street, we continue to believe that a 16 foot width, including thickened edges; north of 2+00 would not only be safe, but also much less intrusive and allow us to spend more of our limited resources where they're really needed to improve the quality of the development. Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page two When I originally asked for your guidance- in resolving the conflicts posed by the street's meandering alignments, high embankments and steep driveways, you told me it wasn't your responsibility to the design the street. You said the street had to be 25 feet wide and the only way you could permit us to deviate from that standard was for us to document a "technical justification" which would demonstrate how one standard (street width) would violate another (20% maximum grade for a driveway). Since the grades of two driveways on the street's east side (now 8.3% and 10%) would not exceed the City's 20% maximum allowable grade if the 23 foot street width you now feel compelled to impose is measured from the existing edge of the two steepest driveways (now 17% and 27%) on the street's west side, compliance with the City's standard is not impossible, at least not technically. I presume you have therefore concluded that the technical justification you feel is needed to modify the requirement does not exist and, since the Department does not ordinarily apply the test of practical or economic feasibility to its street standards, you feel you must impose them, at least at this juncture, regardless of how unreasonable and inappropriate they may be. Since an appeal of your position, which will be long and costly for the City as well as for us, may be unavoidable, we would like to know first, if you can support our appeal and second, if you and Paul Mar, Director of Community Services, are willing to review the circumstances with me and our Civil Engineer, David Dougherty, to see if it is possible for us to agree upon a plan which permits us to avoid the appeal process altogether? During our November 17 meeting you said you didn't like rockeries or the curving alignment of our 25 foot wide option but stopped short of prohibiting them altogether. Since, your position on these matters directly affects our ultimate cost, the amount of excavation and the length and height of all required rockeries or retaining walls, we and our neighbors would like to know your position on these matters as soon as possible. While saying The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections," you don't explain why. Do you really believe dead ended streets experience the same amount and type of traffic as thru streets or, are you following the dictates of an inadequately conceived code which fails to make the critical distinction? Since our dead ended street will never be a thru street and will always experience. significantly less traffic than a thru street of the same length and number of lots, don't you think it's reasonable and appropriate to apply a different standard? In walking around the neighborhood during the past few days, I've measured a few street widths and have discovered that both Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, clearly two of our busiest thru streets, are only twenty feet wide near our neighborhood and have no curbs and gutters or even thickened edges. While I understand that it's generally unacceptable to advocate the perpetuation of non- complying standards, my discovery compels me to question the validity of those standards. If 20 feet works on Meadowdale Beach Road and 76th Avenue West, why must our quiet, dead ended road be 25 feet or even 23 feet anywhere? Is it possible that we've allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing that a critical safety need exists when it in fact doesn't? Is it really 'so desirable or even necessary to have so much of our land covered with asphalt? Jim Walker December 5, 1995 Page three To summarize, we believe the City's street standards are, at least in this instance, unreasonable, inappropriate and wrong. If the City forces us to comply with these standards, our neighbors will resent and oppose our project, and we will suffer a financial burden radically disproportionate to the value of the two lots created. We believe the City should be consistent and apply the same test of practical and financial feasibility to its' street standards it applies to its' other standards when reconstructing existing facilities. By proposing a meeting with you and Paul Mar, we hope to avoid an appeal process which promises to be long and costly for the City as well as for ourselves. Yours Truly, FQJ Phillip Lehn, Architect cc: Paul Mar, Director of Community Services Department Gordon Hyde, Engineering. Coordinator ✓ John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, Tjossem, Fitzgerald and Alskog David Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates GREEN TARA INCORPORATED • 16202 - 72nd Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 • 206-742-6813 November 17, 1995 James C. Walker; P.E. City Engineer, City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Engineering Division 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed. waiver of the City's requirement to widen 72nd Avenue West to 25 feet north of its intersection with 164th Street SW. Dear Jim: As you know Green Tara Incorporated (GTI) hopes to, subdivide two existing lots to create just two new lots. Because the dead ended street to our property already serves eleven lots and the City's standard width for commercial as well as residential streets serving 10 to 15 lots is 25 feet, the City is requiring GTI to widen approximately 600 feet of 72nd Avenue West to a uniform width of 25. feet. Because two existing. driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum allowed grade, are only sixteen feet away from an 8- foot high embankment and rockery on the other side of the street, it will be impossible to comply with the City's street widening requirement without suffering prohibitively high costs. Added to the Fire Marshal's • requirement to provide a new hydrant and water main (over 600 feet of 8 inch ductile pipe), the costs' associated the the City's requirement to widen the street to 25 feet clearly jeopardizes the projects economic feasibility. In accordance with section 18.80.000 of the City's Community Development Code which states, "The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible", we believe the City has justifiable cause to revise if not waive its'. street widening requirement altogether. To help us find an economically feasible way to satisfy the City's conflicting standards governing the width - . of streets and the maximum grade for private driveways, GTI is submitting along with this letter, full and half scale plans and sections of two different options for widening 72nd. Avenue West. In accordance with the _ City's conditions, Option 1 maintains a constant width of 22 feet plus 3 feet for thickened edges (25 feet, total) from the street's intersection with 164th St. SW to its' termination at the entrance to "GREENNESS;" our proposed subdivision. Option 2 maintains the 25 foot width for.that initial part of the dead ended street which will experience traffic resulting from ten or more lots. At the point where the street -will serve: nine or less lots, Option 2 would widen the existing street to 16 feet. Option 1: The most obvious, characteristic of Option 1 is its', high cost and. the massive amounts of dirt which would need to be excavated, exported and retained. Centered within the right of way, Option 1's first 200 feet• would require the removal of several trees (including 8", 10", 12" and 18" Douglas Firs) which beautify and buffer a private yard from the street, the relocation of a power pole and television cable pedestal and the - construction of a 175 foot long rockery approximately 8 feet high. To avoid the two driveways, which already exceed the City's maximum grade, Option 1 would cut approximately 16 feet into a 10, foot high embankment, relocate another power pole and television pedestal, remove an existing rockery and build -- another, approximately 125 feet long and 10 feet high. The last 200 feet of Option 1 would cut another 15 feet into a 5 foot high embankment only to serve just three existing and two new lots. James Walker, P.E. City of Edmonds November 17, 1995 Page .two Option 2: While complying with the intent of the City's standard governing street widths, Option 2 respects the. special circumstances effecting dead ended streets. Only that part of the street which would experience traffic generated by 10 or more lots would be 25 feet wide. By aligning this part of the street to the west of the right of way's.centerline and by reducing the street's width to 16 feet where it serves 9 or less lots, much of Option 1's soil excavation, export, and retaining can be eliminated, two power poles and television pedestals can remain where they are, and several trees can be saved without increasing the grades of the steep driveways. While the City's standard governing street widths makes no distinction between "thru" and "dead end" streets, we all know the traffic experienced by the two types is significantly different. A "thru" street servingat least ten lots (the minimum. requiring a 25 foot wide street) not only serves the traffic generated by each of the ten lots moving in both directions, it also serves to connect many more lots -in- both - directions beyond the original ten. Normal vehicular demands on a. "dead ended" street is significantly less. Only those few lots at its' end use most of the street to travel in both directions and no lots beyond those already located on the street ever use a dead ended street to get anywhere else. Becauseall incoming traffic must inevitably stop, speeds are generally slower and safety higher, particularly, on relatively short; dead ended streets such as 72nd Avenue West. Since the street will not ezperience,the. regular intensity of traffic upon which the City's 'ihru street" standards were based (i.e. thru streets serving commercial as well as residential districts with 10 to 15 or even more lots), our dead ended part of 72nd Avenue West can continue to be adequately served by a much narrower street. Respectfully, Phillip Lehn, Architect Ili John Bissell; AICP - Associate Planner, City of Edmonds David Alskog; Livengood, Carter, Tjossem; Fitzgerald and Alskog Dave Dougherty; Site Development Services Max Meyring; Meyring and Associates GREEN TARA INCORPORATED • 16202 - 72nd Avenue West • Edmonds, WA 98026 206-742-6813 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 8.g0 - 199 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all. governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or proiect plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply'. complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproiect proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project.' "applicant,' and "propeay or site' should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area,' respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed protect, if applirthle: GREENNESS 2. Name of applicant: Green Tara Incorporated / Phillip and Mariam Lehn 3. Address and phone nwnher of applicant and contact person: Phillip Lehn Architect 16202 — 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 206-742-6813 4. Date checklist prepared: 9' ZS • 9S Page 1 01722 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The project should take approximately three years to complete. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 1Qo (STAFF COMMENTS) S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Earth Consultants Inc. 12-3-79 and 4-4-95 geotechnical studies, Site Development Services 4-8-95 prelimi.nary drainage analysis, Richard Haag Associates and Phillip Lehn Architect's proposed site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, a reduction of the Critical Areas setback and -if not already approved before submission, the Walker/Lehn boundary line adjustment. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will he needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA, Critical Areas setback reduction, and Short Plat (STAFF COMMENTS) q. Page 2 of 22 CHK LT/ I0-25-97. M ASTER 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. . A new and an existing single family residence on parcel A (52,042 SF) two new single family residences on parcel B (24,067 SF), an access road,.utility infrastructure, improvements to 72nd Avenue West, a detention pond and common open -spaces. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 16202 - 72nd Avenue West (parcel.A). Please see attached legal descriptions, site plan and vicinity map. (STAFF COMMENTS) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly; steep�slopes, mountainous, other: Please see topographic survey. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Parcel A's newly acquired western lot line. (STAFF COMMENTS) 100% + along c. °: What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you i. know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Page 3 or 22 18" silty topsoil underlain with medium dense clean fine to medium sand and sandy gravels and cobbles. Please see attached soils reports. (STAFF CONINIENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications or history on Parcel B & 89.8% of Parcel A, including all proposed construction areas. While it has no history of failure, the western most 10.2% of Parcel A is designated "3A05" on the C'ity's 10-16 -(14AR MMPR4azard Map.* e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any tilling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading the western ridge to create a common open space and detention pond and construction of the access road, utility infrastructure and dwellings will likely result in an approximate balance of cut and fill OF Pe 1 Kt � 3 4 e /I L 5' _ 114 / YD cUT to 5 YO (STAFF CONINIENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Temporary erosion control will obviate risk during construction; new drainage and landscaping plan will prevent erosion after construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will he covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 34.7% (STAFF CONINIENTS) * "3A05" indicates "Hazards from ground failure in material that has not `previously failed" from a "slumps" process with a 5% probability of occuring within a 25 year period. R. Pagc 4 of 22 CHK LT/147S-V7. M A.ST ER • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Minimal impervious surfaces, infiltration trenches, detention pond, controlled runoff and extensive landscaping. (STAFF CONOIENTS) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Normal earth moving and building labor and material vehicles during construction; normal residential fireplace and stove smoke and automobiles after completion. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF CONIMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is no surface water body on the site. A shallow drainage swale begins approximately.250 feet southiiest of the site. (STAFF COIIMENTS) 1. Page 5 of» • (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of till and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetland` and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year tloodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not applicable; storm drainage only (STAFF COMMENTS) t C1MLT/1473.93.MASTER Page 6 of 22 • • h. Ground: (1) Will ground water he withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Water will be discharged. Please see Preliminary Drainage Analysis. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will he discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Please see Preliminary Drainage Analysis. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. !'NKLT/Iry? --9!. M ACiF.R Page 7 of 22 • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Please see Preliminary Drainage Analysis (STAFF COMAIENTS) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder maple, aspen, other: Fruit, Poplar, Birch, Empress X evergreen tree:: fir, cedar pine, other: Monkey, Hemlock, Spruce X shrubs Blackberries, Scotchbroom, Rhododendrons K4 grass _ pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: Nvater lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) h. What kind and amount of vegetation will he removed or altered". Blackberries and trees located in areas of new construction and graded common open spaces. (STAFF CONINIENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to he on or near the site. 1. P None known ' (STAFF COr%INIENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Pa.-c 8 of 22 CK U.T/1425.91MASTGR 0 • Predominantly native plants selected to increase biodiversity; groundcover, salal and aquatic plants adjacent to detention pond. (STAFF COMUENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: X birds: hawk, heron, eagle n-hirds other: r_rnws, sPacjn1 1 a, h1 na�awG X mammals: deer, hear, el hea�,er other: raccoons, <squirre'ls, opossums fish: hiss, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Low density residential zoning with large open spaces between dwellings which will remain largely natural with native habitats unobstructed by fences and cultivated formal landscaping. The detention pond shall provide increased bird as well as aquatic (STAFF COMMENTS) wi 1 d1 i fry h a h i tat _ 6. Energy and Natural Resources Page 9 of 32 • 0 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will he used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric lighting and appliances; principally natural gas space and water heating with secondary assistance from passive solar and wood stoves. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed mac ures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: While view, topography and lot sizes compel a primarily western orientation, the design of all new dwellings will maximize their passive solar heating potential. Architectural elements will be :sized appropriately to their function and make extensive use of recycled, composite, and natural / low energy intensive materials, increased therma1(S1AEU9H'( Na well as ether energy ee..--- . . —, heating J, ventilating and lighting strategies. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 10 of 22 f Im TIIo ii.93.M A.5TFR (1) Describe special emergency services that might he required. Police, Fire and Emergency -Medical Aid - (STAFF CONI NI ENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Low density residential zoning, maximum natural open sgace curving dead ended road, non -toxic building materials (STAFF CONINIENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Railroad (STAFF COAINIENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would he created by or associated with the prnject on a short-term or a long -tern basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal short term construction noises during the day between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM; minimal traffic noises are anticipated after construction on 72nd Avenue-W., a quiet dead ended street. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Designated construction times and maximum retention of soptnd absorbing trees and shrubs (STAFF COMMENTS) R. C1 1iLT/1 a•_5-97. KI ASTER Page 11 of 22 • • 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties' The site currently consists of one single family residence on 76,109 S. (Parcel A @ 52,042 SF + Parcel B @ 24,067 SF) or 1.75 acres of vacant undeveloped land. The undeveloped land has served as an orchard„ flower and vegetable garden, wildlife refuge and garbage dump since originfft_JFsCMk1&NT9y its previous owners b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not commercially; six of seven existing fruit trees will either remain or be replaced. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. An existing single family residence built on parcel A in 1963 and the original house's foundation and decorative pool located on parcel B. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures he demolished? If so, what? The existing foundations remaining on parcel B will be removed. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zmning classification of the site? R-12 (65,660 SF) and R-20 (10,450) (STAFF COMMENTS) C16:LT/10.25-93MASTER Page 12 of 22 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low density residential (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicahle, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of (lie site been clamified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, part of the site has slopes which exceed 40%. (STAFF COMMENTS) =� i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Four residences with approximately four people per.residence equals approximately sixteen people. (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 22 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: A by the City's Community Development Code. The site's stable geology and the capable engineering of all proposed construction will obviate hazards which could otherwise be associated with stAeT�F 1CoTe's1ENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would he provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Three new,middle to high income housing units (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would he eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS) c._ Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) C HK LT/ 10.25-91 M ASTER Page 14 of 22 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? Twenty-five feet. Wood, glass, concrete and stone. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would he altered or obstructed? Removing trees required by construction will greatly enhance several neighbors' views of Puget Sound and the Olympics. Sub- dividing parcel B will create -a view corridor between two dwellings which could otherwise be blocked by a single dwelling. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Designs which elevate our consciousness of life's sacredness. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project he a safety hazard or interfere with views? No (STAFF COMMENTS) q. Page 15 or 22 C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable (STAFF CONINIENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Roof overhangs, trellises, shades, blinds and low-E glass with Heat Mirror film (STAFF CONINIENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Meadowdale Recreation Center, Meadowdale Park and Puget Sound (STAFF CONINIENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation useti? If so, describe. No (STAFF CONINIENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or. pplicant, if any: Common open spaces for residents' passive recreational uses__ (STAFF CONINIENTS) Page 16 of 22 CF9CLT/I0.25-93 MASTER 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks br evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to he on or next to the site. Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 72nd Avenue West, 164th Street SW, North Meadowdale Road Please see vicinity map and site plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is site currently served by public traivit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No; approximately seven blocks to Meadowdale Highschool (168th SW and 60th Ave. W.) q. PaV 17 of 22 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Off street parking capacity shall exceed the City's requirement. No: parking spaces will be eliminated. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including; driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Except where existing driveways would exceed a 20 o/o slope, 72nd ~venue 44. north or 164th St. would need to be widened to 25 ft. (22 ft. of roadway and 3 ft. of curb and gutter). (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water,:rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Yes, normal use of ferries, railroads and airplanes (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would he generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Three new dwelling @.three round trips / day / dwelling equals nine more round trips / day (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of 22 r!nc1.Tf1r�7t5.oi k1.crra g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an inereced need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health ;are, schools, other)? If mi, generally describe. Yes, normal residential needs (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed mm ures to reduce or a)ntrol direct impacts on public services, if any: The development will be designed and constructed in accordance with local, state and federal regulations promoting public health and safety. (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Cir it currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer septic systan,.other: The natural• gas trunk line which serves our southern neighbors' lot will be extended throughout the proposed development. (STAFF COMMENTS) /'I I1lI T/II��COI U •crrQ 1. Pa.-e 19 of 32 • b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Snohomish PUD - underground throughout; Water & Sewerage: Edmonds Combined Utility - see drainage analysis; Natural Gas: Washington Natural Gass - extended underground; Waste Collection: Lynnwood Disposal - no construction needed (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. _._. �f • Z. 6. 1 S Signature of Proponent Date Submitted Pagt 20 of 22 ri��r��M1+4o1 ���tTFR D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general. it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions. be aware of the extent the proposal. or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal. would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal he likely to increase discharge to water, emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous suhstances; or production of noise. While some increase in unavoidable, GREENNESS' will be minimal. Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Low density zoning, architecture which utilizes "Green" or recycled and non toxic materials and strategies to conserve energy, extensive landscap- ing which will provide effective buffers between dwellings and an effect- ive drainage plan. 2. How would the proposal he likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Some trees will be removed and others will be added. A new detention pond will increase bird and aquatic wildlife habitat. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animate, fish, or marine life are: Maximum native growth and landscaped open spaces between residences and design covenants to limit private garden areas and prohibit fences between properties which could obstruct wildlife migrations. 3. How would the proposal he likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal will likely deplete less energy and natural resources than more conventional developments of the same size. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Architectural minimalism, passive solar and natural gas heat, earth sheltered construction, increased quantities of thermal insulation t. Page 21 of 22 CKKU/102491MASrER 4. How would the proposal he likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, lloodplains, or prime farmlands? Green Tara Incorporated's purpose is to demonstrate environmentally beneficial developments of sensitive sites. Af successful, GREENNESS should demonstrate the best way to develop a steeply sloping site. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: A road and building design which conforms to the site's topography, preserves the existing landscape, protects and enhances wildlife habitat, reduces offsite erosion and improves slope stability. 5. How would the proposal he likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline use incompatible with existing; plans'! In addition to being consistent with existing land uses and compatible with existing plans, the proposal could encourage more beneficial developments of steep slopes which would help to accommodate population increases within existing urban and suburban infrastructures. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Please see item four above. 6. How would the proposal he likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Three new households should add approximately twelve people and sip: cars. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demnand(s) are: Increase width of roadway and. upgrade storm drainage along 72nd Ave. IV. north of 164th St.SW. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal should not conflict with any laws or requirements which protect the environment. � Pale 22 of 23 CRKU/10.3S9J.MASTER MEMORANDUM • `4Qc. 1 g9v Date: September 28, 2000 PECEIVEC) To: eon Fiene, Assistant City Engineer SEP 2 8 2000 Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeannine Graf, Building Official�� From: Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Subject: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS Attached is a Request for Public Records that the City Clerk's office received on September 28, 2000, from the Law Offices of John Fritts. The request is for all documents related to the properties at 16209 75th PlaceWest and 16202 72nd Avenue West. Since this will involve more than one department, the City Clerk's office will coordinate the response. Please forward all documents relating to these locations to the City Clerk's office and flag any documents you feel may be non-discloseable. We will have the City Attorney's office review these documents and determine what can be released. If you will be unable to respond by Wednesday, October 11, 2000, please let me know how long it will take to comply, and we will send a letter to Mr. Fritts explaining the necessity for additional time to respond. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 245. City of Edmonds c�3 Administrative Services CITY OF EDMONDS REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Requester Name: Requester Address: Phone Number:' Request Made By: [ ] In Person [Liin"Writing [ J Telephone Date of Request: �2-r — -D-0 © a Nature of Request (please be as specific as possible): 4 /4/va5LiD�(JZ,- N c2-1-3 aV�j I/D Is information requested to be used for commercial purposes? Signature of Requester FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ACTION ON REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN FIVE (5) BUSINESS DAYS (SEE R.C.W. 42.17.320) 1. Action taken: [ ] Request Granted [ ] Acknowledgment Estimated Response Date Provided [ ] Record Denied [ ] Record Withheld in Part (See No. 4) (See Nos. 5 & 6) (See Nos. 5 & 6) CONTINUED I, CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS• WA 98020 • (425) 775-2525 CITY CLERK Ihc. 1890 September 28, 2000 Mr. John G. Fritts Attorney at Law 1700 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161-1007 SUBJECT: Request for Public Records regarding properties located at 16209 75th Place West and 17202 72"d Avenue West Dear Mr. Fritts: This letter acknowledges receipt of your Request for Public Records dated September 22, 2000 (received September 28, 2000). You requested, copies of documents related to properties- located at 16209 75th Place West and 16202 72"d Avenue West in Edmonds to include any and all notes, narratives, reports, findings, photographs, videotapes, correspondence, engineering analysis, studies, surveys, site inspection information, investigations, appraisals, geotechnical studies, notices and/or permits given. In addition, you requested any and all reports and/or investigation notes prepared by Landau Associates. I am working with various city departments to gather information in order to respond to your request and I anticipate a response will be available in approximately two weeks. I will contact you at that time to make arrangements for your review of the documents. Please be aware that there is a charge.for copies: the first five pages are free with a 15- cent charge for each additional page. Please feel free to call me at (425) 771-0245 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Linda C. Hynd Edmonds Deputy City Clerk cc: Don Fiene, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeannine Graf, Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan IJ OILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERMIN A Professional Service Corporation ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 22, 2000 City of Edmonds City Cleric 121 — 5`' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Lehn v. Walker Snohomish County Superior Court No. 00-2-00817-0 Dear City Cleric SEP 2 8 2000 EDMONDS CITY CLERK We represent defendant Carol P. Walker in a lawsuit arising out of a landslide that occurred on February 13, 1998. Would you please send us a complete copy of the City's file relating to defendant's property located at 16209 75`' Place West in Edmonds and plaintiffs' property located at 16202 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, including but not limited to, the following: any and all notes, narratives, reports, findings, photographs, videotapes, correspondence, engineering analysis, studies, surveys, site inspection. information, investigations, appraisals, geotechnical studies, notices and/or permits given. Please also include any and ail reports and/or investigation notes prepared by Landau Associates. We will gladly reimburse you for any costs involved in copying this requested information for our office. 1700 FINANCIAL CENTER - 1215 FOURTH AVENUE - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98161-1007 TELEPHONE: (206) 623-4100 FAx: (206) 623-9273 EMAIL:nehls@wscd.com �J City of Edmonds September 22, 2000 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Very truly yours, Kym N s Legal Assistant to John G. Fritts [KN0751/JGF/1343.020] 1700 FINANCIAL CENTER - 1215 FOURTH AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98161-1007 TELEPHONE: (206) 623-4100 FAX: (206) 623-9273 EMAIL:nehls@wscd.com A(,id' I I VYq f 30( ILD;:d �d9 11y'9. I /YV 1IN i'._�(aC1 W l %H 4IlM M�MIY AV/VM-'Ata ,, 7N NVIWM ' oz � 1i �f�. fit, •I 1� c�y'��V, R; hou f •i ��� � t°'T a asf- e r Q. ♦��, \ ' .I f' .• ^ �•`� . .+ , it ..•1_. l.. .. • - , _ :.,ram �-},• ter, _t `;..�� . ,i i r, •�..,,R:l • f art ,' -' ' - • ' y,. W f ..• .r liile`.i 4n • '� +� ',r 79;ro .}i�Xc �Y�-w" i - �.m�...r�"'_'.= .��y _ �a...t:s--.5r���_�� :?--�?' :,• 5''v�"�Yx .:tea. •" y" •.-.�"'z�G �,�'ati'r s �f -1 o P • .r- q a �- - � t _,w Y`1- ' 'y� v '. � J� r ; Y �•4'.� .i� ."gee' ' i y ii V ,Y �W—TAlipw • { fit(Y �� I 111N lid. •�f �1�'�t C ��\ r 'i 1 I, ..• - '+`;.' a'. � i 1 j 1=:�yLA� � 1 1• :Y Y ".i V ♦�j1, { � . � C ry1�+1 s \ 1 ' w /,'I�i:��±�Ytc?h�li•`:�y!•9t.. -'}a"$!"�..5� ,�e"rs�, .�.�tti'��IIaQ\.+1�'}�► :-J,,: .•it 'S :+ ` ,s ar•h w � � , �' r ; ,, •fir ,, �` r ''� a�t "`.���=,� rakt � ' rT }}t �r �. y iiitl l:•�A�W_ %��t�,T,•,�!1�,. ��., ''C' y'•l�Cltrr ..\ �' .,` op Atli �. � 4 -i'SJ W - o` o Gravel Loop Drive c 36' OF a o Illuminated WM o 0 0 oa ao o a o . 0. o . o m )MB - e try Feature T17� r� �O'N ttn7in s - - - -77 o MB nr7li� /�// / 1=102 /// /% /!i/n/7✓a77�7 /77TT1li'T �/ ////�� / / a, Eottonda tom-'� Md Asw Wed O SSMH � SSMH SSMH - o /•2r:,U•�J� ///i /D'/�/i/// �� 0 SSMH Nov Street Ends Sign / (.mro) (�••• (rr^eN) 9 4' At erJ �70' OF (r.naa)4' OF OPP o ::Gr,Cyel. ,..; / ��c./11U/11/./_/!1/1C1U > Street Sign O e( 'OPP _ 18' DF �i.�• PP �t •Wh° o JE R.R!Ile TV pop O 16' Hemlock _ _ -- 72 OF o;i,...:.y, ., :4 "`�"`�' .. Planter Log fence 24' Mople Solid Board Fence- i( i � .r•f. •t.�:.. Q 335------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- ---------------- ------- ----e---------------------- - 330 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------------------ 325330 ----------------------------------- -------- ------------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 320------------------------------------ -- ----- ------ 320 315 ------------------------------------ ------ -------- -------------------------- - --------------- -- -- g o 0 0 0 y+ + } � + "1 a 0P7-7aPJ I imm %'N///-, N e r • r I R q. kk --- remora 12' OF -� 32.12(1) rwkny� - ________________ 3---335 ------------------ �'i--- ---335 - ------- 32a1 ®T ®T4 PP -331.7 3J24 7 332.7 332.5 -- nr1�------ -------- �� ---325 ------------------ ------- --- - ---- -- ------------ --- ---325 ---330 327.3 327.0 T.S. 27.2R 32zos _ ___________ 320.5 _ _______-_________ ________________ _ --------------------------- -------- __ __ �26T----EBT------- --€BT t ---330 - --- 320 rS Curb ----------- ------ree --------- --- - - 72z.i --325 --320 0 + 30 ��� 318.2 2 + 56 r EBT o ----------------- -----36.7--------- �. ----------- ----- 50 17 - e' 1Y - a' Y tro• 'r,r-a.tmk: Toe --- 5 d-y - a2a3 i�r�--- 7oi a-----__-- --- 320 4 + OF- --4 I -------------------- --- ---335 1 + 75 /. 3 + 28 325.2 rr ------------ ---- ---UU--- >! ---325 - ---- --------------- 325 322. 32s s - -- 3J.e 3J1J 331.6 -------------------------------33g4 Esr EBT onto --- �/ ------------- ---330 Mfg L 322.a 3222 321s 32Js ---_____--- 325.1 325.8 325.4 drwy 3y7-7 toe --------------------- ---330 conc. EST EST 8.3R _ 320 322-e EST ®r g ---325 .�� b° �4 32ao 32a.a cM---------- ----------------- ------- - ----------------- - ---320 0 + 50 ---325 J17.a(i) Eeel RI. SSMH rd..e. I I 1) - __ - - Y ---320 4 + 75 EB S ESTO 2 + oo ------------ ----------- l 3+53 __e�t�aF-337.0 3� ------------------------- ---330 -------321.7 342.1 _- _ ® �___ / ___325 24.1 _ __ -- - OF _ __-______-____---__ ---- 325 _--------- _______ of 33s.s 323.7 324.3 326.7 /� ------------------tOR ---- ---325 __--_----- 324.7 brk �uo(0 ®r 7 _ --- ---335 Gravel EST E8T T.S teaooea J222_ //, 33a7 ® 330.1 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ---325 - 9^^ ------------ ------------ ---320 322J - - - - - - -G�ir/77f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---320 EBT- ----------------- / 330 31s.e - - - - - - er �s------- --- 320 �7 3a].a 32°.7 etyp.y 2 + 79 - --- ----------.-- ------- - - - ---315 3 + 59 Ee ------- dfth EST 1 + 00 "`°"°tio ----------------- ----------------- --- 323.6 323.9 323.7 326.2 2 + 91 --3��---------WL-- ---W----------- 325 5 + 00 J'-25.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34� curb EBT EST gravel edge s-- --- _ _ _ ----------------- e' of JJ7.t --------- -- ---325 ------------------ 325 ------------------ ---320 y // 321.7 3.4 - - - -- - - - - - - -32A1 -- ---- --- ---335 326.8 .... --------pM'4 ----- ----- Tf ---325 3 + 79 - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---320 2 + 32 325.8 conr ®r ®r / 323.7 323.6 T S toe +/-16R lam/ - - - - 315.2 3Rae Tape-------------- ------ ---330 - ------ EBT 322.1p�! ---- EET ®r ----b ----- ------ 3zz4 ---------------------------- 3267 19.47 ---325 319.e - ---320 ----,---------®T° -- ------- wt tR.pon� --- ---325 - --------------------------- ------ ---315 y� a Side 1 + 28 ----------------------------- a'•y 322.s 336.e 340 J20.4 -"'- ---320 3 + 00 322.e ----------------- ----- ra-tePP1� T.S. drwy 335 FHT----'----- ---320 + 25 328.6 e ry .ta -- 335 2 + 37 toe of / a 1 4 + 00 7 L3=4 r«kery -------------- - �--330 ------------------------------- - 32e.2 ( �-- 320 323.3 t rs EDT 31so iaaa --- ----------- __------- - - 330 __,Drx �) __�23.3 __ ---325 - -- 322.3- 325 EBT ----17R-- ark 45(0 - 25.1R / J2245(0 ®r -- --- - --------------- ----------------- ---325 - ---------------- ---315 _ bmo.eopln-lt ------�-=-- ---- 323.1------------- --------325 ----------e--------- ------------------------- ---320 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---arM 318.9(1) 31°.e � --------- ---320 ------------------ ------------ ---- ---310 drwy 1 +50 2+50 3+ 12 4+ 25 5+50 Cross Sections 0' 5' 10. 20' 30' Q. C 25' as 16' DF's 0Tie6 0 0 0 0 00 0 .. .0. 0.0 PPo-Ty : ty,aln I o � N > A _ O SSMH Sh Street Ends Sign 4. Street Sign rP-T-t r _ 335 330 325 320 315 0 J' to ross%walet • • (2) 6- OF '- 8- r � `10' OF 4' OF - Solid Board Fence o I Graved Loop Drive -�- M a a - -• -• V�1 -- - N Na. CB I OSSMH o Alder -TV - -- �,- •. �� < :: •�, i,;: - - - tb. tp to eoygd' as Grdvel, P, Shallow Gross Swale 18' DF - 12' OF o _-• soc--_ �a a I °s o` o illumine, t Entry a oWM 0 Toe of Dank Street 36' OF Ede On N 36' OF I 16202 n a7 rn (2) WM 08, N ors^1T7-%%/ n tEm.000 L. _ > O SSMH 12' GPI No, o R.Tie TV' e - O 16' Hemlock _- -• Ply_tars - PP - Log fence - 24' Maple - ----- ------ ----- - - ------------------------------- _ - - ------------------------------------- -- - - - - - -- - ------------------ - 1n N �d n 25*-16' Wide Plan & Profile n g a a 328.7(i) 1ts'op 32.3 2(i) toe of J-1 ----- -----------------I -----335 -- ----- 323.1 E8T rock y -------------------- ------------------ ---- - ---- - ------------b --- -----3.T27 1z• or 37------------ 32 -27.2% 322.95 I---------------- - -- 332.7-------- 330 ------------- 327.3---- 327.0 33z5 (0 _ __ _ _ ___-______________ _______ ____ __ __________3225 __- __32 __-; ---- - --------------------- -----330 ----t1JL ------------ - 320 ----325 ------ 326.7 ®T ®T T.S ®T E8T 327.3J 1 B.2 320 3 0 + 30 - ------------------------ -------- 326.7_ drwy 2 + 56 ----------- ----- 325. ttYOr Y 1T tr Tx 328.8 -- -----------------..... ....... ------ ---- --- -----320 1 +75 toe 3+28 344.7 322 I rocke y ---------- -- ----- ------ -- ----- 335 ------------- ----- -----� ---- - 325 --- --------- -- 571.7 332 J31A ------------------------------------------------330 ®T J3].a7 EBT 322.7 --- -- ---------------�'-----------------'Y-------- 324.2 '�4t ___-____ - ----meµ--------- -.... -.............. ---- ---- 330 325.8 325.4 - ` 8.3R toe 320 az2.e ®T - 322e2 rs -- 325 329.6 0 + 50 eery ®T 32e.n ®r - ---------------------------------- 32a9(0 ®r 1z• cP --------- ---- ------------------- -- 2 + 67 -------------- ----- 325 317.6(i) E..! RYn 99INJut 3M7 ........................... ------------FW--------- ----- 320 2 + 00 I FH e'-0' 0,-Cr te. et ------------ -- ------ ------------- 3u4O 3+ 53 ------- ----- ---- 340 - --------------- - --------------- ---------------- ---- 325 324.1 ------- 1G lT -7.0 -------------------------- ------------------------ ----- 330 J21.7 322.1 2z62 ® 3 -- - -------- 32265(I�------------ ---- ----°'1- ----- 22.2(I) 3ZT.0(I) ®T 7- 32J7 321.7 324.] 326.7 aw 3227 tOz 325 --------------- ---- ---------- - 33a6 335 �W ----- ®T- J21.69 ®T__ Growl PeAlnq - 9.ym ------------- ----------- ��----------- - --320 9�toe 33at -- --------------- ------ - 3J0.7 ®r----------- ----- 325 33G.s Eer ------------------- ----- 330 ]tee 3 + 59 J2D.e 329.7 2 + 91 1 + 00 --330 uX6-------------------- --------------------- ----- 325 =6 323.9 323.7 326.2 ]2262 plants 37d4 ------ - --- _------ - ----- - ------ -____- ____ Nrb EST 32443 E9T C+oN Poking V. W9. �22,.�� 337.t - ----------------------- ------------ ------ ----- 325 326e p ---- 330 ------------------- --- --- *g L---- -- ---- --- ----- 320 toe ai ffii r or 32z.4 ___p22yD----- oc1 y 325 3 + 79 --- -------------- ---- ------- -----335 ----------- --------- ----- 2 + 32 Me 326.11 - er7( ---- 32261 EBT 378.1 320.1 320.1 T.S. ]27.25 7S C_ --- EHT �_38 EB 37J.7 J23,B 321a toe +/-16R 32 V) - �apr--------- -------- -------------- - 330 --- 0 -- ------------------------ - 31a.4 br4 - --- E-g------------------ ----- 325------------------------- ---- -------2n ------- ----- 25 -- -- --------------------- ---- 19.4R S. sad. J210 RR U. ]78.7 ony S. tia. ]2].75 3225 1 + 28 mt� -- ------------------- -- o^+r 3 + OD ------------ 3se.e------- ----- 320 ta.n 336.E 340 -- ------------------- ®T o - ----®r S5 --------- ----- ----- 320 pp T.S. 2 + 37 335 ' 4 + 00 ---------------- ---------------- ------ ----- 335 tee of _ 32e ------------------------------------- - ---- 32s.4 r 330 '2_-__ ®r ____ _____-_ +__-__330 323.3(0 323.3 1 =3 T.S. t 3259 -- --------------8--------- 5 -+--------------- X�------- ---------------------4----325 - --- 7.6R EBr 2e.37------ ------ 3u3e---®------------------------32 Sus I Sus ®T -- --- -------------------- ---------------- --325 25.1R --- 7 3z115 323.1 17R brl` 322A 323.9 In t--------- ------' at`d,0----------- ----- 325 -- --- ---------------- ------- �e5------------- ----- 320 - --------------- --------- - ---------- ---- 320 -- -------------------------------------------- -----320 31e9(1) 319.E orM 1 +50 2+50 3+12 4+25 --------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -------- 335 -- --------- -------------------------------------- 330 ------ ----------------------- -------- 325 ------------- ---- ------ -------------------------- 320 ---------------------- ---- ---------- 315 8 . O P-n b /") 2 327.0 322.4 EBT PP ------ - -.... ----- ----- 325 ____ 3220 ______ ___-____---7 __ _____-- _____-______ ®T___-_____ 320 4 + 50 325.5 3252 ----'- --- ------------------------- -----325 -- 323.5 IaQ f.n[. 320.0 --------------------------I ----320 320.5 320.0 4 + 75 ®T EST t --rsno-w 36_or ---�� ------------3 4.3 31D.a --------------------- ---- 325 -- ------------------------ -----320 ______________________------ 7•e ____ 13.7 -----315 5+ 00 ------ - ------------------------ ------------------- 325 321.7 ------------ ------------------310.9-------------- ---t----- 320 EE .2 > EST ---------- ------------------ ------------------------1-----315 5 + 25 ___I6 321.7 -----------------3-- ------------------------------320 - J15.EBi 3t50 3t3. ®T -------- ---- ------------------ ..... ---315 ----------------------- ------------------ ------ -----310 5 + 50 Cross Sections 0' 5' 10' 20• 30, 40' 25'-1E • 16- Ora "'IF1 aTleoa o 0 0 0 o0 0 •e .o. 0.0 Two way traffic for 1s 1' Two way traffic for 9 or less Iota o-.t�l!!' c` GraMl LOW Drive o I S "^ ,µfl.7>.+rtf�>'isrv>.�r•> r� Nw TMdnnW Eso. 11 11 Ea e• wale Ilf $ E. e a atltsJ - _ N.w a- Dace. Mw - - ml r ID, Edg. SSMH 7�ed Aw ssMH - - -• - , -• -• Ei,-,r Alder •TV . >. Shollo roes tale (2) 6" OF 8" DF c 1 n 4" AI ar� `10" OF a• OF p OPP= 18"DF12" DF Solid Board Fenca c 6 335 330 325 320 315 j L-Tekkw EL Edge in No W 1 _ 1 n, Nw ar oacb. 1 N.r ThUYirO Edge QSSMH Shallow Grass reen Tara tncorporated'a Property Line 0 i:. 36" OF {. Illuminated � }":•. . Entry eot.re '- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- iNekan Fa Ed9a - 1'7� �77///%////N/ r� i N.. ikirk.ned Ede. Ede. Q5'SMH72. N.. CB e: a- CP m O reek llr d dba-I- seam _- -- -- -- -- O --16" Hemlock -- -- - Planters TV• PP le Log fence 24" Maple -------------- ---------- ----- -------------------------------- ------------- t------------------------------------------------------ - ` __----------- -_________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________ --------- ____ ____________ -___ __ ------------ --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ -------- -- - ---------- -------- 325 -- - ---------- ----------` '- --- 1 ---------- -------- -- ------------ -------- ----------- ------------ ---------- -------- 32C -------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ I ------------ ----------- ----------- ---- ----- ------- 315 O v N a 328.7(i) 323.2(i) toe of rockfry aF335 --joe----------335 - _-_----------p*-------EBT------------------325---------- 3u7_ -----3v.3-- --�n_o __ uxs-2 . ------------- ----- 322.95 (i) --- 320 ------------ ------- ---------------------- ----- 325 7 2Rtit ------------------- -----_334.3 -----330 _ ----- ------- ---- --------- ---- ----- ------ - 32e.7 Ear 32'L3J ®T LS 330 ----Ci1C------ ®s uasz 3zz.1 a.o 18.2 2 + 56 320.3 0 + 30 _ 326.7 drwy - 328.8-------- 320 - ---------------------- ---- ------------------ ----- 325 - -----------=----- ------------------------- ----- r0e too 0 3 + 26 - 1e 12-s• T - e' 1 + 75 rocks 334.7e�------ -----�z�-s --- ---------- ----- 325 -- ------ ----------------- --------- - -- ----- 335 - ------------- [ei 3uo7 ®r azs.z U..7 -_ 332 =.a _ 22. -- 3a-----------------'tu'Y--- ---- -----325 - ---------------- ------------------- ---- 330 ------- -- a - -----sue'------- ------------=------------ ----- 330 3u1 .3zy.a 3u4 ar" - ------ --------------- -------------------------- ---- 320 toe 3u.e ®r --- 3z2.e2 szce O0"' ®r Sun EaT °i1' ---------------------------- ---- 2 + e - ---------------------=----3---�x.�---------- ----- 320 323 317.6(Q " E..t Ran saw vv sxe.9(0 . - EBT 12- OP 0 + SO F 9'-0• '� tw of 3+ 53 2+00 324.1 -------------------------- -`----------- -------- ----- --------------- - -------- --- ----325 10. 0i 337. 340 -t3-7 -------------------------- 3z43-----------x0.7-----330 brk 3x2.1 21e1 faT322210 325 _323.0(1I-------- 322.®------ 32i7 OX--- 324.7 o..w P-h9 Ts t.rread_-------}- ----------- ---_ 320--- ------------335ow.a - ---------------------- - ------------------320 -` ®T 3zwas d- --------------- -- 3Z ----------------- ---- -- ---------- ----- 325------------ 330.7 Eer 330.1 - 3 + 59 330.5 ®T - 31a ---------------- ----- 330 2 + 19 ---'.e -------- ----------------375 io;---- 2 + 91 129.a 329.7 aw 330 -- -SiYls------------------- ------ ----- -PGWW ---- -.�: 325 =6 3ss9 ---------------------- ----- eve ®T 321 W Est ov.r Pw1dn9 vo++ .de. - -----_--------------- -- - --- 330 -- �Q--- - --- 320 3M ------------------------ ----------- ---- ----- 325 32se(0 --->'�-.fir -------------------- -- 337.1 - tw al 3 + 79 a• or _ =4 - IlZi80---- roer y _ . . ---------------------- ----------- ----- ------ --------------------------- -------- ---- 325 3aa4 3�a 32L7 J35 2 + 32 iSb a•° +/-16R 3u e1 ur 32 M - 327.25 Ts t.a.a Eei 329.3e }x]7 Sus 3zie - ------------------ ------------- ------ ---- 320 ---------------------- --------- _4-------- ----325 ®r ---- ------ 17a4 - 1ri --- -- 325 L 51 3uo aR 1r 32'2_7 19.4R s a°' 3 + 00 --- 3za7 awl' � or.r - 3uo 3z2s 1 + 28 ---------------------- ---- .. -- ----- 320 eedl - ---------------------- 320 335 ®r E9T 33ae 340 2 + 37 PP r.s. 32La + 00 tM of 3w' -_ ---- 335 - ----------------------- --=------' 327s ------- ee: '- --- -------------- ------- ------ ro*wy 330 32a.4 - T.S. 325.9 ®r 1 -+--------------- --- __ 3zz.3--------+----325 --r -------------------- 3zxsa ---325 +,.BR----- ---- - ------- --------------+----330 ------------_An-yq---------ua3----- ----------- ---'- 3u4507---3zzm -®i - - 3239 -- ter i5a d� - 323 3e EHT• 325 iiais---E9r-------- --- -- 25.1R 32&1 17% bn Ta---------------------m��--------------I-----325 31a. _------------------"5----------- ----320 31ae -------------------=---------- o--------- -----320 ----------------------------------------------- -----320 K0 -__- 4 + 25 drt. 1 +50 2+ 50 3+12 CrOS.S erections 0' 5' 10• 20' 30' 40- a 327.0 34ML4 EBT PP - ----- --- -- --------'------ ------ -----325 -----------------3u2 - -------------- esr ___-___- -----320 372 0 4 + 50 • sus - ----- - �--- ------------ice renN ------ -----J25 _ 323.s 32a0 -_--- 320 320.5 32a0 4 + 75 ElIT Eai I rpn.w 35- OF _-___--_-__ 7 ----- 325 ' �� 319A _----- ---------------=� ---------- --------- -----320 _____________-__________ __-7.IL__-_P3----------- _____ 315 5+ 00 ------------ - ----- ------- -- --- ----------------- ----- 325 321.7 ---------- -------- -------- -----320 31 L2 Me. I Ear 1 -------------- - ----- --' -- ------------ '----315 5+ 25 321.7 --- -----------------,7 -- ------ - ------- ----- ----- 320 3153 [9T 3150 Ear ----------------------------- --- 315 -------------------- -- ------------------ ----- ----- 310 5+50 EXHIBIT 3 FILE NO. r11- q 6- 2-1 -GREENNESS _nd Avenue +V S- Eama+as Wasn:ngrcr. (�IbP��..P.O..Taire •''-20k 2n 1kft�ry es+ __manna. wesnm0lan 9e025 _vE-7a2-Ee t3 Feer,rary Zv. 1996 Oplon 3 20'-16'-79' Wile street Plan. Plot -.I: S Sections �/6 I' i PPp -TV drain b Ex. 6" Water 72nd Awe. O V 16" DF's W LRR0Tie0 0 0 0 0 D Two way traffic for 10 -13 lots — i --- Two way traffic for 9 or less lots o o U. - WM -- 00 o co ooa ono a a rms /T�/r $�i-i �TT/T�fT/7r7 r� .. i i// i i 0 o } I + N o New Thickened Edge'-'T� r �— o Ex. 4" GI Water o c CD Ex. g � + New 8" Ductile Water + Thicken Ex. Edge e O SSMH I SSMH n Shallo Grc?3ss Wale (2) 6" DF Street Ends Sign 4" A#er �10" DF 4" DF Street Sign CB—T-1 Solid Board Fence I 8" DF 6" Alder -TV 0 OPPo 18" DF 12" DF a I > Gravell Loop Drive I o 4 Q Terr, M Garc o q Thicken Ex. Edge t17 New C8 + + New 8" Ductile New Thickened Edge OSSMH New GP to do Gravel, •Park:irrg :;. Shallow Grass Q U) .. . ;. . Q '. 335------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------ -- 330--------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- 325------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- --------------------------- 320------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- 315-------i --------------------------------------i -------------------------------------i ------------ I -------------t ------------i ------------- -------------- -- O O0 CD O O Ln O O N O Ln N 20'-16'-191 'Flat P 0' 5' 10' 20' 40' 2•2-9. 9�. 216 lots 0 > ar€s 36 DF ,.,...> o O o Illuminated Entry Feature Drden `� o WM Q o MB — �7 New CB - o to Thicken Ex. Edge + New 8" Ductile Co , M DSSMH `D _t7_ New GP to daylight —Toe of bank -- Shallow Gross Swale 12' GP TV -Opp i Tara Incorporated's Property Line New Thickened Edge — — _ — New —FH Ex. 4" GI Water New 8" Ductile Water 77/ 36" DF �o rT / T/ T/ r-r 7-/ rTi /iPJ / / Thicken Ex. Edge gro �^. o Q 16" Hemlock R.R.Tie TV PP Log fence 24 Maple Planters 0 SSMH New CB & 8" GP to rock lined dispers ------------------------------------------------ ---- GP 5320_72Z — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 Ln + + + u7 I 't5 \/Vide Plan & Profile cO/--T%AV 3 • ZO = /b = 9 N Z �q• s� j/�- d(1' 80, ..� ` ---335 -- ------------------------- ------��„pF -- ---- ----- 335 ---- brk ----- ----- 323.23 �- --�- ----------------- -------------------------- 332.7 27.2% 334.3 332. . -----330 -- 327.3 0 LEST 332.5 - - - - - ----------------- - - - - - - - -- ------------------------ -------------------------- 326.7 EBT 327.33 T.S. Curb 318.2 2 + 56 -- ------------------------- - ---------326.7------------ ----- 325 drwy 0 + 30 Toe 16"DF 12-6" 7' - 6" 1 ' 3�2; 334.7 - - - - -� _---- ------- ------------ -------------------- --- ----- 335 EST 323.07 EB1 331.7 332OS 331.6 -- --------------------- -------------------------- ----- 330 325.1 325.8 325.4 326.4 8.3% _ ------ ----------------- ------- -- ------�331-6----------------- ------------------------- conc. EST 325.77 EST drw y 2 + 67 329.6 -- -curb ------------------- ----- . ---------------- ----- 325 317.6(I) East Rim SSMH 0 + 50 FH $ -D 8 -� - 2 + 00 1 322.4( --------------- ---- -----340 -- ---------brk ----- 321.7 ° ------- 322.1 -- i 322.62 B - ------------------------- 330 4 10" DF 335.5 337.0 __ ------------------------- 323.7 324.7 324.3 Gravel Parkin 326.7 T•5 -- terraced ---------- -------------- - ---- -- ------------ - ---- 335 Gravel EST 324.69 EST garden -- 330.5 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- ------------ ----- 325 330.1 330.7 EST 330.5, EST _ 316.6 --r329.6 ----------------=-------- ----------------- -----330 2 + 19 toe 2 + 91 329.7 ditch ---------------------------------------------- - - - - - 330 1 + 00 323.6 323.9 323.7 326.2 EST 32403 EST Parking 9 ravel edge -- ------------------------- ------- -- ------------------------- -------------------------- ---curb _ -------------Gravel ------- - --325 337.1 8" DF -- ------_------ --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------------------- ___ ___________ ----- ------- ----- 335 2 + 32 325.8 326.8 brk 322.61 EST 328.4 329.1 329.1 T.S. toe +/16% Conc. EST EST --------------- - ---- 330 323.7 ----- 323.8 --------------- 323.6 ------------- ----- 325 -- -=------------------ ------- -------------__--329_38 --------- -- -------------- 320.4 brk EBT 319.6 S. Side - 328.7 �19.% drwy Drwy 3 + 00 =----------------------------------=--------------- ----- 320 1 + 28 ditch 336.6 340 2 + 37 pp T.S. 328.6 toe of -- ------------------------- - - - - - - - _ ------------------------- ----------------- ------ -----335 rockery 328.4 I 322 328.2 EBT ------+---= 330 323.3(i) brk 323.3 - - ------------ ----- 325 --F-------------------------- 4 322. 5(i) 322.57 ------- EBT 7.6% EST 328.57 25.1 % 323.38 EBT+ 17% brk 323.1 327.0 328.0_ -------------- -----325 -- --- --------------------- ------------------ -toe ---- 20_ 3 -- - ----------------------------- _- in asphalt ----- ditch 318.9(i) 319.6 drive 3 + 12 1 + 50 2 + 50 �.._j r 0 S .�i �_J f J �✓ 0' 5' 10' 20' 323- I- rock 6--325 -------------- - ------------ ------------ brk 323• %7.q- 322.95 (i) ---------------------� --.-L-b- -- -1-o------------- ----- 320 318.2 drwy 2 + 56 328.8 toe of -------------- 322.8(i) ----------32z_9 ---- ------------ rocke y -----325 EST 323.07 EBT 322.7 toe ----------------------- -------------------------- -----320 2+67 317.6(i) East Rim SSMH pp 328.9(i) FH 8'-0" 8'-0" toe of 322_4(i) rocke y -- ----------------- 321.7 0 - - - - - - - -- 322.1 322.62 EST ---------------- ----- 325 brk + 322.2(i) -- terraced - terraced ---------------- ------------ toe ------ ----- ----- 320 garden 316.E toe 2 + 91 ------------- 322.4-------- brk 322.61 +/-16% ---------------- 319.6 S. Side Drwy ------------------- ----------330 328.6(i) toe of 322..3 _ rockery --------------- ----- 325 EST 322.1(i) -------------------------I -----320 3 + 00 335 328. --........................................... 327.9 ----- --------330 T.S. rocktoe f ry 322.3 --------------------------------------- --------------+----- 325 322.45(i) 322.57 EBT 17% brk 322.0 -- - -------------------- ------------toe----------- ----- 320 319.6 3 + 12 Cross S- eceons 0' 5' 10' 20' 30' 40' 326.5 ------------------------- ----- 325 ------------322.5-------322.52 322.1 320.3 EST EST ----------------------------------------------------- ----- 320 3 + 28 322.6 ______________ 322.9_-__---- 324.2 - -- ------------------------325 - 322.6 EST 322.62 TS ----- --- 322.2 - 320.7 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- -- EST 12" GP ----- 2 3+ 53 324.1 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - 322.65(i)----------------------------- - ----- 325 322.7 323.0(i) EST 10% 322.3 ----------------------------------------------------- ----- 320 BT toe 3 + 59 ------------------------------------------------ 325 323.6 322.82 1--r planter 323.4 ------322.8 _ 322.4-------- --- - - - - - - - - - - - EST 3 + 79 EB---------1-----320T 3 327.25 TS --------- 322.4-------- -- ----------------------- ----- 325 323.0 RR tie 323.75 322.5 323.0 322.5 -- lawn EST IEST 4 + 00 325.9 -- - __ 322.84 -- ----------------- --- -----325 -----323.15------EST--------- 323.9 li ----------------------------------------------------- ----- 320 4 + 25 ---- ES ------------------------------------ 4 + 50 + 325.5 325.2 --------------------------- -- 4 + 75 I remove 36" DF ----------------- --- ------•-- 3 4.3 319.6 i17. E.B T 5 -+ 00 321.7 --------------------- 3-15-2- --L-------------==----------J----.-- 5 + 25 321.7 -- 315.3 -------------------EB---- ------ T 5 + 50 �TIaY -3 - -ze=i6 z • 2-9. '16 6-16 i r'.325 ' 327.0 322.4 -- ---- EST PP 326.5 -------3-- -- ------------------ --- ----- 325 -----320 ---------------------------- 22. ----____---------- - -------------------- ------------------ 320.3 EST EBT - - - - - - - - 32 2.0 -----320 EST -- --------------------- ---- 4 + 50 3+28 ---- 325 + 325.5 325.2 --- - - - - - - - - - 322.E 322.9_ 324.2 -/-- --323.5-------------------- ----- 325 -----320 322.6 EBT 322.62 -- ------- TS ----- 325 log fence- - ------------------------- 320.0 ____- 322.2 - 320.7 _____ 20 ------ 320.5 320.0 ------320 i) EST 12" GP 4 + 75 EST EST 3+ 53 i Y ----- 325 324.1 remove 36" DF --------------- 322.65(i)-------- ___ -- ------------ -- -- ---- 323.0(i) EST ----- 325 3 4.3 325 322.7---------10%-----drwY_- •----- 320 322.3 -- ---------------f - 319.6 ---------- ---------------- 320 ------ 315 3 + 59�'� -- ------------------------- 317.9 313.7 EST EBT ------ ----- 315 ------------------------- 322.82 ____ Eft planter ____ 323.4 25 5 + 00 - 330 ---------------- ---- 322.8--- 322.4----- EBT ----- EBT ------------ --- -- -- 320 ------------------------- ---------------------- ---- -----325 3 + 79 321.7 ----- 325 ' 327.25 TS -- ---------- --------- 313.2 2 9 ----- 320 -----320 -- ----------------------- 322.4 E T EST -------------------------- 323.0 RR tie ----- 325 -- ------------------------- --------------- --------------315 323.75 322.5 -- -------------------------- 323.0 322.5 lawn 335 EST ------EBT ----------------- ----- 32O 5 + 25 4 + 00 ------ 330 321.7 -- ------------------------ 553 -------------------------- -----320 325.9 EST 315.0 ----- 325 -- - ---------------- ------ 322.84 EST 323.�5------EER ------------ ----- 325 -- -----_----- -�- ------------------ ----- 315 323.9 4+25 5+50 DmeN 3•' ao= lG G16 no�nnm 6z In- C. 1844 0 January 16, 2003 • C� CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Phil & Miriam Lehn 16.202 72"d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Localized slide Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lehn: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR In response to a localized slide, Cityy officials conducted a site inspection on December 20, 2002 and observed a slope failure on private property west of your residence at 16202 72"d Avenue 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. Furtherfurther , as a potentially affected residence to 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. Japan January 9, 2003 City of Edmonds, Development Services Department 121 5`b Avenue North. Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Mr. Dave Gebert RE: LANDSLIDE EVALUATION MEADOWDALE AREA —SOUTH LORIAN WOODS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON LANDAU ASSOCIATES 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 73rd 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, 2001.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. l .. 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 73rd 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) 778-6AM 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'd 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 01ro8103%Tdrtnaslwproc%074%109%Meadowdale Slide - Dec 2002.doc 2 LANDAu AssoclATEs 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 shouldexercise 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. 01/0M3'1%Edff=S%wVW074110Meadowdale Slide - Dec 2002.dx 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�.r2 Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. Principal DL/DRS/ccy No. 074109.011 Attachment: Figure 1, Site Map 01/08/03 11EdffmsjwM W74%109A%adowdale Slide - Dec 2002.doc 4 LANDAu AssoclAT-Es t: % r r , 1, • 1 C ••i .• .ram . f+ j•, P. '/V r ' ` / /: �! DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1A, i Z 1 � rj•. r , 1'rl r ; 1' ( ♦ I ('' / ; %� •: is i-11" ' _ _-•__ - - l •. I ' 17 '1 tl I / ( 1 l; l l 1 --_ ' ;,f �, r i ,n,t„•74r• '%/� __ — __ 1 - i I - liil I it I � '� � .•i''•/ i/� , i'(fl LORIAN• ;;':, 't,}j( gt17(J f,,—_....:::-•-•. _ __ _ - - ;�;; i + , l I' � •( ;�,ii 'WOODS` - .i• ;' •' r, ,i; ; all t _ __=—_-_= _' ••'•��� � I I i• r. .1l�• �I;l�ll � (It; I :=RIDGE_ � i I I` I . ,. �/ �/• ly��i;l'I•'.��: i• .I '( t� :rr,u;� (i;y' I ,( dllllyt- __— '� `�_ — I 1 r t r Ili is i; - 1 � / ♦`,'�';i ;.,..P �',\\\\ �' '' :i ;ili•il!'t,�) 1 �II II�`tlf(l �l�l::i'....-. �/" , i ('', iilr { ;1; / '',,�(i�', ,,,,; '„t �' �,:' \ r. /t i'.i `ii Ij' I'(I' (jilt il,. �t:?`: 'lix,i ,.%i:��' •_ — .� r II/1 .;;i _ 11 _ {' .;. , t;�, r; r, ,►7�i1'1�{I,I,,I_,i,,. -�� , .,,; rl i 1; i } ; url (1,� - i,f ll' .Ir 1 t -' -! •�: 1 '•' '� �.J..,,:' ♦• I ,rt t y 1,`. t n 1-, •! ,i,+:,ll,, �: s I�� .fro. + � I (ill Ii l (i �. , •''ll Ilir 1'.1 I 11, '; 4 r{•; 'r ( ,�% ,In ,I( st '• i f 'll iIi i ( jjll , ., p '; >`d - -�. (DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1B { J, piM_ r 1 't't rl //i . LI , i!:I \ •, ` 'i 1• I (� ( , ii'',II III (I,1 II11 ill 1(�y_i I If lrr.. � � 1 ' IIi� •� � �`, �♦� � �irt r�� .I,1 +' , Ilin,���:,t{.,��' :L; r \ ♦ � (♦: � is :1; iir. .✓: of i�•'-', '/ ! 1 I i; �.� `\ r t • '; i '✓ ✓ %L'' 1, i ::--'t ;S f �I ' 1 I ,1 ' -. , ,' 1 !'i'�•f , f �r•; '•1 r _ i / /i//•��',:^ t v j / tt 7 it '0� •�t/// � � to +'/,-y��t r O .) II' }rtti •�� Adapted from: R.W. Beck 2000 0 100 200 I Drainage Evaluation ' Scale in Feet Lorian Woods/Meadowdale Edmonds, Washington S 17E i-1 iK' 1nC.189v April 26, 2001 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Phillip & Miriam Lehn Green Tara Incorporated4 1,6202 72°d Avenue°West _-Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Slope Stability Consultation Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lehr ._�_ 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 4/19/01 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 r professional ° geotecluiical:_ 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 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, G�4ff!5 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 @ 16121 74h Place West Chun Pak, Property Owner @ 16109 73rd Place West _ • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister ON - 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 April 19, 2001 APR ? nl ry o �FP'gRT 4 oiypMavT 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 —t - 4Y- 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 SOU T H - EDM'NDS, WA 998020 (425) 778-0907 - Fax: (425) 778-6409 - Toll Free: (800) 552-5957 - E-mail: info@landauinc.com Seattle (Edmonds) Tacoma Portland (Lake Oswego) Spokane I 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 t .... present at this location. We would expect to see various indicati(ins of slupe'"novement 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,inherentvith-the.property in thi5,area... In.particular,_proper_ty 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 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.doe 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 0 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 � w Steven R. Wright, P.E. Senior Engineer DRS/SRW/jzs 04/19/01 S:\WPROC\074\092\16202-72nd_Itr.doc LANDAU AssoctATEs 3 • STFW ET FILE Earth Consultants Inc._ 1 c-^xwm;;w n4nmra, Oe kVie b A fn%imnnw -1 adent Ste 9 lI I LD I N G Reference: MAR 13 1998 pate: FAX COVER SHEET FAX TO: VY - l FAX NUMBER- ff:� FROM NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: If you have any questions, please call (425) 643-3780. Our FAX number Is (426) 74-608-60. CC: 1. 2. Original copy to be malted: YES-9 NO 1805 -136th P[we N.E„ 5uhe 201, Selewe, Washington 98005 Bel1e,ru8 (425) 6433780 Seattle (2oe) 464-15N FAX (425) 74-6(M Tacoma (253) 272.6R09 I d 0980 PL 90Z 'ON M ')lds 'S, Y171MOO HIM lid 68: i Idd 864,I-dyw • March 12, 1998 Green Tara Incorporated c(o Phillip Lehn 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904 Subject. Slope Failure Greenness Edmonds, Washington Dear Phil: Earth consultants Inc. uYyex�neilc�IQ=rrM CkmbfUSts a L,nvirrmmcnthl Sc:irntsK BU110ING MAR 13 1998 E-1165-2 in accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to provide our observations and recommendations regarding the failure that occurred on the slope bordering the west side of the site on February 13, 1997, The undersigned visited the site on February 18, 1998 to observe the condition of the slope and slide area. The slide occurred on the south portion of the slope that borders the west side of the site. The topography in the area of the slide consists of a steep to near vertical bluff which extends down to a relatively wide, level bench area, beyond which the slope continues down to the neighboring properties. Debris from the slide transitioned the level bench and extended down the lower slope and Into the yard area of the adjacent residence to the west. The width of the slide area is approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet. The soil conditions exposed on the face of the bluff in the slide area consist of relatively clean sand overlying dense ailt. The sand deposit was observed to be approximately thirty (30) feet In thickness. Groundwater seepage was observed at several locations along the bluff in the vicinity of the slide at the contact between the sand and the alit and formed a few rivulets located north,south and central to the slide area. The magnitude of the seepage varied from slight to heavy, with flows ' estimated to be several gallons per minute at some locations. One of the heavy flow areas emanated from a significant "hole" that extends back into the slope an undetermined distance. Temporary drainage measures had been installed by the time of our site visit, which consisted of flexible ADS pipe placed to collect water flowing from the slope. 1606 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98n Bellevue (426) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (425) 74.60HO Tacoma (253) 272-66M Z 'd 0980 PL 90Z 'ON M Al 'S,GNV USNOO HIM Kd c8:I ldd 86-8NYR Green Tare incorporated E-1165-2 cto Phillip Lehn Page 2 March 12, 1998 The slide occurred on the western face of a hill which slopes east and south as well as west. Prior to the slide, the ground surface in the slide area sloped gradually downward from the crest to: a steeply sloping face, which began approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet below the crest. The slide reconfigured the slope such that a more steeply sloping face now begins Immediately below the crest and descends approximately thirty (30) feet to a more gradually sloping, ten (10) foot wide bench before descending almost vertically for another twenty (20) feet. Immediately across from the site on the east side of 72nd Avenue West there is a concrete outlet with two, twelve (12) inch diameter discharge pipes. it Is our understanding these pipes discharge storm water collected from over twenty houses and four streets (164th Street Southwest, 70th Place West, 71 st Place West and 72nd Avenue West). A grated concrete inlet is located approximately 100 feet north of this outlet, along what appears to be a natural drainage ravine. The grated Inlet has concrete wing walls to direct surface flows Into another twelve (12) inch pipe which extends down the hill toward North Meadowdale Road. During -our February 18 site visit, a steady flow of storm water approximately one inch,deep was observed flowing from the outlet and disappearing into the ground without ponding approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet north of the outlet. None of the water observed emerging from the outlet made it to the grated inlet further down the ravine. it is our understanding that heavier rains later that night resulted In steady flows four to six inches deep from the outlet which also disappeared into the ground before any water could reach or come near to the grated inlet, We were informed a few days later that a large drywell had been constructed near the outlet over twenty years ago. Based on the Information presented above,. storm drainage water from all but the severest storms has been diverted from the inlet and has infiltrated into the dry well for more than twenty years. Conclusions Based on our observations of the site prior to the slide and after the slide, in our opinion the Slide was the result of groundwater seepage forces within the slope at the contact between the upper send soil and the lower silt, coupled with the relatively steep nature of the slope. In our opinion, the presence of the previously mentioned dry well cannot be discounted as a contributing factor or possible trigger of the slide. More specific conclusions will require a complete geotechnical investigation as discussed below. In our opinion, no emergency measures are necessary at this time. The site conditions do not warrant vacating the residences at the Top and bottom of the slope. Earth Camuharft. W. 8 'd 0980 9tL 907, 'ON Xyd Al 'SINYLUSNOI HIM Kd H:I (H 86-8(-M Green Tara Incorporated E-1 165-2 c/o Philil.p Lehn Page 3 March 12, 1995 on nmend 'on Because bluffs throughout the region normally retreat at the rate of a few inches per year, and can rerriain stable for many years before losing several feet in a major event, it is our opinion that, substantial measures are needed to stabilize the slope. Unless the remedial action is greater In scope than simply protecting the exposed soil from erosion, the slope will likely remain in its current configuration for a time but eventually will continue to retreat. Following are recommendations for short-term and long-term measures to maintain and improve the stability of the slope. Short Term In the short-term, we recommend the following: 1. Seepage and groundwater flows exiting the lower face of the slide area should be collected and discharged to an outlet approved by the City of Edmonds. 2. The condition of the slope at the locations where significant flows are exiting the face of the slope should be monitored to determine if erosion of the slope face is occurring. Should erosion be observed, erosion control measures should be implemented to mitigate the erosion. Specific recommendations should be provided when erosion is observed. However for planning purposes, they should Include placement of crushed rock or similar material over the seepage area to reduce the potential for erosion and piping and/or placement of a geotextile material suitable for erosion control. 3. While the slide may resemble typical steep slope failure that have occurred throughout the Puget Sound region, hydrologic tests should be performed to determine the possible impact of the dry well on the destabilization of the slope. The flow rate of the heavy flow areas should be monitored for s period of time that Includes an extended length of dry weather and an episode of relatively heavy rainfall. The flow rate from the storm water discharged into the dryweli should also be measured and compared to the rate and response time of groundwater. emerging the slide area. Under the circumstances, we also recommend a dye test be performed as a reasonable attempt to determine the Impact of the dryweli on the slope. Ears, CV&AMM am. d 0980 9% 90Z 'ON M Al 'SINbIIHNOa HIM Kd 58; I IKd 86-8I-M Green Tara Incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn March 12, 1998 E-1165-2 Page A Long-TA.rm In order to provide specific long term recommendations, it will be necessary to perform subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study. In addition, a topographic survey of the grope r� along the bluff from beyond the too of the slope wiiihin about fIftY also be needed.0) feet of the Following are crest to -about fifty (50) feet general recommendations for long-term repair options. Less Extensive Option . 1. The debris on the level bench area and at the toe of tho slope should be removed. The water emanating from the toe of the steep portion of the slope shouid be collected and conveyed by a tightline or other methods to a discharge location approved by the City of Edmonds. The drainage can be collected by placing drain rock at the toe of the steep slope that covers the seepage areas. A small trench should be placed at the bottom of the rocked area to collect the water. A perforated, PVC pipe should be placed In the trench to collect the water and direct it to the tightline or other conveyance system. A tightline, if used, should consist of Drieco pipe. 2. The slope should be protected from erosion by placing an erosion control blanket such as LANDLOK TRM 10$0 on the face of the slope. Loose soil on the slope surface should be removed prior to installation of the blankets. in addition, the surface of the slope should be contoured such that the surface is uniform. The blankets should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. The LANDLOK TRM 1060 can be obtained from Northwest Linings and Geotextile Products, in Kent, Washington, (253) 872-0244. The above recommendations would .improve the stability of the slope; however, the slope would, over a period of years, continue to retreat. Each COMMAGM6, ha- 9 'd 0980 VL 90G 'ON Xbd ')NI 'SIN IUSN0) Hbdtl- Wd 911: i 1H 66-8i-ayw Green Irara incorporated c/o Phillip Lehn E-1165-2 March 12, 1998 page 5 More Extensive Option - i . The debris should be removed as recommended in number 1 above. 2. Stabilization of the slope is accomplished by construction of a retaining wall some distance beyond the toe of the steep elope, or a series of walls beginning beyond the toe of the steep slope and stepping up the slope. Construction of the walls should incorporate the drainage measures discussed in number 1 above for the Less Extensive Option. Soldier pile walls are typically used In these cases, however, other wall options may be suitable. It will be necessary to backfill walls with free draining materiels. 3. As an alternative to the retaining wall construction, and/or In combination with the retaining wall construction, the toe of the steep slope could be buttressed with a rock fill and the steep slope armored with rock. This would Involve placement of angular crushed rock on the slope surface to protect the face of the slope from weathering. As stated previously, in order to provide specific recommendations for permanent stabilization, It will be necessary to conduct subsurface exploration and prepare a geotechnical engineering study: We would also require a topographic survey of the slope in order to complete our study, The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, EARTH CONSULT " tt. CA,i� 4 WAS .h�� 4l►a��l� y �• ?76' Kyle R. Campbell,. P. 'sN Manager of Geotechnic KRCAun1 co: ' City of Edmonds Attn: Jeannine Graf 10110 9 'd 0980 19L 90Z 'ON XVd Eath Conwkwa. Inc. "Al 'SINV,Li2SNO) H% HVH Wd 98: i Hi 86-Ei-HVPi I�-90 CITY O EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works - Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering - Wastewater Treatment Plant March 16, 1998 E ET FILE Mr. Philip & Miriam Lehn Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72°a Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Earth Consultants Slope Failure Recommendations Dated 3/12/98 The City is in receipt of a faxed copy of the subject report prepared by Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. of Earth Consultants. Although the report does not require immediate emergency measures, including vacating residences at the top and bottom of the slope, site conditions can change rapidly. Thus, the City shall require continuing site monitoring by Mr. Campbell on a schedule that he shall establish until all recommended mitigation measures are installed and approved. Pursuant to your geotechnical engineer's report, the mitigation measures described as short term recommendations must be installed or provided. Please submit a plan of action by March 27, 1998 that includes a schedule of work, plan submittal date(s), dye test procedures, etc. The plan of action and subsequent plans shall be reviewed to determine compliance to Edmonds Community Development Code standards which include discretionary development and building permit requirements, if applicable. The plan of action shall also include the long term mitigation measures you have elected. A third party review of all submittals shall be done concurrently by the City's geotechnical engineering consultant pursuant to City Ordinance #2661. If you have any questions please contact me at 425-771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Jim Walker, City Engineer Kyle R. Campbell, PE, Earth Consultants • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan GREENNESS VIEW LOTS FOR SALE l 1 I F (SOLD) � J COMMONS' : I- -.- -.-- _j / . .7 . 425-745-8949 f -N www.gti32@gte.net • Monday, April 6, 1998 APR - euIL8 �98 DING DEPT. RECEIVED City of Edmonds APR - 'gg$ Atten: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Tel: 425-771-0020 Community Services Department E , , Fax: 425-771-0221 . 121 51" Avenue North 3�Ia;i1�lCa Transmission: 2 pages Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Plan of Action for Slope Protection @,16202 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds Dear Jeannine: We have decided to select a new geotechnical engineer who will likely prepare a new report and plan for our slope's protection. Considering the time needed to schedule meetings with each of the candidates at the site, I think we should be able to make our final selection by the end. of this month. In the meantime, 'a qualified geotechnical engineer from Assoicated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) of Kirkland, Washington will continue to monitor the slide area. AESI's recent dye test has determined that storm water discharged into the dry•well east of 72n4, Avenue West is contributing to the seepage destabilizing the slide area. Given the damage already caused and the disintegrating effects it continues to have on our properties, Pat Walker and Mariam and I are very anxious to have any further infiltration of storm water along the dry well stopped as',soon as possible. To avoid any further delay that could be attributed to any additional tests involving the dry well, it -would help us to know when the City plans to correct this very hazardous condition. To repeat the still unanswered questions posed in my 3-23-98 letter, does the Meadowdale Slide Study recommend that the City prevent any further infiltration along the drainage ravine now know to be a dry well? If the study makes this recommendation, when will the City implement it? While reluctant to risk anymore time and money on permanent erosion control when seepage fed by the dry.well continues to undermine our efforts, Mariam and I have already begun -to re - vegetate the upper part of the slide area. We are also willing to share the costs of clearing the debris, armoring existing channels with crushed rock, and hydro -seeding and planting native shrubs and trees throughout the entire slide area once infiltration from the dry well is stopped. We do not understand how the 'plan of action," required by your 3-16-98 and 3-26-98 letters, can be prepared until you or someone else in the City responds to the points raised in my 3-23-98 letter. Regarding those points that do. not involve "issues of liability," who else besides yourself. should we, consider the "appropriate forum"? Regarding issues of shared liability between neighbors who own substantially different percentages of the affected land, what are the City's normal policies and which court judgements are they based on? If you feel you are unable to respond to some of our points, please direct those to someone who is able. If you are unwilling to respond to any of the points, please tell us why. Until fundamental questions of liability are settled, the economic feasibility of any long-term plans to stabilize the slide area will remain in doubt. The long-term plans proposed by Earth Consultants Inc. -in their 3-13-98 report are prohibitively expensive for Mariam and I. i City of Edmonds Jeannine Graf April 6, 1998 Page two Please respond in writing to the points raised in this letter. We would sincerely appreciate any help to resolve this matter well. Yours truly, Phillip Lehn, Architect CC: Paul Mar, Director - Community Services Department David Alskog, Attorney at Law ✓ . Green Tara Incorporated 16202 72' Avenue west Edmonds, WA 98026. Tel / Fax: 425-745-8949 i LANDAU AASSOCIATES;. INC. 1 ' Environmental and_Geotechnical-Services R E C EI v E D FEB 2 0 1998 February 19; 1998 ENGINEERING City of Edmonds - , Community ServicesDepartment 121 ' 5th Avenue North ti Edmond',,Washington 98020; Attn:"Mr'. ,Don Fiene ,. RE: SITE VISIT-: ' .LANDSLIDE IN 162ND-BLOCK 4,75TH PLACE -WEST • ' 'EDMONDS; WASHIIVGTON ; Thisaetter'documents,observations and recommendations related.to a recent landslide -in the .162nd block of 75thPlace West. At the City of Edmonds.'s (City) request; a`representative of Landau Associates . visited the slide location -to observe site conditions.. Our representative metDon'Fiene and, Mike Lynn of the City'at the'site.. ; The slide apparently occurred some time"on February;l3:.At the time of'our visit, the slide extended - from..the top,:of the bluff to a point abbot• 40 ft east of the house and ranged from about 30 to 40 ft in', width. The slope above the. house consists of a moderately steeplower portion extending up to a relatively broad midsloP 'bench.. The sloPe portion above the bench consists of a ver'Ystee.tonearl Vertical bluff. The slide. appeared to. have originated near the top of the bluff. Slide debris ciossed; the top of the midslope bench and scoured vegetation and near surface soil from the.face of the lower.slope: Post -slide -conditions within the slide ` area, consisted of loose to soft, moist to saturated soilon, the. bench, lower slope, and across an approximately ; 20 ft,wide lawn are&west- of the toe of the slope. Rivulets of water were observed flowing -down slope within , . the slide area A mangled exposed portion a drainage system .was ;also observed near the top of the lower • •- slope within'the slide area.. . Conditions exposed near the.top-of. the bluff (both •within. and adjacent to the: slide area) consisted of layered silo and ,sand units .which 'appear'to correspond to: very dense and hard .glacial outwash.deposits ' typically, found in .the site vicinity.. Some minor seepage was observed from the base of sand units 'exposed` in the slide area, and surface moisture from seepage was observed on the face of silt units exposed to the south of the slide area.: Significant quantities of flowing water were_observed at two locations:north of the slide areas One source was observed at a point about 25 to 30 ft below the top of the.bluff and justa'few feet north of the slide area.. Water observed at that location (south) Was estimated• to be flowing at a rate -of several gallons per _ minute` and was deternuned'.to.be the source of the water, observed flowing down the slide area. -The point -of expression -,of the south. water -source.could not be observed at the -time of my visit. ',Another, water. source - 23107-100TH AVE., W., P.O. BOX 10,2q EDMONDS, WA 95020-9i29• (425) 778-0907 • Fax: (425).778-6409 Toll Frce:.(800)552-5957 •- E-Mail: in fo(@Landauinc'om Edmonds Spokane TScoma (north) w'. a similar flow rate was:observedlabout 30,ft,north of.the slide' aru Water from the north source was being:charineled_downslope:away from the slide azea tfirough what appeazed to'.lie fairly well established . -'drainage paths: `BaseB.odthe direction of-the,.flow (and flows'observed on -.the property to"the.nortl in a,storm• drainage system at the base of the -slope),-the, north source -apparently was previously,identified and figs been managed: for; some. time: ' It 'is possible that the south source of water, as being picked up by the existingIn , drainage system`observed.within.the slide area but conditions within the slide area,obscured observation of,`., a direct connection. Soil within the, slide is predominantly sandy and moist, :except' where exposed to flowing.water: Movement within the,,slide •area was not observed at the time of. our visit. 'A gradual ponding A water was observed.within the lawn area'at.the base.of the slope Prior -to our leaving the::site; several city,employees arrived and began repairing. the, damaged drainage `system and channeling water flow, away from the -house:. The loose and soft soil,within the slide area may become;saturated during wet weather:or due,to water•, flow from above: ,If so; mud flows are likely to occur within theslide'area.: To,hmit•the potential for mud flows, additional sliding; or erosion'to.occur, watei.flowto or within'the slide area -should -be controlled or ., -eliminated, and vegetation reestablished assoon as possible. .Ideallv; .water flows .directly impacting,the slide :. 'area should be picked,up prior to'where they, enter the slide area:. At a minimum; flow within ihe-slide area, should be diverted to the existing drainage system if that,system is,'till functioning. As aiT,interiri measure _ - (prior"to,revegetation);'covering=the slide area•within the bench and low-uslope with_plasticsheeting:would. .,help limit potential soil saturation from precipitation and related soil movement. Based `on the; nature of ,the slide, -then moderate steepness of the lower slope, ; and, the :presence -of,,,,; substantial run out space.between,the base.'of the slope •and the house, it appears unlikely that the house. is -in, iminMiate-dangerfmm additional sliding of a;sinu ar nature'. ,However,.it may be pnident.to have the,residents.` of the house temporarily move out until site drainage systems are repaired and water flow within the slide area; . has been diverted •or' otherwise controlled.-- We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance;to the City ff.you have,, y questions.regarding the content of this letter; or need additional. assistance,'glease, call LANDAU ASSOCIATES,`•INC'. Wade Gilbert,'P.E.. ; JWB/ Senior. Project•Engineer • No. 7.4074.10 02/19/98 J:1074\074\162 SLID.RP1 2 copies •submitted 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1890.199_ October 30, 1995 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 Phillip Lehn --4629202rid�Aue W .Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. Lehn: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The Planning Division has received your letter requesting a delay in processing of your . subdivision application (S-95-163) until December 1, 1995. The Planning Division has approved that request, and therefore is not processing any portion of that subdivision application, including the SEPA Determination. Since this site is designated as Environmentally Sensitive, a SEPA determination must be made prior to the hearing date. Since a SEPA determination may'add as much as 30 days to the processing time, it may not be possible to schedule a public hearing until after the first of the new year. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan W 890.19 October 30, 1995 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT P6blic Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering Phillip Lehn 16202 72nd Ave W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. Lehn: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The Planning Division has received the geotechnical report and the addendum to that report, both of which state that site is suitable for construction and that the required buffers maybe decreased to the minimum of 10 feet. After review, the Planning Division has found these reports suitable and adequate. Therefore, your critical areas study is approved and the required 50 foot buffers from the steep slopes may be reduced to 10 feet with no additional setback required from those buffers. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 67 11-Z11 ;oQ*F171 RECEIVED C1ry of fDIotios- yt�slsHi.,i .✓ r JU�d 1 � 19911 / �ovE��BE2 9f- f PERMIT COUNTER - ./e / .�O f AZ. /9107 - md/r, /yIa y i976. FB I2op 13 ESQ" Se i �oraPrJ pS Shov �� _ . � fad e s/oPe 40 Ab 340 �. Acc&-ss ,4r1EA � ,el I `. Ak• `� 1 {V(49, Vj Ara io,9 ' 0 V N xg A16C9, 37 r exc. 07-10M, 1 zo ia� 7, DAL I _ N16-90 ,7E 32z i8if _. r 466 � h 517b .� • CAE NO. Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1.. Site Add ress/Location: 1420A 7awd 41re.. 10 Nd `O� sOu 2. .Property Tax Account Number. _S/ 31 Do n e1,P 7 o.-3 S" 7 bViA 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 1 a a-t-6 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓ yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? H6lL sn, m o 292 - 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other, (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What seasons) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs • mixed _1 / ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: if,* 8- 4 Cnhcal Areas'iaveatory W C A. mV �ndacates Criticai Aiea oii sate? S. <. Site'within diinated"earth subsidencelandslide i►aiard area? RcvOUovsa City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Emoke Rock Determination #: CA-94-102 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16202 72nd Avenue West Property Tax Acct #: 5131-000-067-0357 Project Description: Non -project specific Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX 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; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. Before any permit application may be applied for, submit to the Planning Department a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Any slope over 30% with more than 10 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. 2. If the results of the above survey determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). 3. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds C mmunity Development Code. ZZ, Name Signature Date -30 °`FILE NO. `" 1q -"I Critical Areas Checklist r--z;- c , «- / oz Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: 2. Property Tax Account Number: .S l -3 i - beC, "CsL")D 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): D `A 006 1- 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; .4 no. i,,C-✓>'�'+cs C''�'� tt�'� k If yes; how is site developed? A, 4 ttl' d r.'' ` f Ci• 8 CCrU�C l" � t'i'LG"r - 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ►� (� ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: N C ; Approx. Depth: _ What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway N 0 floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? . ti C Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) K 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: tiC) -------For City Staff Use Only--------- I. - Siteas.Zoned? .. 2::. SCS. hipped soil type(s)? Aj 3 . - Wetland inventory or C. A. map indicates wetland present on site? 4 .:.; ;Gii.tical:Ari✓as inventor or C.A..ma indicates Critical Area:on site? ;. Y P , 5 Site within, designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area:? ;6. Site designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? Y6<S DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED CONDITIONAL WAIVER WAIVER Reviewed by: Planner Date Rev W29/9} a 9 'J . 194 - City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, RECEIVED J U N 1 5 1994 PE°MlT CGUNTEP and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Name ()5 A l4 Jf))'PSS Street Address S%)VASOtA L=L, Nq City, State, ZIP Phone (JOSTMoupo 1-0 1RA0 iyI 1 Signature Date Applicant Representative: ALLAIL3 f Ur`elf Cf-%}1�►t�r) -i� Name lGaol 7s`� is (We, UUQ si Street Address 1F)w'k0 P DS, L4M W3L 14s -gc)03 City, State, ZIP Phone au�t" 6, ylClti Signature Date "e A" Letter of Earth Consult s 0 ��,�c,rn Transmittal Engineers. Englnee. ceolos�,s & Envira,rr� �r 1805 136th PlacE N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (206) 643-3780 / (206) 464-1584 TO: City of Edmonds DATE: 11, October 1996 250 5th Ave North JOB NO.: E-1165-1 Edmonds, WA 98202 PROJECT: 16202 72nd Ave West, Edmonds ATTENTION: Mr. John Bissell WE ARE SENDING YOU: ❑ Field Reports ❑ Reports ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Preliminary Drafts ❑ Test Results LN the following: Copies Date Description 5 10/6/95 Letter THESE ARE TRANSMITTED FOR YOUR: ® Information ® Files ❑ Approval ❑ Review and Comments REMARKS: CC: Phillip Lehn ❑ Signature ❑ Distribution Signed: Kyle Campbell Earth Consultants Inc. Geotcctmical Engincx;rs. Co-,ologists & i3tvirotmlental Scieavists October 6, 1995 E-1165-1 City of Edmonds Community Services Department, Planning Division 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: John Bissell Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Supplement 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Visual Site Reconnaissance and Geotechnical Engineering Study E-1165-1, April 4, 1995 Dear Mr. Bissell: In accordance with your request, we are providing this letter to specifically address setback requirements of the City of Edmonds. Based on the information presented in the referenced document, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development will not decrease the stability of the slopes on adjacent properties. In addition, as stated in the referenced document, the proposed development should increase the stability of the site. Furthermore, in our opinion, .the geologically hazardous area buffer of 50 feet should not apply, as the proposed development will result in construction on the slopes, and, as stated in the referenced document, the stability of the site would be increased by the proposed development. In our opinion, the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact on the site, the public or any private party. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. ,Should you have any questions, please call. R. C i::.. Very truly yours, �y��oF WAs.. EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. a w- Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services A R+T KRC/kc cc: Phillip Lehn s titvv-.l 1805.136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, Tacoma, Washington 98421.9998 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 i jAr41 s it. nrlt► Li 11t►Y I'. M10M.110N C. WAYrIF Jnrit' , I Lr)tt) it. imi.snN 111 if III, 46w, ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS -124 ruin Sigel • rdmnndt, Wnehlnpinn 01107(1 • 1711A,I 775.1414 ilflVrlllll(`1' 28, 1978 File No. 5567A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED NEW LOTS FOR MRS. GRACE RUSSELL PARCEL A Tract 67, Meadowdale Beach, according to I:Ile plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records c)f the Auditor of Snohomish County, Washington; EXCEPT Lhe sough 266.16 feet of the. (�.rst 138. 5 feet and EXCEPT the south 140.00 feet of that portion lying west of the east 138.5 feet; and FXCEPT the east 5.00 feet of the remainder; ,and EXCEPT that portion of 'Tract 67, Meadowdale neoch, according to the plat thereof recorded In Volume 5 of Plats, pacie 38, records of the Auditor of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the north line of said Tract 67, as said Ilse is marked by survey by M. B. Meyring, Land Surveyor, elated August 1962, said point being on the west line of the east 5.00 feet of said Tract 67; thence SI"05'W along said west: line 115.78 feet to the True Point of neginning; thence SI"05'Wr20.63 fret to the north line of the south 266.16 fret of said 'Tract 67; thence S89"31'W along sold nort.h line 89.04 feet; thence N3n23'117"Er38.53 feet; thence S86°36'13"Et67.119 feet; thence S56"10'46"E123.8 feet to Lire,true Point of Beginning; Situate In Snohomish County, Washington, in Section 5, Township 27 Horth, Range 4 East W.M. PARCEL the north 156.16 feet of the south 266.16 feat of the r..t 1311.5 feet of Tract 67, Meadowdale Bach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of the AmIlLor of Snohomish County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 5.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 67, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded In Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of the Auditor of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: fornnlenciny at a point on the north line of said Tract 67, as said line Is marked by survey by M. B. Meyring, Land Surveyor, dated AugusL 1962, said point being on the west line of the cast 5.00 feet of sold Tr'F1ct 67; thence S1"05'W along salt west line 45.78 feet to the 'True PoinL of Beginning; thence SI"05'W 20.63 feet to the north Iine of the south 2.66.16 feet. of sai(1 Tract 67; thence S89°37'W along sold north line 89.04 feet; Lhr.nce N3"23'117"E138:53 feet; tl)enc:r. S86"36'13"Er67.49 rent;; thence.. S:6"I0'.1i61'F 23.8 feet to the True Point of Beginning; `iitual_e in Snohomish f.nunly,_W:rshinglnn, in �,rrl iron 11, Tclwn,hii► 27 Norl:lr,_ _ -_- 0 n V - • hf_lAOOWi;&ik9ALL-- d: 5 4 4� Aw I cv 02 op 44 cv 02 ^ 55 \ \ ow A 44. OY04) rf A 10 0 Az IV k 00 66 01 SP S-6-87 ow —By— ja zi co GOA LAI GPA Lo 0# 04 ol L_ I- I T -- I 1 05 1 --�73 P"T `34F OEA;H 0131) G 4 -7 140 4 -fw-- r 511, NO) used Irf j,. �-' N W .7 r 20 20, North line Tract 67 as surveyed by M.B. Meyring August, 1962 r N 89° 37' 00" E 326.35 _-_ 321.53' (meas.) Exlst. Pipe ,1 % Existing Pipe r �i• '.:..�gi 67.49' o M s se°io'ae"e\ NI Parcel to be Conveyed m 44.46' `"' 89.04' 133.50 S 890 37' 00 W A 4 O w O TRACT 18 5.00' N 890 37' 00" E w 0 O O Z to O tD W tD ' W 7'U 11 B o � Z 67 - I lZ I �r �J O ,ail F AD0,WDALE b . � ;li• I .I P N T E'D - Dku 141978 REID400LETON & ASSOO. LOT LINE ADJUSTMI tW -, FOR MRS. GRACE RUSSrL-C �4i 'iZ L�tbt' t 14 dW&4ta, %KC, bE9.AU-.s. b C F14K NO. '�;w,NEERS SURVEYORS • PLANNERS °R'J.D.A. ;II L656324MninS4010 I F.dmnnds,Wethingl°n9A0?0 CH. lt /'=.50' aHttT / qF !t I •.,; �o t� ,890-19C) 0 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 G. LaRose 16202 - 72nd Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR This letter is to inform you that you are served by a city maintained grinder pump system. This system pumps your sanitary waste to city gravity sewer lines as your house was too low to obtain gravity flow when city sewer mains were installed. I hope to inform you of the basics of how these pumps function, who to call should you experience alarms, and what precautions should be taken to prevent damage to your home. 1. The grinder pump was originally installed by the homeowner, but the hardware was purchased by the city of Edmonds' Lid Bond that paid for the sewer project in your area in 1985. These pumps are float activated to cycle the one pump to take your sewage up to where gravity flow can be obtained. 2. The following precautions must be adhered to prevent damage to your home: A. Do not dump any.nonbiodegradable products down into the pump tank. VIA your drains in your house. B. Minimize the amount of grease disposed down your drain. This may cause problems with the float operations. C. Do not empty pools into the tanks without a restrictor approved by the city of Edmonds. D. Do not attempt to access tank or electrical cabinets. Should you have a pump failure from any.of the above mentioned items, the homeowner will be held responsible for damage. s f .I corporated `August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 3. The city of Edmonds Sewer Section will maintain the pumps every three (3) months to ensure the proper operations. We will also clean, operate and check all components to ensure proper working status. A separate log is kept to your pump that will reflect -any maintenance done. We can track reliability and the need for upgrade or repairs when a chain of failures start to occur. Crews will require the use of your water so the tank can be washed down and we will always try to notify you of their presence when they arrive on the site. 4. Should you experience any problems with the pump, there are two alarms that will indicate failure. One alarm is located within your home and has a black push button to reset to silence. There is also a visual alarm located on the electrical box outside your home. When -this occurs, please call us at 771-0235 immediately to investigate any problems. Our office hours are 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday. Should an alarm occur after hours, weekends, or holiday, contact 911. There is a 24-hour call person on duty to be dispatched. We do carry parts for all of these systems and should be able to correct most problems within a reasonable amount of time. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Everett Akau or myself at 771-0235, extension 349. Sincerely, Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Everett Akau RH/lk GRIND/LT/TXTSEWER i 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 November 22, 1995 Phil Lehn 16202 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Phil: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The section of code you reference in your November 17, 1995 letter has not been interpreted to allow staff the authority to waive street standards. The statement in the ECDC 18,80.000 ADOPTION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATION " The reconstruction of existing facilities shall conform to the standards as closely as is practical and economically feasible." applies to the standards in the documents listed in section 18.80.000 (Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, General Special Provisions, Washington State "City Design Standards", etc.) and not the Street Standards found in section 18.80.010. As mentioned at our meeting on November 17, 1995, the standard width for the street changes to twenty feet and not sixteen feet when less than ten lots access the road. The City policy has always been to avoid the narrowing of a roadway along its length. However, in this case, we could agree to an eleven foot wide lane northbound and a nine foot lane southbound, which changes to eleven feet near station 2+00 on your preliminary plan. Any further street width reduction would need to be based on conflicting code requirements, such as not being able to maintain driveways at less than 20 % at the required road width. The Street Standards have always been intended to apply to dead end street sections. Streets may be required to meet higher standards than those listed in the ECDC section 18.80.010, but developers are not required to bear the costs.. Please call me or Gordy Hyde at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, gaoaa 6, *t& JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCW/sf c: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator 72WIDTH.DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan i CITY OF EDMONDS REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Requester Name: Agww TAPA Iliz, zf4ww L-6fw Address: 16b2�2 - 7G AW&• W Phone Number: -125'" 74S— 01 --4-T Request Made By: [-Tfn Person [ ] In Writing Date_ of Request: 3 2--+ • 1A Nature of Request: I.I� l�t (S N% e � 11' '0 1(j W�,T1 VIAJ T2IVY'110 0 l • 2- 11. 6i5�—r 6T y d l " x i7 " W V,br-,TN1o(sr VII 1W 1171VI1,710&3 I � 2- r1L*5�, . 11 Is information requested to be used for commercial purposes? Ka ignature WRequester FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1998 COMMUNITY SERVICES ACTION ON REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS _MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN FIVE (5) BUSINESS DAYS (SEE R.C.W. 42.17.320) 1. Action taken: Request Granted [ ] Acknowledgment Estimated Response Date Provided (See No. 4) [ ] Record Denied (See Nos. 5 & 6) [ ] Record Withheld in Part (See Nos. 5 & 6) CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE 2. Request forwarded to attorney for review: [ ] Yes Date Forwarded _ No 3. Notification of Action Taken to Requester: Date of Notification: a) Request granted b) [ ] Need for additional time How long? c) [ ] Request denied d) [ ] Record withheld. in part 4. If additional time ' `1''neede'd; : }r "explain why: f 5. If request denied or record withheld in part, name the exemption contained in Chapter 42.17 RCW which authorizes withholding or denial: � y � �• ( ,� � 1 , ffJ / • m i l '! i ` � , t 1 1 i 6. If request denied..or record witlilield in,.part,:explain how=the �'xerription applies to this record: 7. Request received by: 4441t Department: Date: FEES 0 - 5 copies free Standard copy charge g @ $.15 per page: Charge/8K pages @ $.15 per page $ Other (Refer to current Records Index & Fee Schedule) $ Total Fees? DOCUMENTS PROVIDED: DATE: J�/y 9 MAILED: PICK UP: l %� RECEIPT DATE: 'PC.1890 June 1, 1998 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 6 FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant Phil Lehn 16202 72' d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026 SUBJECT: Response to April 27, 1998 Letter on Slope Protection 0-46202 72°a Avenue'West', Edmonds Dear Mr. Lehn: The Meadowdale Drainage Investigation Study is now available in draft form. Copies can be purchased for $15 at the second floor of City Hall. Priorities listed in the draft may be revised in the final version of the study. Please provide any reports by your geo-technical engineers that identify the infiltration of offsite storm water as the source of the seepage at the bluff. Any technical information supplied will be forwarded to the study consultants for review. As we previously discussed, the City does not have prior "City Standards" in any known retrievable location. It is possible that written copies of the standards exist within City records, but there was no system to archive those types of records at the time Westmont View was platted. The Public Works Department will continue to keep the drainage system on Pat Walker's property functional to the greatest practical extent. Further improvements to the drainage system and further slide repair cleanup on Pat Walker's property are interrelated. Please call me at 771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCw/cmc Cc: Paul Mar Jeannine Graf G:\ENGR\J1MW\P1ULL.D0C e Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ST F� EUMLE • File No. 01.1.12 Street November 15, 1984 MEMO FOR RECORD SUBJECT: PETE FUST - 16202-72ND AVE. W. On October 4, 1984, I spoke with Pete Fust at his residence (16202-72nd Ave. W.) regarding his progress on the first grinder pump installation. He had some questions regarding sequence of events for inspections, pressure connections, and electrical control wiring. Pete had had the electrical panels mounted on the outside wall of his home near the pump station. I had made no comments to him about their correct location, but did mention that the finished electrical work must be inspected and passed by the State. Later that day, Doug.. from Stang, Inc. and myself returned to answer his questions concerning electrical control connections and wiring. On October 4, 1984, I also had stopped at 16008-70th Ave. W. to record the location of a pressure line being installed at Brotherton's residence by Pete. ' On October 10., I wrote up some pump installation specifica-. tions which included panel locations, change of pressure fittings to brass, and other general information. On October 15, I returned to 16008-70th Ave. W. to test the pressure line and answer further questions regarding installa- tion. At this time, I had told Peter that the electrical panels which had been installed under the house belonged out- side the house and reminded him regarding the State Electrical Inspection. On October 17, Tom from Stang, Inc. and myself went to 16008-70th Ave. W. to re -weld a leaking fitting on the tank and to discuss a water hammer problem encountered when the pump shut off. SCOTT H HLAND Water/Sewer Division Leadperson SH/ml • • 1P November 5, 1984 City of Edmonds Utility Maintenance Dept Edmonds, Washington Attn: Bobby Mills: RECEIVED T;64 PUBLIC WORKS I am writing in regard to the City owned and maintained sewer pumps installed on my property. The problem that has developed during installation concerns the installation of the electrical control panels. Let me briefly relate the situation. Pete Fust, at 16202 72nd Ave. W., who I employed to put the pump and electrical panels in, told me on October 21st, that the pump and panels were installed but there would be a problem with approval as they were supposed to have been mounted outside the house, Pete told me he had been in contact with City personnel involved with the project regarding policies, guidelines,.codes, equipment changes, and those things associated with the project. He then informed me that of.all the conversations he had with City personae l concerning thi.s project, hi.s own and two of his neighbors, who he also represented, who also have pumps, not once was he told that all those control panels had to be outside. He clearly stated that the flashing red light was to be.mounted out- side, the audio alarm was to be mounted inside the structure and the location of the control panel boxes was not addressed by City personnel. He went on to explain: that by the.nature of the project there were some developments that made him think that the City was not completely prepared for the timing of the project, and lack of any written instructions being one of them. In any case the panels are inside the lower story, they are accessible, there is a light,.there is 5 feet of space in which to work and most importantly, it will cost $200.00 to move them. Iwant to be co-operative in the matter and get it resolved and I feel the best solution in this case is to allow for a variance that would eliminate the cost of moving them with the understanding that entry for any future maintenance will be provided. Sincerely, 'G _.`� ill Brotherton 4027 189th P1. SW Lynnwodd:, Wa. Home ph . * 778 9670 Work ph. 625 6300 Property Address is 16008 70th Ave. W. Edmonds IE 0 re �-Jpl� k. 2-o? A olvbs FILE 9 harch. 1979 VI�.1) [Y"I' D 13 11979 Mr. T. Carnes Councilman City of Edmonds, Wn Sir: I am writing relative to the Edmonds City Council Resolution No. 428 passed 27 February 1979. As background, my Mother, Mrs. A.L. Russell, and I own property located on Lot 67 (16202 72nd Ave W).; Last week, we completed removal and demolition of a three bedroom house situated on the above property. The City of Edmonds Building Department, by Permit # 780433 dated 8-3-78, authorized said demolition. At -the time'the Permit was issued and in subsequent discussions with City ler©onnel, my Mother advised that plans were being developed to replace this house for which we received a monthly rental fee of $275.00. Further, subsequent -to the demolition, engineering percolator tests required for new construction, we'"completed and submittdd to the Engineering Department or possibly the Building Department. Again, we were not warned to stop demolition pending the possible issuance of a Stpp Construction Moritorium. It is respectfully requested that a wiver for the subject moritorium be granted in order tYa t we may complete replacement plans, The following factors justify, in our minds, the granting of such a waiver: a. A`$ditional housing construction is not requested. We will be replaceing a three bedroom home with another 3 bedroom home. b. In good faith, we demolished income producing property with approval of the City of Edmonds and without reservations. 0 c. Preliminary architectural plans have been produced, heavy earth moving equipment purchased (Back Hoe), legal and engineering services procured and travel between Washington; DC - and Edmonds performed by me during planning phases of this project. d. Also, as a personal note, uOpon receipt of the demolition permit, I gave official retirement notice to the Federal Government. effective this Spring in order that I could directly participate in the construction of'this house. Unfortunately, my. Mother was out of State and I was in Was DC on February 27th and did not learn of the subject Council meeting until yesterday. Mr. Franklin, of the City of Edmonds Engineering Department has kindly taken time to review the problem and personally inspected the premises on 8 March 1979. We will be most pleased to continue cooperation with City of Edmonds officials in asriving'at an equitable solution to this serious problem. Lastly, while the new house will be slightly larger 'than -that which was demolished, I am informed by competent engineers whom I have unofficially consulted, that due to site location and plans for water run-off collection, the sub -surface water transfer should actually be less than encountered in the previous dwelling. Your interest and personal attention and the review of the other Council members in this important matter would be very much appre- ciated. Sincerely yours, �, G. usse 1, ft USN (Ret) p PO IC IJRKS DI:PARZlr CHE Date . ; BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW FILE-%��0 ress �EAAO - Street Right -of -Way Existing REQD ^" Access Easements Existing REQD Utility Easement Existing j\) pup REQD :. Lot per Subdivision Plat ssor Map , . As70V Site Plan Checked for Accuracy ZY Underground Wiring Reqd. �— Check Accuracy of Legal Description ^! Environmentally Sensitive Area '--- Enviromental Checklist Reid:. �'— .Flood Hazard Zone Shoreline Management Area _ .Slope, Soil, Vegetation Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin �- Existing Zoning Per Code — Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. -- ADB Approval Board of Adjustment prow Regd.. Review Bv: Date: % f Existing [Dater :?aim Size Water Main Reqd. Service Line Reqd. Hydrant Size Existing Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code Size Detector Check Meter Reqd. .A Cross Connection Inspection Fire Department Comments Water Meter Charge Regd. Review by: Date: Septic-i-anlc lksign &�T)proved Date: Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No. Sanitary Sewer Availability Proj. Drawing No. 'File No. _ Side Sewer Availability Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. Review By: Date: Open'Ditch Existing -- Reqd. Culvert Reqd. Size P� Catch Basin Reqd. Indicate on Site Plan 0 Shoulder drainage moi.ntaiil collection on swale open runoff H :•l-u-Iiole regd. Indicate on Site Plan Soil Conditions and Ground Water Field Checked Rc'vie:a by --- -- - Date --- - -' Street Paving Reqd. H Curb and Gutter Reqd. w Sidewalk Reqd. Curb Cut for Driveway.Regd. x Right-of-Uay Construction Permit Reqd. H Bond Reqd. for Public Inprovc�nts Street Name Sign Reqd. Other Signing Reqd. Q Pre Permit Site Inspection ride on f a BY: SE TER ' U w c 14ATER a. N STREET 1 � ENGIN -EKING Speci.al RegLure::;cnts listed in mem) to Conammity Development Departnent, BUilcing Division BY —Da te 0 All irons filled n on ui d' g ermit Application BY Date a' Ihawir;s Stared. IdNot lions tf�zdc a BY Date �t Approved by Pti.�l.i-c �'orl:s Dep:.irelmnt HQvised: ).v 10-1977 f �-�EE-T FILE CITY OF EDVIONDS k Engineering Department ACTION REPORT Date: /9 Subject: Sketch Yes �) on back 0 No Routing Initial Date 1. 2. [3. V $ . 4. WIVEr 5. �9N0 6. 7. Named Person/Group initiating action Address Telephone No. ACTION All concerned notified [� . . A��ction Completed i Is Sol R/" i 1., STR ep�'Lp' CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC' WORKS 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington SEPTIC TANK INSTALLATION PLAN (Submit in Triplicate) Par�c+el A 16202 - 72nd W. ........................................... Lot NTr�..-67--....... Permit No..2�............. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY .............................................. . Owner..' A L. Russell Address .. _ 16202 — 72n d W. .................. Phone ...... 4.3-0482 . . . Builder. Paul RoY..... ........ .................._...... Address_.. �'..A1der,...Edmonds,. Wash..... PhoneP'. .'87454 . Designer---- .:.. •.-Meyri.ng.............................. Address--..P.Q.._Box..32.,... LY.nnW0.Od.,... WA?5hPhone..... PR-..a-n3l.01 Resident Installer Installer. -.Al_L..-.Russell .......... ----------------------- Address...162.0z...-..22nd..W..-.Edr onds. WaslPhone....7.43:70 .$2. I hereby certify the accompanying drawing is an accurate representation of the system installed at the listed address. I also certify all recommendations and restrictions (concerning plumbing stub elevations, maintenance of grades, fills, surface drains, etc.) listed by me on my sewage disposal system permit application dated ................ ....... .... ............. ......... ........... have been complied with. ------------------------------------------------------••---...------......-----•�•••.......---.--........-- Signature of Designer Date TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY ENGINEER ONLY Accepted....... .. ..... Date... Not Accepted .................... Date Signature of Sanitarian . �".... ..................................... Remarks:....... ... ..........�P-� ...------ ........................................... INSTRUCTIONS: Use the reverse side of this form for the drawing. Use a scale which will permit the greatest detail and still contain the entire site on one page. ATTENTION HOME OWNER: Your septic tank has limitations! It was designed and installed to care for an average -size family. Over- loading the septic tank or disturbance of the drain -field may seriously impair satisfactory operation. Points to remember: 1. Have your tank checked periodically to see if pumping is necessary (2%s-3 years). 2. Do not channel ground water, surface water, footing drains or downspouts into the tank or drainfield. 3. Do not excavate, fill, place a structure, driveway or, patio in, on, or over the drainfield. 4. Limit toilet fixture disposal to sanitary wastes and toilet tissue. 5. Detergents and bleaches used in normal household quantities will not harm the action of the, septic tank and disposal field. .A. . - Rlilsel 1 2rl ?2TV4 A . F S0A-� r4 k "A ITT IT a3iv^(!tis wE°d; 4 -t olc,C:?t)22Cx^oa i1.f ia;. �• :.'! - :? 2 is s , .^. 32, r + oor ♦-IstSla. Trst„a? ? er: Resident Ad t. ?uss��l S 202 7;lnd '---nonls, ,'ash. CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS G 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington APPLICATION FOR A SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT (Submit 3 Copies) Permit to be issued to: .......... aul Roy ... .......... ...... ........ For installation at: (street address) ......... %.�c,.-2-. .......... �j2 .'-f'/ G(/ ----•-------------- -------• Addition or Subdivision-----Seg_._-_Flat City--of--Edmonds-,........ Lot --...A ........ Block ................ of Lleadowdale Beach Type of Building: New-- T...... Existing ............ Single family residence. --- X......... Number of bedrooms..... 3................... Other: (specify type or use)------- -----------_- ..-........... .... ----... - ---- - -- --...----------- --............................. ...................................... Builder.... Paul..Roy------------------------------------------- ------ -----• -.Address-----$L.-Alder-..-.,--E mon-ds-p YVash.------------------- g y g........ ....................... .. Address.---r'�' -Box 2, Designer 1Q....-B., bfe -ri21 1... iiX?? Soil Log Hole No. 1----- .--..0'f........ 60-"-... ?rQ=. _dandy. -lost .... ................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------- --- -------------------- --------•- SoilLog Hole No. 2----------------------Same-...---------------------- ---.-..----- -------.....-.-....-........--------------------------.-.-------- Elevation of Water Table, if encountered. (Distance from ground surface) ...... .None ..................................................... Corrections to control surface water if needed --------------------- ---X-----one----...... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Specify if any removing or grading of topsoil in field area-- ------------- none .......................... :.................................................. .................... Percolation: Test Hole No. 1 —Average Rate ............. 3- ............. ................. . (Fall in ininutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) Test Hole No. 2—Average Rate.---------3...........................................(Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) Test Hole No. 3—Average Rate .......... 3.................... -...... ...... ....... (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) Average percolation rate on which to base drain field design........3............................ .Date Taken %...'-.�/�. Septic tank requirements based on present rules and regulations: Septic Tank Size.-. --- 900 gallons. Amount of Square Feet of Disposal Field ..... .300....... ....... Signature— Designer---------------- ----------------------•-- . . - ......... Date. ....._......_. I .. .- ................... DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE�To be completed by Issuing Agency) Permit issued (date)..._`�.f.�s-- Permit Number -------- ...................... Remarks :........... . ... ..��..- 5/ —��c�: �? �.�-'+-- ..............••-----..-.....-----------•---------•--------------------------•--------------..-..----...------------------............................................................ -------•-• 4 SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT Septic Tank ........... q ------- gals. CITY OF EDMONDS No. Disp. Field...__.... zP 0 ---- sq. ft. Department of Public Works Other-------- -- --------------------- Name------';X- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- is hereby authorized to install/ repair sewage disposal system at .................................. ........ --------------------- ............ ------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date issued Permit expires one year from date of issue DO NOT COVER BEFORE APPROVED BY DESIGNER OR SANITARIAN I. hereby certify this system was installed under my supervision and control and complies with all provisions of the City of Edmonds Resolutions. Signatureof Installer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date .................................. ApprovedDisapproved E] Date ---------------------------------------- ----------------------- By ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remarks: .... ............................................... -------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANITARIANOR.DESIGNER ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- Date ............................... --------------------------- This permit shall be posted:'in a reasonably conspicuous place on the job until ins been inspection has be completed. I s.y• Roy y 1?049 S.T /010 fig •' ,300 ::07,E S rr1 ] b jr-c-ke accep once of the di cre Lion of the de r5 -?ncr. 't. P +L PC'I Fa7-nl Flat 3ity of Edrto:.de7, 3r. 67 .. ,Y L4A, 'l0 J\ � r-' v L O n INST tLL AS Jt:M7i MEOX i De a iGy"er FOO.Popt 32 CITY OF EDMONDS u!E PERMIT { C 2ONE f . -- NUMBER '� lC175 r CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB, ADDRESS ( % f.I. j ., SUITE/APT# fl ., OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS y,/�)iy�n� q fV i i,,L 2 y ( (fttFl! i �� -� � f3„� LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. w MAILING ADDRESS ON��'tf+� (� Q 4 'A r'" ` '� PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑ EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required ❑ Street Use Permit Req'0 Cl CITY ZIP ^t /� F f ;� yr� f,,, TELEPHONE NUMBER �•"Q �( t,,( _ PROPOSED Inspection Required ❑ Sidewalk Required ❑ Q NAME -,i METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED., a w YES ❑ NO"❑ O ADDRESS U, �Y, �i REMARKS an W Z CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER ' 74 5- RK4r; Z w NAME /} ADDRESS ,y, kJ} j . (. CC.1 ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY F ; CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY w Z O U U. STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE VARIA E OR CU A B # LINE # TV Legal Description of Property - include all easements SE AIREVIEW SIGN AREA AE16HT Z COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED O N � y 1 •Q' I a EXP 4 v LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (IT.) oALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR r7 r 1 7V } �( Z g Property �� i �t r� '" Tax Account ,1 1gj\, j166 (� /1 Parcel No. d LOT.A E d, l/ �LANNI EVIEW BY DA El-RESIDENTIAL�' REM KS 7 I NEW PLUMBING/MECH i "' I&I COMPLIANCE OR ®'ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE ., '011 t L _ �f a APT. BLDG. SIGN REMODEL GRADING FENCE REPAIR CYDS. ( x _FT) CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION %'{,!!` r *� COOE t I&CUM11 a°t TOVE aSWIM POOL DEMOLISH INSERT HOT TUB SPA SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED AREA OCCUPAt�T"' LOAD 13 YES GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ CARPORT ROCKERY RENEWAL REMARKS Z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC OSto o OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: (TYPE p to W NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICALpMC% bltrAI0 p OF ? DWELLING �y „�`,R+ AREAS qq STORIES G..A' UNITS C.Z7 `r 6r NUMBER _Io +ram• m DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED /� ( 't�{ - 7 " ` G ,,,R�l�, `�{t „„, � t '� �•-�, ! f _ a � • r I. • / VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING t-- Ion HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING PN- ` % _ _ PLUMBING Plan Check No. MECHANICAL GRADINGWILL This Permit covers work to be! done on private property ONLY, Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, 6i:C.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days ENG. INSPECTION FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and u, successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold 'Lou harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, f employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 00 � C " whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly gom`the issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall noifb6 deemed to ,! modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any=city ordinance °x nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES signed b the Building Official or his/her ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor WORK THE NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa• acknowledged in space provided. tion Insurance aria RCW 18.27. INSPECTION SIGNA RE (OWNER OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT :.,,r,�'. • ;r ,l6�g CITY OF OFFjCIAI'S SIGNATURE .r�D�TATE ae��A-^e•- " "" " ♦ �- �!! E D M O N DS e"'�1 r y a/ d CALL FOR REL,EA Sgi Y: DATE .# ci ATTENTION INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ✓ LOW — Inspector HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771 -0220 ORIGINAL — File YEL! UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor ; h;.�-.; DATE RECEIVED I PERMIT EXPIRES CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS mwp r �- MAILING ADDRESS -imp lmd Q- �kj CITY ZIP TELEPHONE �;"0R1 NAME` �iAl" ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME # ADDRESS use,- PERMIT ZONE, /'j� r NUMBER JOB SUITE/APT# ADDRESS.. �/Jy PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LItNO. LI PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP CP RW Pe Approves Permit Required ____ PROPOSED EXISTING Street Use Permit Req'd Inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wlring required Q METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED / J YES O NO O z REMARKS z z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE 0 EVIEWED BY DATE �I r d. I — ,FIRE REVIEWED BY gyp'• u$ DATE m C TY ZIP 1tJ TELEPHONE tr M i,, y VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB#O' Er J INSPECTION J REQ'D BOND POSTED STATE LICENSE NUMBER' EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY OYES gNO $ SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA; iALLOWED HEIGHT PROPERTY TAX ACCCOZOUNT`PARCEI`,NO l!�� O0G b00016,?,O� t COMPLETE EXEMPT PROPOSED '•'y JALLOWED PROPOSED r %j EXP, 25 ❑ NEW r RESIDENTIAL PLUMBIN Iv1ECW' LOT. COVERAGE ALLOWED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT. FRONT SIDE REAR YPROPI SETBACKS (Fff FROyNT, SIDE REAR PROPOSED , t7 ADDITION (❑ COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ' ❑ CHANGE OF USE , <c� . �S i G t t 10 L� �(,' v' + 4, 1 6 Z PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED=BY DATE g REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN REO' ` `7 / }PROVIDED tH . 1 ,0 ❑ REPAIR❑ GRADING' CYOS ❑ FENCE ( X FT). RE K . ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHERI � FI LER '; G WALLRPORT ❑ ❑ : ❑ , z CA . ROCKERY FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTVITY]I.EXPLAIW, : .. CHECKED BY CONSTRUCTION. COj1E7 ujf :PEtF OOCCCCUPPANT NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL i O OF Z STORIES DWELLING UNITS AREAS NUMBER " r 3� SPECIAL INSPECTION ARE OCCUPANT LOAD REQUIRED ❑ YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE AV200100 TO REMARKS _ PROGRESS INSPECMNSPER UBC-108/1BC109/IRC109FINAL INSPECTIONREO'D S m WwAlcie, VALUATION t' Description ,, EE Description FEE: Plan Chepk ., — State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE t GLAZING % -0, rLOTSLOPE % - Buildilermit �' City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO ✓�� VESTED DATE .s ?11 v Pjumbi g-/ Base Fee Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS P RMIT CISVEERi WORK TO It BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading 7 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE t SEPARATE PERMISSION. s Engr. Review raft PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION N 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit 3 u� IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 9 FROM THE ISSUANCE. OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE C11Y'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee Receipt # HEREBY BIS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE O CORRECT; E CT; AND THAT I AM T WUTINFORMATION OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED DAGENT GIVEN OF APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR COPE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space provided. WORKMEN'S COMP SATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OF C"SIGTURE DATE SIG TUBE PAEdOR AGENT) ♦ DATE SIGNED (425, • Z�, O J 71 -0220 • RE D BY DATE ATTENTION EXT 1333 IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVALORACERTIFICATE OFOCCU PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/ IBC110/ IRC110. ORIGINAL -FILE YELL INSPE OR PINK •OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR 09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES LEHN ADDITION -& IMPROVEMENTS 1620272ND AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 r . 6-25�04 0 CD N890 37'00"E 346.35' - LOT 1 1b 0"E 156. '�O' LEGAL. DESCRIPTION - APPROVED AS NOTED BY ENGINEERIN 13 LOT 1, GREENNESS 4 LOT ,� L®^ 1, --- SHORT SUBDIVISION - Date: .,...o --- PORTIONS OF TRACTS (50 � (57 � s � �� IMPS-V��S OF I`-IEADOWDALE BEACH SECTION 5, TWP 27N, R 44E W I" I EDI`'IOND5, WASHINGTON VOL 5, PAGE 38. GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS TO CONNECT TO EXIST. SYST. JOH N SON r---______ —�--J -— --= ——�— I EXISTING .R ESIDENCE I PROPOSED I I KITCHEN �I I \ � ADDITION %� �� ` — ��k• BRIDGE GT STING RF — — J 15 FT. SETBACK FROM Top n= _ ---_I EXISTING OFFICE G,4,;;>gGE �J N82017' 4 w 69.23' SITE PLAN /N' 1°_20' APPROVED BY PLANNING LEHN DESIGN COLLABORATIVE OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DAMAGE 10202 72ND AVE. W. EDh'IONDS, WA 98020 T/F: 425.745.8949 C: 200.963.8949 C-7 C 3 DBE Zone L21Z 12— Corner Flab,_ Setbacks ReJc aired Actual Front �- Sides Rear Other Height 2a ` 6 N 0 O Lc) 3 7 RECEIVED JUN 2 5'2004 PERMIT COUNTER RrriEET FILE S /�A44�Al RECEIVED JUN 2 5 2004 PERMIT COUNTER STREET FILE 110 0 C-m Is